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

Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 528 posts

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#341

Post by mackey »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #295
tempsy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think plant-based meats are lower calories than regular meat? IIRC they are pretty similar as far as calories go. There's no evidence plant-based burgers are healthier. Why would eating something super processed and filled with carbs be better than eating meat?

1. Because I don't eat meat outside of fish. This is both a lifestyle choice and a health thing: I don't have a gall bladder and my digestive track is much happier if I stay away from greasy foods, especially animal fats. I'll occasionally get an upset stomach from fish or fried eggs still, but it isn't an everyday thing. 2. While they do have carbs, they also have protein. And a bunch of other stuff the burgers don'…

The OP that the person was responding to used the phrase "Plant-based meat" which to me at least sounds specific to these type of imitation meat burgers like impossible/Beyond Meat, not just a normal veggie burger.

In terms of Impossible/Beyond Meat, health seems kind of a wash.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#343

Post by behringer »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #335
behringer wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess people are only offended by heavily processed foods when those foods aren't veggie burgers with large advertising budgets.

You made a distinction between 'real nutrition' and what these foods are. Processing is irrelevant. Food has nutritional qualities regardless of how it became what it is. So I'm asking you to explain your reasoning that these foods do not have 'real nutrition'.

https://health.usnews.com/wellness/food/articles/2017-05-11/...

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#344

Post by okmokmz »

tptacek wrote: post #140
acollins1331 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally agreed with me two comments ago that Tyson chicken is worse than locally (read not mass) produced chicken. Don't try to turn it around again just so you can win an imaginary argument I'm not trying to have.

Did you read the first half of that comment and not the second? Local chicken is generally "better" than supermarket chicken. That doesn't make supermarket chicken "shitty"; supermarket-grade chicken is necessarily what most people are going to eat, most of the time. It has for more than half a century been our standard, and our standard is better than what preceded it. You can always do better. But I'd like to see a…

Not arguing about the quality of meat, but how these organizations source their meats are also an important differentiation. Sure, maybe it is 100% chicken meat, but I don't particularly want to eat meat from animals that were essentially tortured and abused their entire lives, and I imagine that has some kind of negative affect on the quality/healthfulness. KFC has been accused of animal cruelty multiple times, and the videos of the factory farms they source meats from are pretty disgustingly shocking.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#345

Post by namdnay »

devinhelton wrote: post #230
_bxg1 wrote: post #2

I think it's fascinating how all these fast-food chains are jumping on artificial meat. It makes perfect sense: meat is expensive and difficult to work with, so low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat. Plant-based meat, on the other hand, can be both cheaper and less gross at the same time, and it migh…

It makes perfect sense: meat is expensive and difficult to work with, so low-cost chains like these have been serving really disgustingly low-quality meat for quite some time now; in some cases it could barely even be called meat. Consumer advocates in the past few years have actually done a pretty good job at pressuring the top fast food chains to not dilute their beef with additives. McD's, Burger King, and Wendy's…

> When traveling, I sometimes just buy a bunch of MdD's patties a la carte.

o_O

> how fashionable vegetarianism has become

I don’t think it’s a question of fashion. However tasty meat may be, it’s ethically and environmentally bad. Whether it’s in 50 or 500 years’ time, one day our descendants will look back at us and wonder: “they ate corpses?!”

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#346

Post by tehlike »

ashelmire wrote: post #62
tehlike wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the fastfood chains based in united states have much better quality abroad.

That's definitely not true. McDonald's and Burger King were both markedly worse in my experience. A shame in-n-out isn't abroad, and haven't found a Taco Bell or Wendy's yet. Not that I would really go out of my way to eat fast food overseas now that I'm an adult... I don't even eat these things in the US. There's wide variability within the US anyway. I've noticed that affluent suburbs tend to have great fast food,…

I should have said almost.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#347

Post by okmokmz »

gizmo385 wrote: post #136
zodiac wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impossible Burger isn't lab-grown meat

What would you consider Impossible Burger, if not lab-grown meat?

A plant based substitute...? They aren't growing meat, have never claimed to be meat, and are marketing specifically to those who don't eat meat

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#349

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

behringer wrote: post #343
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You made a distinction between 'real nutrition' and what these foods are. Processing is irrelevant. Food has nutritional qualities regardless of how it became what it is. So I'm asking you to explain your reasoning that these foods do not have 'real nutrition'.

https://health.usnews.com/wellness/food/articles/2017-05-11/...

...are you incapable of explaining your reasoning yourself in less than, what is this, 5 pages of ad-filled text? I find it very difficult to take someone seriously who responds in this fashion.

Re: Beyond Meat and KFC partner to test fried plant-based ‘chicken’

#350

Post by mattkrause »

camel_Snake wrote: post #268
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you make a clearer, better-cited case for "low cost chains serve meat that could barely even be called meat"? KFC serves (primarily) whole muscle chicken†, and the general US appetite for "dark meat" chicken is so low that we've been accused of "dumping" it on other countries and messing up their markets --- KFC seems to have no trouble sourcing its inputs effectively. KFC's suppliers include all the major chicke…

This[1] paper has nothing to do with KFC or their chicken per-se, but it did make me steer clear of fast food burgers for a long time. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18995204 TLDR: "Meat content in the hamburgers ranged from 2.1% to 14.8% (median, 12.1%)."

That's kind of misleading though, because they're counting water and "meat" separately. Water is itself a major component of cow musculature (50-75% percent, depending on the type of muscle), so this method would conclude that a slab of steak is mostly not-meat.

From a more culinary perspective, you do probably want some fat in your burger. Depending on your tastes, I'm not sure the presence of 'plant matter' is particularly sinister either; I, for one, like a few onions in mine.

Post reply on HN