Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

The Impossible Whopper: Your thoughts on plant-based burgers?

17810121316

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.

    I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.

    I would stick to meat for a few reasons:

    Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.

    Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.

    Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.

    Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.

    Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.

    I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.

    Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?

    Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.

    Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?

    Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.

    Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.

    Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?

    In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.

    Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.

    As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv

    "Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.

    You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.

    For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.

    "It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.

    I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.

    So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.

    I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.

    Not really. Humans are omnivores. We can get nutrition effectively from vegan burgers (which remember can include a burger made from black beans). There is no scientific way to claim we are evolved to eat one specific food for which this is the case (a beef patty with whatever else BK adds to the Whopper) vs. another (the new Impossible Burger Whopper).

    Also, we don't evolve to be able to do something (that still sounds like a directional/design concept). Natural selection under certain past conditions made have resulted in our evolving to be able to do something (like for some populations, most people being lactose tolerant as adults).
    I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to.

    No one is saying you have to, or should, but saying we are meat eaters and not soy or corn eaters is simply not accurate. Or not eaters of the many other sources of plant proteins.

    I did not say that. I said I see no reason ( health or evolutionarily speaking) that compels me to think that I should replace beef with soy or corn protein.

    I did not say that humans are not soy or corn eaters. Many, if not most, are.

    You said we did not evolve to be soy or corn protein eaters (i.e., soy or corn eaters), and that's no more nor less true than a claim that we did not evolve to be beef eaters. We, as a result of evolution, are omnivores. We did not evolve in any particular directed way, nor did we evolve to eat specific foods.

    I meant what I said.

    We are not evolved to pick individual proteins out of meat and eat those alone either.

    In that we can do it (like we can take fat out of coconuts and olives and avocados to make oil and skim off cream and make butter and so on), and evolution of our brains and societies is why we can do it, we evolved to do that as much as we evolved to do anything.

    The way you are talking about evolution seems confused to me still -- you seem to think that evolution is directed to result in a certain diet and certain actions, but not others. As noted with the design concept, that's a religious view and is fine, but I'm not aware of any religion that holds that humans must eat meat (which doesn't mean they don't exist, but I am not aware of any).

    I dont want to debate semantics or personal beliefs, or lack of belief.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    If I can digest it and use it for fuel and nutrients I was designed to eat it. Any claim that one way of eating is better than another outside of an individual level is nonsense propaganda and in this case keto propaganda.

    Why is it necessary for keto to need all the extra sauce? If it works for some people for health benefits and weight loss why isn't that enough? Why does it need to be backed by evolution too? This is at near cartoon levels of absurdity.

    This makes little sense. I can eat bark, poison, air and dirt too. As I've said repeatedly, just because it is there does not mean that I should eat it. That should apply to all people regardless of keto vegan, SAD diet or whatever.

    And why bring up keto and move the goal posts?
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    edited April 2019
    OK... can't believe I did this, but this back & forth about the nutritional difference made me curious and I figured others might be as well. I was looking to make a simple, side-by-side comparison, which was not so easy. Ended up taking the nutrition breakdown from Impossible Burger's website, and filled in the comparable USDA info by hand, rounded for easy comparison. Can't guarantee it's not error-free. The USDA calculator I used didn't provide the % daily value for the 4 oz serving size, and I certainly wasn't going to any more trouble.


    Nutrition Facts
    Serving size4 oz. (113g)
    Amount per serving

    New Recipe Impossible Burger USDA 85% Ground Beef (raw)

    Calories240 243
    % Daily Value*
    Total Fat14g 18% 17g
    Saturated Fat8g 40% 6.5g
    Trans Fat0g 1g
    Cholesterol0mg 0% 77g
    Sodium370mg 16% 75g
    Total Carbohydrate9g 3% 0g
    Dietary Fiber3g 11% 0g
    Total Sugars<1g 0g
    Includes<1g Added Sugars 1%
    Protein19g 31% 21g
    Vitamin D0mcg 0% 0mcg
    Calcium170mg 15% 17mg
    Iron4.2mg 25% 2mg
    Potassium610mg 15% 333mg
    Thiamin28.2mg 2350% 0mg
    Riboflavin0.4mg 30% 0mg
    Niacin5.3mg 35% 5mg
    Vitamin B60.4mg 25% 0mg
    Folate115mcg DFE 30% 7mcg
    Vitamin B123mcg 130% 2.5mcg
    Phosphorus180mg 15% 194mg
    Zinc5.5mg 50% 5mg
    * The % Daily Value tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.

