Live data from Hacker News

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

engadget.com

441–450 of 538 posts

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

#441
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?

Maybe they're from Texas and are legally mandated to defend the good name of beef?

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

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. I'm thinking that animal suffering ought not be the metric here, in that case.

Is the argument that suffering (even if only of animals) isn't worth reducing if we aren't the main source of it globally? I don't think we should use nature as the metric for morality, because a lot of really terrible things are very "natural". Certainly we aren't going to "eliminate" animal suffering, the word the above comment used, but reduction is another matter.

Sorry for the weird use of language. I was thinking of animal suffering as an ingredient in the meal. Akin to how people say, "the secret ingredient is love."

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

#443
post #317
post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least mention that you work for the company.

Your right I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there.

> I should have included the disclaimer that I previously worked there

Or perhaps a disclosure. A disclaimer is sort of the opposite:

"I believe X about company Y. Disclosure: I work(ed) there, so could be biased."

"I believe X about company Y. Disclaimer: I have never worked there, so could be completely wrong."

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

#444

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.

Yes eating is necessary for everything, but keep in mind that we humans can meet our needs solely with plants.

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

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, quite possibly, since humanity's progress can't be stopped, our children will hate us once they open their eyes and realize who their favorite hot dogs and burgers were made out of and how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments. Edit: I believe that there's definitely a potential version of the future where corpse eating will be looked at the same way we look at cannibalism now.

> how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments I have not seen meat recommended as food to give newborn infants, ever. They don't even eat solid meals!

Not newborns, but people introduce squashed animal products as puree to children pretty soon, and it's not the main point I was making.

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

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the best vegan and vegetarian food does its own thing, but for me, a pescatarian, the idea of not having the delicious taste and texture of salmon slowly baked in a cast iron pan for four hours whilst being basted with oil every half an hour … my tongue just disallows it. It's not yet a sacrifice I'm willing to make until I encounter a viable alternative, and so efforts like these are a step further not…

Your viable alternative is on the way https://www.fastcompany.com/40559474/this-salmon-burger-tast... https://primeroots.com/ Disclaimer: I am a cofounder of this company, we have recently rebranded to Prime Roots from Terramino

Though the texture of your burger doesn't look quite like what I have in mind, I'm curious to try it. Do you provide to New Zealand?

A lot of these products are only available in the States, I find. Aspiring vegetarians and vegans down under have to wait.

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

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?

Animal cruelty laws also police an active precursor behavior that might easily turn into human cruelty, which is a justification that really has nothing to do with the animals themselves.

That is an ancillary "benefit". The main purpose of animal cruelty laws is the obvious one: it's inhumane to hurt/torture/kill animals (depending on your jurisdiction).

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

#448
post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. We exist in a society where people who perform abortions must live with people who believe a fetus is equivalent to a full human life. People who believe unbelievers go to hell must live with people who are atheists. The tension between vegans and non-vegans is not unique or unprecedented. The only thing that's new is veganism's recent growth spurt, which has produced a lot of new converts that mainstream society…

Exactly. Also the scale of the "3rd party damage" is humongous in case of bio-industry. Many millions of animals per day are having the life squeezed out of m. Abortions need supervision, paperwork, a studied persons decision. Slaughterhouse killing of often done by immigrants, unable to find any better work. Where the embryo can potentially harm the mother, the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative i…

> the animals we kill every day have zero possible negative impact on our lives

We kill them because in doing so they have a positive impact on our lives.

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

#449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that your usage of the phrase "complete protein" doesn't really make sense here. Three impossible burgers do in fact provide complete protein for a whole day, meaning they provide the RDA of all essential amino acids for an average adult. And that would be true even if the burger consisted only of wheat protein. The listed ingredients include protein from wheat, soy, and potato, so it's quite possible…

> that doesn't really mean anything in practice, unless you want to try to survive on just a couple of impossible burgers per day You're not wrong, but I think you're taking a very narrow view here. There are situations when having a good source of complete protein is important. E.g. you're working out and you need to increase the muscular mass. In that case, you better make sure your main source of protein is indeed…

No, you really don't. I know the completeness thing is ingrained in nutrition lore and seems to make good sense, but it almost never actually matters.

