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

Beyond Meat fights for survival

foodinstitute.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 645 posts

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#561

Post by UltraSane »

saagarjha wrote: post #556
UltraSane wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be willing to bet if a lifelong vegan hadn't eaten in days and smelled a freshly cooked bacon cheeseburger they would start salivating. And I bet they would find it delicious if they ate it.

I think it would be more like the reaction a "normal" meat eater would have when presented with a strange food, like snails, or grasshoppers. You'd probably eat it in desperation but I don't think it would register as food.

No. Humans have actually evolved to find the smell and taste of COOKED meat to be delicious because it is so energy and nutrition dense eating it gave a huge evolutionary advantage to people who ate it.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#562

Post by graublau »

const_cast wrote: post #441
graublau wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed food concerns are hysterical is a unique take

It is, mostly, hysteria. The problem is that we're just assuming processed foods are bad period, but even if you don't eat processed foods you can eat a very poor diet. Burgers aren't processed, fried chicken isn't processed. And, you don't need to process food to make it "addictive". People who think you need chemicals and additives to make addictive food are just stupid, frankly. Take whatever food, douse it in sal…

> The problem is that we're just assuming processed foods are bad period

Why on earth is that a problem? People only eating fresh food is absolutely fine. Any processing on top should be met with skepticism.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#563

Post by cj »

scythmic_waves wrote: post #559
cj wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. I track macros religiously with daily protein/fat/carb targets for weight lifting. I don't care much about the macros of each individual meal (or any individual ingredient). When dinner comes around, I'm cooking whatever meal will let me hit my targets for the day. If I already got most my protein in, I'll happily eat something with "bad" protein/calorie ratio. Granted, 99% of people don't track food intake,…

> Critiquing beyond burgers for their macro breakdown doesn't make sense to me. They're selling a meat replacement. Replacing the meat in my diet with their product does not work for my goals without additional planning to compensate. Therefore it's not a good replacement for me. A criticism need not apply in all cases to be valid. > I'd still be able to hit 150g/day at least without really trying. What are your calo…

Current calorie goal is ~3000 - I agree, that amount of calories makes it much easier.

Over winter/sprint I was targeting 1900-2100 (180g P). It would have been near impossible to do it without protein shakes.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#564

Post by [deleted] »

anon84873628 wrote: post #435
graublau wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed food concerns are hysterical is a unique take

Many people are clearly going overboard and using processed foods as an excuse for making the naturalistic fallacy. (Or maybe today we would say that processed foods are used as a "thought terminating cliche".)

[deleted]

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#565

Post by vlod »

cj wrote: post #549
proee wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not a vegetarian

If you wear vegetarianism on your sleeve for philosophical reasons, yea that’s not me. I simply prefer not eating a lot of meat. Next time I’ll say majority-vegetarian minority-carnivore?

I hate the term, but I've heard 'flexitarian' used to describe this.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#566

Post by mandmandam »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #477
mandmandam wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The 70s/80s want their insult back. You can buy any quality you want in the US, when willing to pay for it. But we still have to listen to complaints that the only choices available are Wonder, Lipton, and Budweiser. Not true—literally for decades now.

> You can buy any quality you want in the US, when willing to pay for it.

I didn't say you can't buy quality bread though. I know it's possible to find nice bread.

I said it's mostly inferior, and it is. The vast majority of bread in America is stuff that I would rather go hungry than eat.

... Thanks for proving my point about getting weirdly defensive.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#567

Post by mandmandam »

const_cast wrote: post #442
mandmandam wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly pointless pedantry. We all know what they mean, and are to assume the best reading of what they're saying. Bread, the example they used, is a particularly stark example where Americans are subjected to stuff that is rightly banned in most of the rest of the world.

It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals. When you grow a tomato, you use pesticides and herbicides. When you grow meat, you use drugs on the animals and then you also wash the meat in bleach to kill bacteria. Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it?

> It's not pointless pedantry at all, because whole foods are ALSO treated with chemicals.

