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

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

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 538 posts

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

#411

Post by teh_klev »

Skunkleton wrote: post #404
atonse wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being of Indian descent, I might be biased. But Indian cuisine is the only cuisine I'm aware of where being vegetarian isn't a compromise in the creativity, quality, and sheer flavors available to you. For other cuisines, where centuries of culinary creativity mostly went towards making meat, this is the only viable approach to weaning us off growing animals for meaty foods.

> But Indian cuisine is the only cuisine I'm aware of where being vegetarian isn't a compromise in the creativity, quality, and sheer flavors available to you. Of course it is. Vegetarian food is a strict subset of all food.

I don't dp this often or ever on HN, but....Bullshit, there are far more vegetarian foods available than your typical fish, pork, beef, lamb and poultry (and perhaps "game") dishes.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I can certainly say that products based on a previous living animal are certainly not a "subset" of vegetable based diets.

What a most ridiculous assertion to make.

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

#413

Post by [deleted] »

nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

[deleted]

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

#414

Post by rjplatte »

robotbikes wrote: post #410
nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

That is interesting but I don't think that it would be healthy for people to eat beef burgers as their primary source of nutrition either. What annoys me about the fake meat is that in the dystopian future soymeat was supposed to be everywhere and cheaper where real meat was a sought after expensive delicacy but due to government subsidies and hding the costs of environmental externalities real meat remains much chea…

Nobody's saying that beef burgers are a good primary source of nutrition, but this product can't replace beef.

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

#415

Post by yurishimo »

colechristensen wrote: post #322
puranjay wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love meat but I've always struggled to reconcile my love of eating it with my love of animals. I would be happy to pay a premium if it meant I could get meat-like taste without the guilt

You don't have to feel guilty. It is the disconnection between humans and animals that causes many of those feelings and if you shift your thinking, you can have a much better experience. When you participate in the process of raising, killing, butchering, and eating the animals which are your food you will appreciate them – love them – and the life they had and gave for you to live. Food encased in plastic from a gr…

I take a lot of inspiration from Native Americans on this topic. Eating is a part of existing for any organism and without life, there is no energy to transfer. This applies to plants and animals.

Appreciation for the life that was given for my nourishment is important to me and I really take it seriously. I make an effort to not waste any meat I buy and I've definitely shifted to eating less than I used to.

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

#416

Post by ianai »

rthomas6 wrote: post #338
nugget wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soy contains phytoestrogens which certain populations (e.g. women pregnant with male fetuses) may be advised to reduce intake of or avoid. Something to keep in mind as meat replacements become more popular - that it may not be a one-size-fits-all solution.

I mean, that's true with meat, too.

The estrogen in beef is actual, mammalian estrogen. Which would you expect your body to interact most within digestion? Of course it’s going to be the stuff that’s closest to it.

The FUD being spread around soy is ridiculous.

Other nutrients that tend to be harder to find in plants than animals also tend to be more poorly absorbed than their animal counterparts. B12, iron, d, zinc, etc.

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

#417

Post by null000 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #399
sc4les wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete bogus, please abstain from spreading this misinformation. Unlike animal products which contain actual hormones active in humans plant products have an negligible effect and you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects. Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans

...you would have to consume impossible amounts for the smallest of effects Further, phytoestrogens actually benefit humans Maybe I'm not parsing things well, but these 2 statements seem contradictory.

Not contradictory, but working to different ends.

"You shouldn't worry about this because phytoestrogens aren't present"

"You shouldn't worry about this because phytoestrogens are beneficial"

Both can be true at once, and support the end argument, it's just not particularly helpful or harmful if both are true at the same time.

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

#418

Post by itomato »

danharaj wrote: post #6

That's really cool. Although I wish there were more vegan food that didn't try to replicate non-vegan textures and flavors. Imitation can only be playing catch-up. The best vegan and vegetarian food does its own thing.

Southern Indian vegetarian cuisine is outstanding in this regard.

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

#419

Post by devmunchies »

nonbel wrote: post #406

These burgers are not a suitable nutritional replacement for beef. Beef contains cholesterol, zero carbs, and has a different vitamin/mineral profile. This stuff has no cholesterol and (a small amount of) carbs while also containing way more salt, thiamine (vitamin B1), and folate (vitamin B9): https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/6205/2 http://livablefutureblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/impo... FY…

>MAY be linked to cancer (emphasis mine)

Yeah but processed meat IS linked to cancer.

https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/mul...

And last I checked, most Americans have a problem with high cholesterol, not low cholesterol. Americans eat too much meat.

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

#420

Post by ianai »

aey wrote: post #403
jampekka wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be this company maximizing market share? Releasing the IP would allow others to do that as well, likely increasing the overall meatless share.

I don’t know since I am not the CEO or even in the industry. Maybe open source IP model would fail to get critical mass. Maybe the best path forward is to get Burger King as an investor. If they maximize profits while still being committed to an environmentaly friendly meat replacement, that doesn’t mean they are limiting their impact in any way. It’s just as likely they are maximizing their impact. I personally don’…

So one reason companies like to vertically integrate with companies that supply the goods/services they use in their products is to open up economies of scale and decrease costs. Ie instead of getting protein from an animal that has to be raised on plants they’re getting protein straight from the plant source. It’s always going to be a cheaper to go closer to the source, “if you can make it work” - in a sane universe without subsidies.
Post reply on HN