    Edited to add: Sorry- it didn't turn out right at all. It squished all of the data together & I'm not going to go back & redo it. The numbers are still there for comparison. If someone can/wants to do it better, have at it :)
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    @try2again I got you

    Beef --- Impossible Burger
    Calories 243 --- 240
    Fat 17g --- 14g
    Sat Fat 6.5g --- 8g
    Carbs 0g --- 9g
    Fiber 0g --- 3g
    Protein 21g --- 19g
    Sodium 66mg --- 370mg
    Cholesterol 77mg --- 0mg
    Potassium 333mg --- 610mg
    Calcium 17mg --- 170mg
    Iron 2.36mg --- 4.2mg
    Magnesium 20mg --- 0mg
    Phosphorus 193mg --- 180mg
    Zinc 5.06mg --- 5.5mg
    Vitamin C 0mg --- 0mg
    Thiamin 0.047mg --- 28.2mg
    Riboflavin 0.171mg --- 0.4mg
    Niacin 5.253mg --- 5.3mg
    Vitamin B-6 0.391mg --- 0.4mg
    Folate 7ug --- 115mcg
    Vitamin B12 2.45ug --- 3mcg
    Vitamin A 5ug --- 0
    Vitamin E 0.19mg --- 0
    Vitamin D 0.1ug --- 0
    Vitamin K 1.5ug --- 0

    Its hard to argue looking at that that beef is more nutritionally complete than the impossible burger. They are more or less the same. The vitamins at the end that beef has are in such minuscule quantities that they could also be in the impossible burger just not required to be listed by the manufacturer. Beef would certainly not be considered a source of them.

    Worth noting that this is comparison to 85/15 beef, which is a pretty decent quality ground beef. If you were to look at the ground beef that is used by fast food places, it is much more likely to be higher fat content (such as a 70/30), and also have lower nutrient concentration.

    I certainly wouldn't recommend a diet of only beef burgers or only impossible burgers. But I don't see any reason from this info that beef would be a better choice than the others for this, and certainly no evidence that beef is more nutritionally complete.

    ETA: In fact looking at this, it's pretty clear that they worked to make the impossible burger as nutritionally similar to 85/15 beef as possible.


    Aw, thanks! Much easier on the eyes :)

    I wasn't trying to make any point with the 85% comparison... I just chose that because it's my personal preference (though I use 93% when texture isn't a concern). I'm not self-centered or anything ;)
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    try2again wrote: »
    MikePTY wrote: »
    @try2again I got you

    Beef --- Impossible Burger
    Calories 243 --- 240
    Fat 17g --- 14g
    Sat Fat 6.5g --- 8g
    Carbs 0g --- 9g
    Fiber 0g --- 3g
    Protein 21g --- 19g
    Sodium 66mg --- 370mg
    Cholesterol 77mg --- 0mg
    Potassium 333mg --- 610mg
    Calcium 17mg --- 170mg
    Iron 2.36mg --- 4.2mg
    Magnesium 20mg --- 0mg
    Phosphorus 193mg --- 180mg
    Zinc 5.06mg --- 5.5mg
    Vitamin C 0mg --- 0mg
    Thiamin 0.047mg --- 28.2mg
    Riboflavin 0.171mg --- 0.4mg
    Niacin 5.253mg --- 5.3mg
    Vitamin B-6 0.391mg --- 0.4mg
    Folate 7ug --- 115mcg
    Vitamin B12 2.45ug --- 3mcg
    Vitamin A 5ug --- 0
    Vitamin E 0.19mg --- 0
    Vitamin D 0.1ug --- 0
    Vitamin K 1.5ug --- 0

    Its hard to argue looking at that that beef is more nutritionally complete than the impossible burger. They are more or less the same. The vitamins at the end that beef has are in such minuscule quantities that they could also be in the impossible burger just not required to be listed by the manufacturer. Beef would certainly not be considered a source of them.

