Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#81

Post by xgulfie »

captainredbeard wrote: post #26
xgulfie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, right? I would not call it a limited resource. Clovers and other cover crops also fix hydrogen.

Are you implying that nitrogen depletion in the soil is a non-issue?

Is fertilizer runoff a non-issue? I guess if I'm putting my point together I'm trying to say "we can figure out how to grow crops without this much cow waste". If in 30 years meat consumption goes down dramatically, I'm very skeptical that we'll be growing feed corn to feed cows we dont eat, then use their waste to grow other plants.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#82

Post by javagram »

perfunctory wrote: post #21
mark_l_watson wrote: post #18

My wife and I really enjoy both IF and BM burgers - just be sure to not overlook them! They do contain a lot of fat from vegetable oil but they are very low in cholesterol. I will trade more sodium for the advantages for me of reducing cholesterol. They really taste good. We like them on good rolls, purple onion, tomato, lettuce, and whatever sauce we feel like. Fantastic tasting burgers. There is also the advantages…

I didn't do any history research on the subject but my own conspiracy theory suggests that the whole "humans have soul, animals don't" thing was invented to justify the natural world destruction.

FWIW, the Greek philosophy of Aristotle adopted by Christians later on said that souls existed in vegetables, animals, and in humans.

Christians added to that the idea that the human soul was immortal and could survive the destruction of the body.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm#article3

I think any philosophizing about souls probably came long after humans began hunting for meat to survive.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#83

Post by kbyatnal »

qyv wrote: post #80
perfunctory wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't do any history research on the subject but my own conspiracy theory suggests that the whole "humans have soul, animals don't" thing was invented to justify the natural world destruction.

Animals have killed other animals for food since the dawn of life. You can't get more"natural" than that. Eating meat is hardly a human invention.

The problem is not eating meat. The problem is the horrors of factory farming, which is as “unnatural” as it gets.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#84

Post by newscracker »

Just like people don’t eat burgers for health (with a side of fries or a supersized portion), these aren’t primarily meant for health either. They could be a lot healthier than conventional burgers, and they certainly are when you look at the comparison chart.

> When it comes to calories, fat, and protein, the two options are pretty similar. Plant-based burgers have less cholesterol...However, the plant-based burgers tend to have more sodium...

Seriously, sodium is one thing that these brands could easily reduce, compared to other aspects, without compromising much on the taste. This article is a big nitpick on one tiny part.

Are these being marketed as being way healthier? I thought the main selling point of these alternatives is against climate change and the disastrous effect that current animal agriculture has on it (then come animal cruelty and health). We’d probably be better off if people like the author adopt these alternatives and cut their sodium intake from other foods.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#85

Post by jtms »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #69
seandougall wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some sugar is vegan. Most isn’t, though most vegans I know conveniently ignore that: [1] [1] https://www.peta.org/living/food/is-sugar-vegan/

Um. Is PETA considered a reliable source?

Considering they are one of the most extremist and hypocritical organizations I can think of I would certainly vote a strong no on that

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#86

Post by anreekoh »

qyv wrote: post #79
anreekoh wrote: post #3

1. Surely there are other chemical compounds that are present in the fast food meats and not the plant based meats, and vice versa, but that aren’t listed in the article’s table. 2. The plant-based meats are intended to imitate real meat as much as possible, and I would imagine an intuitive way to do this is to include the same amount of ingredients as on the table presented. 3. “Healthiness” is probably unfortunatel…

I know for a fact that McDonald's beef burgers, at least in North America, have a single ingredient: beef. They go directly from source grind to patty maker to freezer, nothing is added.

Sorry, I meant that the chemical makeup of beef is distinct from that of plants. I wasn't referring to additives. I meant the proteins/enzymes, etc.

Re: Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier

#87

Post by jtms »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #58
seandougall wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some sugar is vegan. Most isn’t, though most vegans I know conveniently ignore that: [1] [1] https://www.peta.org/living/food/is-sugar-vegan/

Considering sugar to be non vegan just because it has possibly been filtered using animal derived coal is not far away from considering products made by workers who consumed meat to also be non-vegan.

A good sugar and salt dry rub is excellent on a rack of ribs.
Post reply on HN