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

Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

plantbasednews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 623 posts

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#201

Post by globular-toast »

carlosjobim wrote: post #37
cpursley wrote: post #14

I never understood these engineered ultra processed meat imitation products, they are not healthy - period. There's already healthy and delicious cuisines that have developed over thousands of years (Indian, Nepalese, I'm sure many others). This desire to just recreate the SAD (standard American diet) with goo is beyond strange...

They are for vegetarians who want something that tastes similar to a burger.

I'm a vegetarian who likes burgers, but all the flavour in a burger comes from vegetables anyway: the sauces, garnishes, etc, plus cheese, of course. So I just go one step further and replace the patty with something made from veggies too. More delicious, and cruelty free.

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#203

Post by unfitted2545 »

lithocarpus wrote: post #160
lambda wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a weird comment. Why do you think that "ethical vegans" like the "taste of plants" any more than anyone else? The whole point of being an ethical vegan/vegetarian is to not consume animals, not because you don't like the taste. Health conscious folks would definitely choose these over hamburgers. Sure, they're not perfect from a health food point of view, but they're lower in sodium and saturated fat tha…

Beyond Burger ingredients: Yellow Pea Protein, Avocado Oil, Natural Flavors, Brown Rice Protein, Red Lentil Protein, 2% or less of Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Pea Starch, Potassium Lactate (to preserve freshness), Faba Bean Protein, Apple Extract, Pomegranate Concentrate, Potassium Salt, Spice, Vinegar, Vegetable Juice Color (with Beet). Except for Vinegar, every one of these is an industrially processed/extracte…

[flagged]

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#204

Post by globular-toast »

bsjshshsb wrote: post #131
ElijahLynn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So true. All protein on the planet, was made from sunlight and photosynthesis. You can eat the animal that ate the plants, but then you lose out on tons of micronutrients and fiber.

Aren't some amino acids synthesized in animals?

None that we need and can't get directly from plants.

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#206

Post by ccppurcell »

rcakebread wrote: post #182
lambda wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a weird comment. Why do you think that "ethical vegans" like the "taste of plants" any more than anyone else? The whole point of being an ethical vegan/vegetarian is to not consume animals, not because you don't like the taste. Health conscious folks would definitely choose these over hamburgers. Sure, they're not perfect from a health food point of view, but they're lower in sodium and saturated fat tha…

"they're lower in sodium and saturated fat than your average hamburger patty" If you buy a Beyond patty, it has way more sodium than ground beef you'd buy at a grocerty store. Comparing it with a fast food burger isn't really fair.

I've never eaten a beyond burger or anything like that at home. At home the improvement in flavour over tofu or just beans isn't worth it. I can get flavour from herbs spices and other ingredients. I've only ever eaten beyond burgers at restaurants.

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#207

Post by Nursie »

Grimblewald wrote: post #11

I always wondered who their demographic was. The core early adopters, the ethical vegans, who actually like the taste of plants are never going to make a lab made ultra processed salt bomb their daily driver (never mind issues surrounding industrial agriculture). Health-conscious folks would take one look at the ingredient list and bail because of the heavy processing and industrial fillers. You've got bodybuilders a…

Ethical vegans and vegetarians may like the taste of meat but be sworn off it because of their ethics. I see this so much in these discussions - if they don't like meat then why are they going for a subsitute? They love vegetables so should stick to vegetables.

Do people genuinely think that 'ethical' vegans and vegetarians are doing it because they don't like meat? Or genuinely not comprehend the idea of taking an ethical stance even if you actually like something?

For illustration, human baby could be the best tasting barbecue on the planet, but even if it was I would still think that murdering children for my dinner would be wrong and wouldn't do it. Ethical vegans and vegetarians feel similarly about eating meat, that it's (often) delicious but killing animals for food is wrong. Offering them a "meat without any of the suffering" option, in theory, has quite a large audience.

Plus as a meat-eater who had a vegetarian partner for a few years, things like impossible mince also made it easier for me to cook things we could both enjoy, and things like beyond/impossible made eating out a little easier in burger joints etc.

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#208

Post by 5o1ecist »

Grimblewald wrote: post #11

I always wondered who their demographic was. The core early adopters, the ethical vegans, who actually like the taste of plants are never going to make a lab made ultra processed salt bomb their daily driver (never mind issues surrounding industrial agriculture). Health-conscious folks would take one look at the ingredient list and bail because of the heavy processing and industrial fillers. You've got bodybuilders a…

[dead]

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#209

Post by KAMSPioneer »

dataflow wrote: post #187
whakim wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to believe that the foods humans have historically eaten are safer/healthier than "industrially processed/extracted/refined" food simply because we have historically eaten them. Evolution does not select for avoiding the health problems facing modern-day humans such as cancer or heart disease.

No reason? How about financial incentives?

Uhh I don't think that financial incentives are a valid reason to believe something is healthier or safer than an alternative. Unless I have missed some sarcasm.

Re: Beyond has dropped “meat” from its name and expanded its high-protein drink line

#210

Post by lithocarpus »

whakim wrote: post #175
lithocarpus wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond Burger ingredients: Yellow Pea Protein, Avocado Oil, Natural Flavors, Brown Rice Protein, Red Lentil Protein, 2% or less of Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Pea Starch, Potassium Lactate (to preserve freshness), Faba Bean Protein, Apple Extract, Pomegranate Concentrate, Potassium Salt, Spice, Vinegar, Vegetable Juice Color (with Beet). Except for Vinegar, every one of these is an industrially processed/extracte…

There is no reason to believe that the foods humans have historically eaten are safer/healthier than "industrially processed/extracted/refined" food simply because we have historically eaten them. Evolution does not select for avoiding the health problems facing modern-day humans such as cancer or heart disease.

I'm not saying they're healthier simply because we've historically eaten them.

But there are many reasons to believe natural/traditional foods may be safer and healthier than new industrial foods. To name a few:

1) There's reason to believe our bodies may be more adapted to eating natural or traditional foods, having eaten them for hundreds of thousands of years rather than one or two generations.

2) Many highly processed foods have within decades of their introduction to our diet been found to be really bad for us. Refined sugars, refined oils, refined flours, artificial sweeteners, many of the weird additives, many synthetic compounds like methylcellulose (someone close to me is extremely sensitive to this one), on and on.

3) These new ingredients, new kinds of refining and processing, and even synthetic food compounds, do not have to undergo any rigorous testing to be shown to be safe before being added to food. Even if they do some studies for some of them, how would you really know it's not causing serious long term problems for say 1% of people? Or even 10%? The size and duration of a study you'd need to find them to be safe would be expensive and they generally don't do it, since they're not required to.

4) These new ingredients often introduce novel molecules to the body that the body may not be adapted to. I hope I don't need to explain how many novel molecules that were invented and widely used in recent decades have proved to be highly toxic.

5) We have a huge increase in severe chronic disease in recent decades. I won't claim here that this is primarily because of the changes to our diet from industrially processed foods, but diet is a top contender given that it's one of the biggest things that has changed in the human lifestyle, along with all the other novel substances our bodies come in contact with now.

6) We know of tons of people who were healthy to age 80, 90, 100, eating primarily/entirely natural foods. We don't yet have any examples of this with people eating a large portion of modern industrial foods that didn't exist 80 years ago. This is not proof that they're dangerous, I'm just saying we don't know and have reason to be cautious.

Post reply on HN