Live data from Hacker News

Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

engadget.com

431–440 of 538 posts

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#431
post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

Why do you make it sound like people need to eat beef to have healthy diet?

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#432
Is it also legume free? I'm allergic. Also, is the protein/amino profile complete and balanced? Also, I tend to believe (based on dieting research and other experiments) that protein sources should generally be consumed with 1:2 1g fat per 2g protein roughly speaking.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider that killing a living thing to eat its body is not unique to "meat", nor is raising it in a controlled environment for the purpose of consumption. Fish (as is sometimes classified separately) and vegetables are living things raised and killed for consumption of their bodies as well. I believe reconciling all of these as ethically equal (including raising the ethical weight of killing a plant as equal to an a…

The parent has specifically mentioned that they love animals, and it's pretty easily to see why: animals are much easier to relate to, can show pain easily, and are much more similar to us than plants are.

Sure, but just because we relate to them more doesn't affect the ethics of killing other things that are just as alive but are simply less relatable. This has been a strong theme in the progression of civilization.

Ending life to feed our own is how much of nature works, and we have to deal with being a part of that in our ethical thinking, regardless of how associated we are with the life we're ending.

It's simply something to think about: Most people are as flippant about ending the life of a plant, as some are about ending the life of an animal (or various different species of animal, including fish & insects).

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although I wish there were more vegan food that didn't try to replicate non-vegan textures and flavors There are. They're called vegetables, fruits, nuts, beans, and grains.

I agree. The original statement was kind of silly. Vegans basically say "You don't need to eat meat" to which a population of meat-eaters say "But I like the way it tastes and feels" so vegans create this burger, and then a population of meat-eaters says "I wish you didn't just try to copy meat."

I'm allergic to legumes and most vegetarian sources of protein are either VERY incomplete and/or legume based. I also don't do well with grains. I definitely feel better only eating meat + greens, with minimal other veg and sometimes cheese.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like concern trolling, but I'll bite: a meta analysis of controlled trials is unequivocal https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

Having looked at a few of these studies I found the following problems 1. Industry sponsorship. Which has been shown to produce wildly biased results. 2. Small, short term studies which can only find a "significant" (i.e. statistically significant) effect if the effect is large and immediate. In some of the studies an effect showed up close to statistical significance but the headline was "no effect found" 3. I don't…

Honestly, industry money is so prevalent in nutritional research that we might need to throw away everything after Ancel Keys and try again

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to feel guilty. It is the disconnection between humans and animals that causes many of those feelings and if you shift your thinking, you can have a much better experience. When you participate in the process of raising, killing, butchering, and eating the animals which are your food you will appreciate them – love them – and the life they had and gave for you to live. Food encased in plastic from a gr…

I take a lot of inspiration from Native Americans on this topic. Eating is a part of existing for any organism and without life, there is no energy to transfer. This applies to plants and animals. Appreciation for the life that was given for my nourishment is important to me and I really take it seriously. I make an effort to not waste any meat I buy and I've definitely shifted to eating less than I used to.

>is important to me and I really take it seriously

sounds like "we take security very seriously"

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#437
post #21

Do vegan/vegetarians really want something that reminds them of meat products? Why not just make a good meat-free sandwich that doesn't imitate another product?

I'm not a vegan/vegetarian but I want this product. I'm concerned about the environmental cost of raising beef cattle and I'd like a better option. My family has already cut down our red meat consumption. We use ground turkey and chicken quite a bit. I still want the ability to grill a good steak once a month, but I'd love to use some of this ground meat in pasta sauces, taco's etc.

By the by, most of the original takes on cattle emissions were fatally flawed and retracted by their authors. It appears that US meat consumption represents about 3.9% of US emissions. That number is still falling as we get more efficient with our animal husbandry.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#438
post #431
post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

Why do you make it sound like people need to eat beef to have healthy diet?

Who said that? If beef is part of your healthy diet though, you shouldn't assume you can just swap out a normal burger for an impossible burger.

But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is consuming beef by mimicking the texture and taste (which is their goal) but instead consuming something with different nutritional value. Just seems like it could be dangerous is all.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#439
post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>MAY be linked to cancer (emphasis mine) Yeah but processed meat IS linked to cancer. https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/mul... And last I checked, most Americans have a problem with high cholesterol, not low cholesterol. Americans eat too much meat.

Is ground beef considered processed meat?

No it isn't [1]. But both processed meat and excessive consumption red meats have been linked to cancer in some studies [2]. This has also been refuted. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processed_meat [2] https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat [3] http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/meat-and-cancer/

Google "meat cancer" for alternative sources.

Re: Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal

#440
post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that's true with meat, too.

The estrogen in beef is actual, mammalian estrogen. Which would you expect your body to interact most within digestion? Of course it’s going to be the stuff that’s closest to it. The FUD being spread around soy is ridiculous. Other nutrients that tend to be harder to find in plants than animals also tend to be more poorly absorbed than their animal counterparts. B12, iron, d, zinc, etc.

I would not expect a better reaction from actual, mammalian estrogen. It doesn't work that way with opioids: carfentanyl is a whole lot more powerful than dynorphins, enkephalins, endorphins, endomorphins and nociceptin.

Also, quantity matters. Plants might produce a lot more than mammals do.

In any case, the breast growth on males is no joke. That is just the affect on adults, who are far less susceptible than babies. However it works, soy is a serious hazard and should have the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status removed.

Post reply on HN