Try this as an exercise: Suppose you're a 100kg power lifter targeting 1.5 g per kg body weight protein intake (which is at the lowish end of common protein recommendations for athletes, resulting in 150g protein per day in this case). Suppose you don't want to eat anything but beans. Only beans, breakfast lunch and dinner. You make sure you get your 150g of protein per day from beans, which is a lot of beans, but well worth it because you love beans.

By your criteria, your main protein source is horribly incomplete, and I would agree. But now tell me, will you actually end up deficient in any essential amino acids? The answer is, perhaps surprisingly, probably not. Lets briefly look at the numbers:

The limiting EAA in most pulses is methionine. Sometimes tyrosine is low as well, but let's stick with methionine. That means that the only EAA deficiency possible with your bean-only diet is methionine. To get 150g protein you'll need around 600-800g of beans, depending on the type of bean, which yields between roughly 1.2 and 1.8g of methionine, again depending on the type of bean (I'm using USDA data for lentils and pinto beans for this example).

So the question is, is 1.2-1.8 g/day of methionine enough? As far we know, yes, that amount of methionine is at or at least near the amount that your body can use in a day. I've never seen evidence that any amount over that range is of any benefit, any excess over utilization being either oxidized for its caloric value, or excreted. There is evidence that some athletes need more than 1.5 g/kg/day of protein, but this is based on increased oxidation of all dietary amino acids, rather than higher utilization of specific EAAs [1]. So if you need more protein, you can just eat more beans.

In other words, your 600-800g bean-only diet probably gives you complete protein each day. But even if it didn't -- if you somehow turned out methionine-deficient -- then you could easily "complete" your daily protein intake by eating another serving of beans. Or an egg.

Now suppose you're not an athlete, but just a schmuck like me, eating a more typical 0.8 g/kg of protein. Now you're eating only 80g of protein, and thus only around 0.6 to 1.0 g of methionine per day. Now you might end up methionine-deficient, but even here the evidence is thin, and all you'd have to do to correct it is eat an egg or two. Or more beans. (Interestingly, there is great interest in methionine restriction as an anti-aging and anti-cancer strategy, so methionine deficiency is decidedly a rare and speculative condition).

Does this make sense? Do you see how easy it is to consume complete protein each day? This is a specific example, but the arithmetic works out for grain-heavy diets just the same. All you need to do is make sure you're getting the daily amount of protein recommended for your athletic activity level. As long as you do that, you're highly unlikely to be deficient in any EAAs, even on a whack diet. You can live your whole life unaware of protein completeness or amino acid profiles, and your body will never know the difference.

1 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nbu.12215, Protein intake for athletes and active adults: Current concepts and controversies

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

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the 'proselytizing' was environmental instead? Switching away from meat would lessen your footprint considerably, and likely improve your health[1] even if you don't care about the moral arguments. 1: http://time.com/4266874/vegetarian-diet-climate-change/

By the environmental footprint argument, I could do far greater good for it by murdering the person with the largest footprint, and altering the remainder of my lifestyle not at all. To ask those with the smallest prints to wear smaller shoes is ridiculous while some still wear a different yacht on each foot. You ask the man with the ha'penny to give a farthing, while the man on the gold throne is unmolested. If I sa…

> By the environmental footprint argument, I could do far greater good for it by murdering the person with the largest footprint, and altering the remainder of my lifestyle not at all.

Sure, but you're not going to do that, so the best thing you can possibly do is alter your lifestyle and do your best to help others do the same. Pointing your finger at someone else and crying "but he's worse than I am, so why should I change?" isn't a very convincing argument for doing nothing.

> My only stake in the environment is my own survival.

Do you perhaps have children, or people that you care about that are younger than you?

Post reply on HN