    Worth noting that this is comparison to 85/15 beef, which is a pretty decent quality ground beef. If you were to look at the ground beef that is used by fast food places, it is much more likely to be higher fat content (such as a 70/30), and also have lower nutrient concentration.

    I certainly wouldn't recommend a diet of only beef burgers or only impossible burgers. But I don't see any reason from this info that beef would be a better choice than the others for this, and certainly no evidence that beef is more nutritionally complete.

    ETA: In fact looking at this, it's pretty clear that they worked to make the impossible burger as nutritionally similar to 85/15 beef as possible.


    Aw, thanks! Much easier on the eyes :)

    I wasn't trying to make any point with the 85% comparison... I just chose that because it's my personal preference (though I use 93% when texture isn't a concern). I'm not self-centered or anything ;)

    It was a good choice though. Looking at the nutritional breakdown of the two, it seems pretty clear that it is the type of ground beef that they are modeling the impossible burger off of nutritionally.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    I tried an Impossible Burger at Dave and Busters. I liked it. I would get it agian...
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    If I can digest it and use it for fuel and nutrients I was designed to eat it. Any claim that one way of eating is better than another outside of an individual level is nonsense propaganda and in this case keto propaganda.

    Why is it necessary for keto to need all the extra sauce? If it works for some people for health benefits and weight loss why isn't that enough? Why does it need to be backed by evolution too? This is at near cartoon levels of absurdity.

    This makes little sense. I can eat bark, poison, air and dirt too. As I've said repeatedly, just because it is there does not mean that I should eat it. That should apply to all people regardless of keto vegan, SAD diet or whatever.

    And why bring up keto and move the goal posts?

    Again... near cartoon level absurdity. You had to know I wasn't advocating eating poison or dirt.

    I didn't move the goal posts. Even when you don't say it directly you aren't fooling anyone who has read a few of your posts. Your keto agenda is always up front these days.

    Magical imaginary keto ether...invading everything even when absent. Awesome.

    I still do not think it an absurd idea that one does not need to eat something just because it exists. We still have food choices. I choose not to eat it. Others do. Again. Great that the choice is there. Do you want to remove that choice? Why would the choice to skip that option be wrong? More for you then if i skip it. Enjoy.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.

    I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.

    I would stick to meat for a few reasons:

    Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.

    Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.

    Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.

    Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.

    Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.

    I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.

    Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?

    Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.

    Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?

    Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.

    Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.

    Instead of saying they "probably" aren't equal, can you tell me what you'd expect to get in a burger that isn't in the Impossible Burger?

    In my country, pollution from feedlots is a major issue and cows are fed soy and corn, even when they are pastured for part of their lives. So choosing a beef burger due to concern about pollution or monocrops wouldn't make sense.

    Real beef. Fake beef will not be real beef. It will not be the same. It may be similar but I doubt its proteins are the same or complete. I am guessing the vitamins and minerals differ. I am guessing there are more pufas and less saturated fats.

    As a human, I am designed to eat meat. I am probably not designed to eat vegan burgers. I am not saying they are bad. I am saying they are less than ideal for me. Ymmv

    "Fake" versus "real" isn't an objective nutritional difference. That's more of an emotionally driven assessment.

    You're guessing a lot here. The nutritional information is available for this product. You don't have to guess, yet you keep doing so.

    For the average person ordering a Impossible Whopper instead of a regular Whopper, is the difference in nutritional impact worth noting? I still haven't seen a compelling reason to think that there is.

    "It's not real" isn't an objection that is based in an actual assessment of the differences.

    I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.

