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

451–460 of 538 posts

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

#451

Post by Skunkleton »

teh_klev wrote: post #411
Skunkleton wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How am I wrong? By not eating meat you are making a compromise. Maybe worthwhile, but it still is a compromise.

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

#452

Post by saagarjha »

bobcostas55 wrote: post #195
cerebellum42 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cattle need to be fed too, and they don't turn their food into meat very efficiently. That's why replacing meat with plant based alternatives is (almost) always a huge gain in efficiency, in terms of resource use.

Instead of these abstract hypotheticals about efficiency, we can just look at the price. >At Hopdaddy in Scottsdale, Ariz., the Impossible Burger (using the original recipe) goes for $12.25. A classic burger made of Angus beef with the same basic toppings costs just $7.25.

Price has nothing to do with efficiency.

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

#453

Post by saagarjha »

nonbel wrote: post #423
robotbikes wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The economics/politics of it is a different issue. I am concerned about the danger of tricking people's minds into thinking the body has consumed something with nutritional value other than it really has. Humans have been consuming beef for a long time.

> I am concerned about the danger of tricking people's minds into thinking the body has consumed something with nutritional value other than it really has.

I think you're overreacting here. Impossible Burgers are slightly different, nutritionally speaking, from regular burgers, but it's not like one is 100% carbohydrates and the other is pure protein. They're relatively similar.

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

#454

Post by saagarjha »

nonbel wrote: post #438
shafyy wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you make it sound like people need to eat beef to have healthy diet?

Who said that? If beef is part of your healthy diet though, you shouldn't assume you can just swap out a normal burger for an impossible burger. But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is consuming beef by mimicking the texture and taste (which is their goal) but instead consuming something with different nutritional value. Just seems like it could be dangerous is all.

> But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is consuming beef by mimicking the texture and taste (which is their goal) but instead consuming something with different nutritional value.

Does the "brain" (which I am specifically using in a biological sense, because it seems like that's what you meant instead of "people in general") actually care about texture and taste when consuming food? I don't see how this could be dangerous, except if people somehow eat a dozen of these and nothing else and somehow the brain "thinks" it's gotten nutrients that it hasn't.

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

#455

Post by saagarjha »

devmunchies wrote: post #430
colechristensen wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disagree. Once you shift your thinking in the other direction and cherish their life and only eat them if its the only option for survival you will feel greater love and appreciation for animals. I've eaten meat only once in the last 2 years and when I did I actually wept. > Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends. --George Bernard Shaw https://gist.github.com/samueleaton/cccfd86dcca72bc33f72bdfa...

> I've eaten meat only once in the last 2 years and when I did I actually wept.

Sorry to bring this up, but I'm curious as to the circumstances around this. Did you not know you were eating meat? Or did you eat, and realize later that it was incompatible with your ethics?

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

#456

Post by saagarjha »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #426
kkhire wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's nut milks and faux leather. nearly everything has a plant-based alternative and if something doesn't, it will have one soon.

We do have faux leather. I have yet to find one that behaves like leather for footwear, however: Faux leather causes me to develop foot fungus. I can wear cloth, but by the time it gets treated as necessary, I'm not sure we are improving over the leather. But hey, it can improve. Nut milks are an odd thing. They aren't really nutritionally the same nor do they behave similarly while cooking. The taste is lacking and…

> many nuts milks are also bad for the environment - much better to just eat the nuts

I'm don't disagree with the rest of your comment, but I think the better comparison here would be to compare nut milk to what it's substituting for, which in this case is regular milk.

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

#457

Post by nonbel »

saagarjha wrote: post #454
nonbel wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said that? If beef is part of your healthy diet though, you shouldn't assume you can just swap out a normal burger for an impossible burger. But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is consuming beef by mimicking the texture and taste (which is their goal) but instead consuming something with different nutritional value. Just seems like it could be dangerous is all.

> But my main concern is the aspect of "tricking" the brain into thinking it is consuming beef by mimicking the texture and taste (which is their goal) but instead consuming something with different nutritional value. Does the "brain" (which I am specifically using in a biological sense, because it seems like that's what you meant instead of "people in general") actually care about texture and taste when consuming fo…

>"Does the "brain" (which I am specifically using in a biological sense, because it seems like that's what you meant instead of "people in general") actually care about texture and taste when consuming food?"

Yes... haven't you ever eaten food and liked/disliked the texture/taste based on what you expected?

>"I don't see how this could be dangerous, except if people somehow eat a dozen of these and nothing else and somehow the brain "thinks" it's gotten nutrients that it hasn't."

No one thought making grains (carbs) the basis for a diet would be dangerous but now we have an obesity epidemic because people don't feel full after consuming sufficient calories for their needs. Consuming too much or too little is entirely a "brain" (of course various hormones, etc that lead to cravings are involved) problem. If you feel full at the appropriate time you will never over-consume.

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

#458

Post by saagarjha »

newnewpdro wrote: post #297
mey wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like clean food concepts. There isn't science behind clean/unclean. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-...

The more processing a food stuff undergoes the more opportunity there is for it to be adulterated and/or contaminated. Oftentimes it's not even intentional. e.g. An ingredient supplier from China delivers whey tainted with Cadmium, this gets mixed into a protein shake powder. Nowhere on the ingredients is Cadmium and the company producing protein shake powder had no intention whatever of producing Cadmium-laced shake…

> By simply avoiding consumption of chopped lettuce, a minimal amount of processing, one significantly reduced the probability they would be exposed to the e.coli.

You seem to have an issue with globalization, not processing.

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

#459

Post by saagarjha »

dsabanin wrote: post #445
saagarjha wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how we spoon fed them with corpses since their very first moments I have not seen meat recommended as food to give newborn infants, ever. They don't even eat solid meals!

Not newborns, but people introduce squashed animal products as puree to children pretty soon, and it's not the main point I was making.

> it's not the main point I was making

The point you were making was clearly "we're feeding newborns dead 'corpses'", so I felt the need to make sure your appeal to emotion was at least somewhat factually correct.

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

#460

Post by saagarjha »

TomMarius wrote: post #262
belltaco wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I do not consider animal lives worth valuing or deserving of rights So you're against animal anti-cruelty laws? Are you okay with animals like dogs and cats being torture for human entertainment?

Cruelty means e.g. causing pain. We can kill animals without causing them pain.

> We can kill animals without causing them pain.

We can, but it seems like we often don't.

Post reply on HN