That wasn't the point they were making. They made a purely pedantic point about the meaning of the word 'chemicals' in this context.

> Why are these chemicals less harmful than, say, citric acid used in "processed" minced garlic to preserve it?

I never said they are.

Besides which, I pay a premium for organic for that very reason. Glyphosate residue is a serious problem. And then there's all the agricultural runoff, biosphere contamination, chemical interactions, etc.

Less 'chemicals' is generally better; safer and healthier. It's super weird that people take issue with this simple statement, whether for pedantic reasons or through false equivalancies.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#568

Post by saagarjha »

UltraSane wrote: post #561
saagarjha wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be more like the reaction a "normal" meat eater would have when presented with a strange food, like snails, or grasshoppers. You'd probably eat it in desperation but I don't think it would register as food.

No. Humans have actually evolved to find the smell and taste of COOKED meat to be delicious because it is so energy and nutrition dense eating it gave a huge evolutionary advantage to people who ate it.

Just because something is evolutionarily advantageous doesn't mean everyone has to like it. Otherwise ace people would not exist at all…

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#569

Post by trymas »

makingstuffs wrote: post #129

The problem with Beyond Meat is that it is insanely expensive. I could buy a free range, organic and grass fed beef burger for the price of their ultra processed burger. Don’t get me wrong, as a vegetarian, I think they taste nice. They are just too damn expensive and not particularly healthy which goes against why I am a vegetarian. In Europe we have so many alternatives that are insanely cheaper and, as an Indian,…

I am on a same boat. Beyond meat is extremely expensive. Also from personal experience it neither appeals to vegetarians/vegans (too meat like, with sometimes “bloody” look) nor meat eaters (more expensive than the real thing, fake).

But the biggest gripe for me - it greatly shows how much meat and dairy farming is subsidised (at least where I live). When chicken meat is 4-5€/kg (i see ofen discounts on chicken breast/wings for 2-3€/kg) and grains (rice, buckwheat) are ~3€/kg it just doesn’t make sense to me. Similar with milk vs alternative milks.

Hence it doesn’t at all surprise me if you do some “lab grown” meat alternatives from plant proteins - you will have 5x more expensive product (if not more).

With all this technological advancements it seems bizarre that we as a humanity still spend so much earth resources on growing animals for slaughter. I know it will not disappear and I don't wish that, but the amount of problems it causes is insane. Diseases (swine flu and avian flu are never ending problems, mad cow disease is one of the scariest things), completely destroyed water sources from pollution, overuse of antibiotics (because of prevalent infections and unsanitary conditions), etc.

Re: Beyond Meat fights for survival

#570

Post by mind-blight »

trallnag wrote: post #463
mind-blight wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, we have a semantics issue. Processing can mean "any change to a food item" such as chopping, cooking, etc. In these kinds of conversations, it's often used as "significant alterations that are not possible or common outside of a food lab". E.g. I can do cured meats, or add corn starch to a soup at home. I'm not going to make partially hydrogenated oils or pink slime for chicken nuggets. If you're being genuine…

Enjoy your home-made herbs and spices instead of dangerous lab-made drugs, I guess

I honestly want to know why you think trying to consume foods that have been through fewer processing steps is equivalent to rejecting medicine. Those are absurd comparisons to me.

If I have a medical issue, the risks often outweigh the rewards. Chemo ain't good for you, but it's better than cancer. Artificial food coloring isn't necessary, and multiple dyes appear to contain carcinogenic contaminates. I can appreciate that chemo exists and avoid artificial dyes.

The US food industry also has historically introduced a lot of unhealthy and/or poisonous additives that were later banned or recalled. Formaldehyde was added to milk in the early 1900s because the industry didn't want to adopt pasteurization. Partially hydrogenated oil as margarine was advertised as a healthier butter alternative in the 50s and 60s.

There are cool things that come out of food labs (Xanthum gum is one of my favorites), but it seems weird to be condescending towards people for taking a reasonably cautious approach towards food - especially when there's historical and scientific evidence that backs the approach

Post reply on HN