Meat-free 'Impossible Burger 2.0' tastes even closer to the real deal • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by gonehome » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #273

Is the Impossible Burger much better than Beyond Meat? Because I've had the Beyond Meat patty (from a vegan chain called Lord of the Fries, their standard beef substitute is great) and it was awful - very obvious that it was made from plants (tasted like root vegetables with a weird chemical/metallic tang to me) and the texture was way off. It could have been prepared poorly though.

I had it at the counter and was pretty disappointed.

I was excited to try it since I saw a lot of people talk about how similar it was to to meat and how you couldn't tell the difference.

Maybe if you've been a vegetarian for ten years you can't tell the difference, but I thought it was pretty obvious. The outside was strangely crispy and the texture was off.

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

#282

Post by thrillgore » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

skybrian wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scient…

The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.

Your parent is employed by Impossible Foods based on their post history.

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

#283

Post by dczot » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

tmaly wrote: post #259

I love the idea, but the saturated fat seems a bit high for a plant based food?

Yeah, plant-based and healthy are not necessarily the same. This at least free of cholesterol vs meat, but I think the main draw is the plant-based aspect rather than healthy.

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

#284

Post by danso » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 8:59 PM UTC

jtuente wrote: post #249

danso wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s astounding to me that you mock efforts to replicate meat when the “simpler solutions” is to just tell people to eat veg cuisines and this give up the meat-based cuisines they’ve lived with. And then in the next sentence, you oppose veganism because it’s apparently wrong to give up cuisines you’ve lived with.

Cold-turkey is an idiom meaning to immediately change without a transition. It's often used as "quitting smoking cold-turkey".

Yes, I'm aware of that. But this is the full context of the comment:

> I am opposed to advocating for cold-turkey veganism though. Milk products and eggs are great meat substitutes, and the lack of both makes entire cuisines inaccessible.

The "immediately change" connotation of "cold-turkey" doesn't make much sense here. The commenter seems to imply that eliminating entire cuisines -- i.e. having "entire cuisines inaccessible" -- is a difficult problem for people, regardless of the speed at which you do it. And I agree with that. Which is why I find it weird that he thinks it's weird why people who weren't born on vegetarian cuisines can't just switch to them, when introduced. I would argue that even if that were possible for most people, things like "Impossible Burger" are necessary for a successful transition.

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

#285

Post by Jedd » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

chefgoldbluum wrote: post #256

skybrian wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scient…

The burger is made primarily from Soy. Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed. Humans eating directly from livestock's primary food source is likely to be much more efficient at a global scale.

> Soy accounts for 2/3 of global protein feed.

This may be the current case, but it doesn't, indeed shouldn't, be so. It just happens that in the US, CAFO's are the best (financially) way to raise beef cattle.

In any case, livestock's primary food source should never have been soy beans.

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

#286

Post by nwah1 » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

ArthurBrussee wrote: post #197

I unironically can't wait to read release notes about newer versions of my food

Not only this, but we should have continuous integration testing.

Each batch of every product should be run through a litany of health and safety tests, and such a thing could be crowdsourced.

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

#287

Post by LoSboccacc » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

be-ez wrote: post #235

skybrian wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "no doubt"? What's your basis for that? I'm no expert, but I expect land is different in different places. There are different sources of feed. Someone changes a supplier or a farming practice, and it changes a number in a spreadsheet, and you'll get a different answer. Accounting gets complicated enough with money. When you're doing science it's much more difficult. This sounds like the sort of thing that scient…

It sounds like you didn't read the report or check the references on page 26. I recommend reading this paper and coming to your own conclusion about "almost no doubt". Within sustainability science, there is little debate about the lack of efficiency to produce protein via cows. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Sure it's less efficient when compared to high protein crops, but there are vaste acres of land that can't be farmed and can only sustain grazing animals (and then some of those are more feed efficient than others, say, cows vs sheep)

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

#288

Post by ensiferum » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #198

If this does indeed taste like real meat, then they may move in the direction of making healthier products. That is, they've said from the beginning that their goal with the Impossible Burger is to mimic the taste and health profile of ground beef. But there's a lot of fat in there, and many people (like me) don't really ever cook with ground beef for that reason. But if they've nailed the taste, then perhaps they ca…

The only thing worth eating there from keto diet perspective is the fat but it better be good fat! (No cheap vegetable oils or hydrogenated fats)

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

#289

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

wvlia5- wrote: post #106

logfromblammo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about the only kind of vegan proselytizing that I can stomach. If you can make food that tastes as good as meat, with nutrition similar to meat, and sell it at a lower price than meat, I will switch overnight, and never look back. And it would be nice if it came in bulk forms, rather than just as pre-formed patties. I eat ground beef a lot more often than I eat burgers. Until then, good luck with the test kit…

So you are basically saying "if I had to make no effort at all and I could also save some money, I would switch". Yes, that's obvious, everyone would, it's redundant to state it. But what those 'vegan proselytizers' are asking you for, is to not be so selfish and make a bit of a sacrifice to spare the lives of others. But of course, you 'can't stomach' to be asked to not be selfish, and they are the ones to blame.

Yes. Exactly so. If I had to make no effort at all, and I could also save some money, I would switch. But it is not obvious that everyone would. Perhaps all of your acquaintances would, but perhaps you just don't know someone of the sort who wouldn't.

Pre-framing the debate in (hostile) terms of just how selfish I am gives me the inkling that you are not looking for an honest, factual, and productive discussion, and that my participation might be seen as an invitation to browbeat me with guilt and propaganda. Instead of wasting your words on convincing me that you're so prejudiced in this matter that the outcome of any discussion we might have is already predetermined, go buy an Impossible Burger--or a thousand--and let them do all the arguing for you, because their actions speak louder than your words. They'll win over my stomach with a $2.00-off coupon, while you're still trying to recover from implicitly devaluing every sacrifice I have ever made for the sake of someone else.

Your post is an exemplar of exactly the sort of vector that I can't stomach--unnecessarily hostile and loaded with assumptions.

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

#290

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Jan 08, 2019, 9:07 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #245

pstuart wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do not consider animal lives worth valuing For the sake of discussion, do you have a pet? Or have loved ones that have a pet? If you were to torture that pet would you feel anything? Would your loved ones object for any reason?

Not the parent poster, but I think, given that this boils down to an emotional reaction, it's perfectly consistent to value the well-being of different animals in different ways. There's no inherent quality that makes a cat or dog more or less deserving of humane treatment than a cow or pig. There's no inherent difference (aside from judgments around taste) that makes it acceptable to eat the meat of a cow but not of…

There's another aspect don't think it's mentioned yet, that someone's emotional attachment imbues an animal with a difference that makes harming it different to harming another animal.

Similar (at a different level) to me snapping a stick, vs snapping my kids "favourite" stick that he found. Identical actions in one respect, but the human emotional impact is very different.