    So it's not "real," it's not ideal, it's not what you're meant to eat. These are all emotional responses.

    I dont think that saying I am not evolved to eat vegan burgers us emotional. That's factual.

    Just like humans are not evolved to drink baby formula. They are meant to drink breast milk. If formula bad? No. Is it as good as breast milk? No. It is fake, or imitation, breast milk.

    I feel you are defending the fake/imitation beef patty emotionally. So what if it is not as nutritious as beef would be? As I said, i doubt it will make much difference in peoples' lives unless they eat it daily.

    I am saying guess because I dont want to research nutritional differences that exist between meat and vegan alternatives.

    I say designed in evolutionary terms. Not religious. Humans are meat eaters. I see no reason to replace it with soy and corn proteins if I am not being forced to. I dont see where we evolved (were designed) to rely on plant proteins, yeast and added vitamins and minerals for our nutritional needs. We can get by on it, sure, but is it ideally suited to the human body? Doubtful. Will eating imitation burger once in a while hurt? Also doubtful. But I am all for people having that option if they want it.

    You wrote "designed." If you meant "evolved," that's a different statement.

    Do you think you evolved to eat Burger King Whoppers? Go through a drive-thru? Exchange currency for a paper bag full of food?

    Why is the plant burger where the line is drawn?

    If we're looking what humans have evolved to do and limiting ourselves to activities with a long prehistorical/historical record, then Burger King as a whole is probably out. Restaurants of all kinds are out.

    Should we be limiting ourselves only to activities for which there is a well-established history over long periods of human evolution?

    It's fine not to want to research the differences between the Impossible Burger and the regular Whopper, but I do think if you refuse to educate yourself on it then it doesn't really make sense for you to offer opinions on the nutritional differences.

    This isn't an emotional defense for me, it's just intellectually hard for me to understand the exact nature of some of these objections especially when you're sharing that you haven't even bothered to learn anything about the nutritional specifics of the product in question.

    I dont eat whoppers. I dont think I ever had. I think I last ate take out in 2010. It isn't for me.

    You realize it is incredibly diverse, right?

    My two favorites are a local Ethiopian place and a local Indian place. Both are helpful because they have vegan options but also are easy to make keto-friendly (eat the Ethiopian with a fork, no bread, forget the rice and be choosy about the dishes for the Indian place), so pretty much anyone can be happy. Another favorite is a Persian place that has some vegan options, but also my favorite salmon kebobs with baba ganoush, extra veg, and a cucumber salad. Makes 3-4 meals, and so worth it.
    Tonight I had burger patties for dinner though. Beef and eggs with a few spices. I think we evolved (were designed by evolution) to eat that .

    Evolution and design are not synonyms.
    Perhaps you could offer me what you have researched on its nutritional strengths in comparison to the beef burger? You researched it because you have an opinion, correct? Nutritionally I said it is not the same as beef but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

    They seem pretty similar. Also, in some ways beef is lacking when compared with salmon (omega 3) or black beans (fiber, among other nutrients), etc., but I don't slam beef as nutritionally lacking. Foods are different. Personally, I see no reason to consume mammals and/or birds and not beef, that's not an ethical difference to me, and I think beef is pretty tasty and not unhealthy in moderation, but I do like to minimize my meat consumption (and make most of it fish), and so vegan options are nice. At a fast food place, they currently suck, so improving them seems like a good thing. (I'm doing 100% plant-based for Lent AND traveling a lot, and it's irritating how many places, not particularly fast food, have bad vegan options. Some have good salad bars and I rarely do fast food, but IMO most fast food salads aren't that appetizing so I applaud the Impossible Whopper option.

    What is diverse? Whoppers? Takeout? If takeout, I realize that LOL As I said,repeatedly, it is nice that people have options.

    Takeout. I think that was obvious from the context.

    I guess not
    I'm not sure where you got slamming from stating that a plant based food is not the same as a meat. Its not. It is not as nutritiounously complete as meat. One could live on beef patties alone, (I would get bored). One could NOT live on vegan patties alone. Again, I am not saying they are bad but they are not of the same nutritional quality.

