Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat's plant-based burgers aren't healthier • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by leguminous » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

chr1 wrote: post #49

hallihax wrote: post #30

Speaking as somebody who does enjoy a vegan boiger - 'health' and 'nutrition' are not things I'm looking at when I want a burger. This whole debate is one big straw-man. I'm a vegan. I don't need burgers. I might want burgers, but they don't form a part of a standard diet just in the same way any kind of burger probably shouldn't form part of anybody's regular diet. If you're eating processed food - there's a conside…

Sure vegan burgers have their target market, but if they were healthy in addition to being vegan they would appeal to a larger market.

There are vegetarian/vegan burgers available with fewer calories, often containing more beans or vegetables. They've been available for longer than the Impossible or Beyond burgers without gaining nearly as much public mindshare. A random example sold at my local grocery store:

http://drpraegers.com/our-food/california-veggie-burgers/ Ingredients: Carrots, Onions, String Beans, Oat Bran, Soybeans, Zucchini, Expeller Pressed Canola Oil, Peas, Broccoli, Corn, Soy Flour, Spinach, Red Peppers, Arrowroot Powder, Corn Starch, Garlic, Corn Meal, Sea Salt, Spices

They don't taste or feel like burgers, though. It seems that the products that taste like burgers (which require more fat and won't accommodate stuff like carrots and broccoli) are the ones that appeal to a larger market.

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

#92

Post by niklasolai » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

jtms wrote: post #85

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How are they an extremist organization?

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

#93

Post by niklasolai » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

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?

Why would´t they be in this area?

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

#94

Post by elil17 » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

skripp wrote: post #68

elil17 wrote: post #64

This article makes a false equivalence between being low calorie and being healthy. The challenge for many vegans (and vegetarians) is getting enough energy each day, so it’s actually healthy for plant based options to be highly caloric.

I agree with the first sentence, but the second one makes no sense to me. Loads of energy in pasta/noodels, rice, potato, plant based oils etc etc. Getting all amino acids and various nutrients in sufficient amount sure, that is a problem. Energy is not.

The issue is not that high calorie vegan and vegetarian foods don’t exist, it’s an issue of convenience. Fast food restaurants, for all the hate they get, are really important sources of food for people who are too busy to cook. Unlike normal people, vegans can’t just stop at a chain restaurant and order a filling meal. Most vegans I know have to be exceedingly deliberate to make sure they eat enough because it’s so hard to find affordable vegan food unless you cook it yourself.

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

#95

Post by niklasolai » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

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.

Just because something is natural does not mean it´s moral.

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

#96

Post by niklasolai » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

captainredbeard wrote: post #24

nextstep wrote: post #5

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals.

If you let ruminant livestock graze in a carefully managed pattern instead of feeding them grain (grown and transported from miles away), it improves the land and reduces the amount of pollution: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Cattle are not very efficient at converting grain to protein. It’s about 7:1. Pork is 2:1, in comparison. Poultry is close to 1:1.

You forget the part where the animal is brutally killed at the end. Organic, grass feed, factory farming, they all end the same for the animal.

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

#97

Post by niklasolai » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #64

This article makes a false equivalence between being low calorie and being healthy. The challenge for many vegans (and vegetarians) is getting enough energy each day, so it’s actually healthy for plant based options to be highly caloric.

That´s false, most people are overweight. It´s not that vegans/strict-vegetarians have a problem to get enough, its omnivore that have a problem with to much. The only diet that have a healthy BMI on average is vegans/strict-vegetarians.

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

#98

Post by dymk » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

hallihax wrote: post #77

endymi0n wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

„In a related study, the same authors found that electric cars on average are not any faster than petrol based cars.“

On average, in cities like London, driving is more or less the same speed as walking.

I feel like you missed the point of the analogy you were responding to, or you just wanted to shift the discussion to be about cars in cities. Either way I'm confused what your point is.

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

#99

Post by fao_ » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

lprubin wrote: post #17

fao_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting…

I had never heard that animal corpses were used in a large scale industrial farming fertilizer so I just looked through the most common soil fertilizers, at least in the U.S. I don't believe a single one of them uses animal corpses. It seems that the common types of fertilizer[1] are: - anhydrous ammonia (Nitrogen pulled from the air[2]) - urea ammonium nitrate (Nitrogen pulled from natural gas and plants[3]) - granu…

> you may be correct that using artificial nitrogen is bad for the soil > but 97-99% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. appear to use non-animal based fertilizers.

Congratulations. You managed to ignore the entire point of my argument by hyper-focusing on one small part of it and posting something that literally means nothing (The fact that the majority of the US agricultural industry does something does not inherently prove that that is beneficial to the consumer, to the soil, or to the planet).

    it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago
    were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the
    varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in
    this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion:
    Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped
    increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which
    the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation
    of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less
    good for you than the one before
    [...]
    What can be done? The key to healthier produce is
    healthier soil. Alternating fields between growing
    seasons to give land time to restore would be one
    important step. Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers
    in favor of organic growing methods is good for the
    soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to
    get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy
    regularly from local organic farmers.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...)

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

#100

Post by Consultant32452 » Sun, Jun 09, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #44

Consultant32452 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein more environmental damage, and a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...

Wheat is not a sensible method of getting protein. Comparing against wheat on a protein basis is a worst case comparison. Also lots of cheap meat protein is created by feeding things like wheat and soy to animals, rather than grass fed (although maybe most meat in Australia is meat fed, I don't know about it).

The point is that people act as if eating meat is categorically more harmful to animals than eating a vegetarian or even vegan diet. That's demonstrably false.