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?

13468911

Replies

  • swirlybee
    swirlybee Posts: 497 Member
    I've tried the Impossible Burger at three places now - Umami Burger, Fat Burger, and Carl's Jr. So far, Umami Burger was the best and the only one that was indistinguishable from a real burger. Fat Burger tasted and looked more like ground chicken or ground pork. I tried Carl's Jr twice and the second time it made me nauseous about halfway through. I thought I read somewhere that it has to be cooked a certain way in order for it taste like real beef.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    NovusDies 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.

    Adaptation is part of the human design. That is how you are on the internet right now balking at something you have no interest in eating like you are afraid of it.

    Hardly. I also choose not to eat the fries or a regular soda. Just because it is there is not a good enough reason for me to eat it.

    I already said it is nice that the option is there for vegetarians who enjoy meat or for those who eat halal. I choose to forgo that option, and not for fear of it.... why would someone fear a veggie burger? Lol perhaps the flavour? But I've heard they arent too bad.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    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. 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 .

    The line does not need to be drawn at plant burgers. I have said over and over that it's a nice option for people to have. I just do not want to eat it. I wouldn't eat the bun or the fries or drink a glass if milk either. It's just food choices based in my own needs and preferences. Just because it is there is no reason for me to eat it.

    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.

    To me it comes down to why would I eat an imitation burger, that costs more and does not have the same nutrition as beef, when i could eat and enjoy the beef patty? I can see no reason at all.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    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.
  • newmeadow
    newmeadow Posts: 1,295 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    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 said it was gross and Burger King employees were going to laugh at it and they gave me, like, a wicked lot of woos.

    I'm confused why you quoted me here.

    Are you mad because I didn't include your objection? Yours didn't seem that significant, it just seemed to be based on your personal distaste.
    Are you blaming me for the woo's that you got? I didn't quote you or reference you in any way, so I don't see the relation.
    Are you upset that I didn't get as many woo's as you? Maybe you triggered some BK employees.

    What gives?

    OMG. Nevermind. It was a lighthearted goof about a silly burger discussion. No paranoia on my part. No accusations intended by quoting you.

  • tbright1965
    tbright1965 Posts: 852 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I fully expect someone to pop in going full Dr. Strangelove:

    You mean like the protection of our precious bodily fluids, or how I learned to love the Impossible Whopper?
  • newmeadow
    newmeadow Posts: 1,295 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    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 said it was gross and Burger King employees were going to laugh at it and they gave me, like, a wicked lot of woos.

    I'm confused why you quoted me here.

    Are you mad because I didn't include your objection? Yours didn't seem that significant, it just seemed to be based on your personal distaste.
    Are you blaming me for the woo's that you got? I didn't quote you or reference you in any way, so I don't see the relation.
    Are you upset that I didn't get as many woo's as you? Maybe you triggered some BK employees.

    What gives?

    OMG. Nevermind. It was a lighthearted goof about a silly burger discussion. No paranoia on my part. No accusations intended by quoting you.

    Have you not been reading? This discussion will decide the fate of the entire world! What if we evolve to only eat impossible things?

    I'll have to reread it from the beginning. Admittedly, I just hadn't realized the gravity of it all.

  • h7463
    h7463 Posts: 626 Member
    MikePTY wrote: »
    Why is a burger made from plants "faker" than one made from meat that isn't beef?

    I'm not aware of anyone selling the Impossible Burger as something it isn't. The plant-based status of the burger has been made quite clear in all the marketing material that I've seen.

    So if one isn't opposed to eating a chicken burger or a turkey burger, why is the plant burger the only one that is dismissed as "fake" and not even to be considered as a potential meal?

    I get objections based on taste. I get objections based on dietary restrictions (no soy, etc). I don't get the blanket objection to something that is "fake," especially when a turkey burger is considered to be acceptable.

    I do wonder how many people who think it is "fake" and could never taste like the real thing, if they would actually be able to notice the difference in a blind taste test? I think if people go in thinking what they are eating is "fake" or bad, then they will naturally have sort of a placebo affect to thinking the taste is different. But if they ate a real whopper and an impossible whopper, how many could correctly predict which is the real whopper?