    It's still a nice option for people who want it.

    We disagree about it being a healthy choice to live on beef patties alone, or that being nutritionally complete.

    It's kind of silly to suggest a food is a worse choice than another food because it's not nutritionally complete. Basically no foods are nutritionally complete, that's why we don't eat only one food (and it's not normal for human societies to be based on monodiets absent hardship reasons like poverty and lack of options).

    You are putting words in my mouth and arguing against things that were not said.

    I never said whopper patties were healthy. I said they were more nutritionally complete than imitation beef, then I pointed out that one could live on beef patties and not on vegan patties. Not that one should do either.

    So we will disagree then, about beef patties being nutritionally complete ( I know a few people who live on beef alone) and that beef and imitation beef do not have the same nutrition (they are different foods so I dont understand how they could face the same nutrition).

    ??? I didn't say they have the same nutrition. I said neither is nutritionally complete, and that not being nutritionally complete is an odd reason to avoid a food. (I don't think it's odd to avoid the food for other reasons, including being squicked out, even irrationally, by the ingredients, avoiding gluten or soy, not wanting to eat fast food, whatever, assumptions about the taste.) I think the idea that the Impossible burger whopper should be avoided because it is less nutritious than a whopper makes no sense, however.

    So you weren't arguing against my point. My mistake. We'll move on then .
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    try2again wrote: »
    OK... can't believe I did this, but this back & forth about the nutritional difference made me curious and I figured others might be as well. I was looking to make a simple, side-by-side comparison, which was not so easy. Ended up taking the nutrition breakdown from Impossible Burger's website, and filled in the comparable USDA info by hand, rounded for easy comparison. Can't guarantee it's not error-free. The USDA calculator I used didn't provide the % daily value for the 4 oz serving size, and I certainly wasn't going to any more trouble.


    Nutrition Facts
    Serving size4 oz. (113g)
    Amount per serving

    New Recipe Impossible Burger USDA 85% Ground Beef (raw)

    Calories240 243
    % Daily Value*
    Total Fat14g 18% 17g
    Saturated Fat8g 40% 6.5g
    Trans Fat0g 1g
    Cholesterol0mg 0% 77g
    Sodium370mg 16% 75g
    Total Carbohydrate9g 3% 0g
    Dietary Fiber3g 11% 0g
    Total Sugars<1g 0g
    Includes<1g Added Sugars 1%
    Protein19g 31% 21g
    Vitamin D0mcg 0% 0mcg
    Calcium170mg 15% 17mg
    Iron4.2mg 25% 2mg
    Potassium610mg 15% 333mg
    Thiamin28.2mg 2350% 0mg
    Riboflavin0.4mg 30% 0mg
    Niacin5.3mg 35% 5mg
    Vitamin B60.4mg 25% 0mg
    Folate115mcg DFE 30% 7mcg
    Vitamin B123mcg 130% 2.5mcg
    Phosphorus180mg 15% 194mg
    Zinc5.5mg 50% 5mg
    * The % Daily Value tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice.

    Edited to add: Sorry- it didn't turn out right at all. It squished all of the data together & I'm not going to go back & redo it. The numbers are still there for comparison. If someone can/wants to do it better, have at it :)

    Impressed by the work that took. Cheers.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited April 2019
    This came up on Twitter:

    The new recipe has 8g less protein but it is 31% of the DV of protein vs 27%. I haven't tried to figure out that math yet.

  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    So, the primary objections seem to be along these lines:
    • Clean eaters/food purists: Not natural, list of scary ingredients
    • Sodium fears, soy fears, etc...
    • Carnivore/keto: a vegan beef substitute implies that their sacred cows are unnecessary

    Did I miss anything?

    I don't really fit into those boxes (I defy boxes! or something :p ), though I suppose that's where "primary" comes in. I just personally don't really see the need to try it. Plus I'm assuming it costs more than beef burgers. I don't currently have anything against it mind you.