    On the bold part of the quote... There is something about beef getting stuck in my teeth...I think that would give away the 'real' whopper... :D
  • dsboohead
    dsboohead Posts: 1,899 Member
    I would try it but I only wish it was more meat/like meat product and less bready bun.
  • try2again
    try2again Posts: 3,562 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    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 said it was gross and Burger King employees were going to laugh at it and they gave me, like, a wicked lot of woos.

    I'm confused why you quoted me here.

    Are you mad because I didn't include your objection? Yours didn't seem that significant, it just seemed to be based on your personal distaste.
    Are you blaming me for the woo's that you got? I didn't quote you or reference you in any way, so I don't see the relation.
    Are you upset that I didn't get as many woo's as you? Maybe you triggered some BK employees.

    What gives?

    OMG. Nevermind. It was a lighthearted goof about a silly burger discussion. No paranoia on my part. No accusations intended by quoting you.

    Have you not been reading? This discussion will decide the fate of the entire world! What if we evolve to only eat impossible things?

    Then we all had better go scoop up some stock in Impossible Foods ;)
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited April 2019
    NovusDies wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    NovusDies 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.

    Adaptation is part of the human design. That is how you are on the internet right now balking at something you have no interest in eating like you are afraid of it.

    Hardly. I also choose not to eat the fries or a regular soda. Just because it is there is not a good enough reason for me to eat it.

    I already said it is nice that the option is there for vegetarians who enjoy meat or for those who eat halal. I choose to forgo that option, and not for fear of it.... why would someone fear a veggie burger? Lol perhaps the flavour? But I've heard they arent too bad.

    So you don't eat a burger king and you think it is a nice option for vegetarians. Can I assume you are done in this thread then?

    Lol nm
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    swirlybee wrote: »
    I've tried the Impossible Burger at three places now - Umami Burger, Fat Burger, and Carl's Jr. So far, Umami Burger was the best and the only one that was indistinguishable from a real burger. Fat Burger tasted and looked more like ground chicken or ground pork. I tried Carl's Jr twice and the second time it made me nauseous about halfway through. I thought I read somewhere that it has to be cooked a certain way in order for it taste like real beef.

    Helpful information. I am curious to try it myself.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    NovusDies wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    newmeadow wrote: »
    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 said it was gross and Burger King employees were going to laugh at it and they gave me, like, a wicked lot of woos.

    I'm confused why you quoted me here.

    Are you mad because I didn't include your objection? Yours didn't seem that significant, it just seemed to be based on your personal distaste.
    Are you blaming me for the woo's that you got? I didn't quote you or reference you in any way, so I don't see the relation.
    Are you upset that I didn't get as many woo's as you? Maybe you triggered some BK employees.

    What gives?

    OMG. Nevermind. It was a lighthearted goof about a silly burger discussion. No paranoia on my part. No accusations intended by quoting you.

    Have you not been reading? This discussion will decide the fate of the entire world! What if we evolve to only eat impossible things?

    I'll have to reread it from the beginning. Admittedly, I just hadn't realized the gravity of it all.

    The Gravity's Rainbow of it all, please!
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    I'd be willing to try it.
  • Noreenmarie1234
    Noreenmarie1234 Posts: 7,492 Member
    I really don't see the problem. It's an option, not a replacement. People are not being told to replace beef with soy, but if they want to eat a plant-based burger that's close to beef in taste/texture, there's an option. Some may eat them instead of beef, some may eat them as their own product, and some may eat them along with beef (some may not enjoy the taste and may choose to not eat them at all). Why is this an issue?

    I agree. Also I thought burger king always had a veggie burger option anyways?
  • DanSanthomes
    DanSanthomes Posts: 135 Member
    edited April 2019
    I would't eat it from Burger King though. Every single time I've had Burger King I have vomited. And I did try more than once to make sure it wasn't just a coincidence and I was feeling sick from something else. No. It was the burger. McDonald's is fine tho. No vomiting there.

    Strange. I've puked twice after McD's (UK) but never BK. I rarely eat junk food any more but used to eat veggie 'meat' when I was pescetarian. I'd give the Whopper a go I reckon if it makes it to Blighty.

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited April 2019
    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.