Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Thoughts on Beyond Burger and other fake meat

11819202224

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,897Member Member Posts: 4,897Member Member
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.
    edited February 19
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 22,096Member Member Posts: 22,096Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.

    This is an interesting topic to me. My guess, just based on observations and experience, is that most people aren't actively thinking of the animal and experiencing pleasure specific to the action of eating them when they're eating meat. It's a pleasure of taste and texture, not a pleasure based on the actions that brought the animal to the state of being meat.

    I think the exceptions would be hunters/farmers, who may feel pride/pleasure/pleasant associations with memories of the hunt or raising the animal (similar, perhaps, to how a gardener may feel when they're eating vegetables they grew themselves?) and maybe some people who have spiritual/mystical associations with the specific practice of consuming the body of someone who used to be alive (I've seen some people who are part of the "humane meat" community talk about quite specific pleasures of eating someone who they felt had a happier life than is usually given animals within the farming system).

    Once you take this relatively small group of people out, I think there are people who enjoy meat and would even avoid faux meat due to concerns about processing/ingredients/unnaturalness, but still aren't actively focusing on how it all comes together.

    When I ate meat, I certainly wouldn't have classified eating an individual animal as one of the pleasures of eating meat. It was simply something that had to happen so that I could eat meat, something that I thought was relatively inevitable. So once eating an animal was no longer acceptable to me, I had no problem with the opportunity to continue the "eating meat" part without the need to eat an animal.

    I do think the argument that vegans should avoid meatlike products doesn't really make sense to me, given that we commonly eat foods that replicate milk, butter, cheese, etc. We also have a pretty widespread acceptance of things like portobello burgers. I guess my question for those who oppose faux meat on supposed ethical grounds would be "Where do you draw the line of what is 'too much' like an animal product to be okay?"
    edited February 19
  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 14,899Member Member Posts: 14,899Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.

    This is an interesting topic to me. My guess, just based on observations and experience, is that most people aren't actively thinking of the animal and experiencing pleasure specific to the action of eating them when they're eating meat. It's a pleasure of taste and texture, not a pleasure based on the actions that brought the animal to the state of being meat.

    I think the exceptions would be hunters/farmers, who may feel pride/pleasure/pleasant associations with memories of the hunt or raising the animal (similar, perhaps, to how a gardener may feel when they're eating vegetables they grew themselves?) and maybe some people who have spiritual/mystical associations with the specific practice of consuming the body of someone who used to be alive (I've seen some people who are part of the "humane meat" community talk about quite specific pleasures of eating someone who they felt had a happier life than is usually given animals within the farming system).

    Once you take this relatively small group of people out, I think there are people who enjoy meat and would even avoid faux meat due to concerns about processing/ingredients/unnaturalness, but still aren't actively focusing on how it all comes together.

    When I ate meat, I certainly wouldn't have classified eating an individual animal as one of the pleasures of eating meat. It was simply something that had to happen so that I could eat meat, something that I thought was relatively inevitable. So once eating an animal was no longer acceptable to me, I had no problem with the opportunity to continue the "eating meat" part without the need to eat an animal.

    I do think the argument that vegans should avoid meatlike products doesn't really make sense to me, given that we commonly eat foods that replicate milk, butter, cheese, etc. We also have a pretty widespread acceptance of things like portobello burgers. I guess my question for those who oppose faux meat on supposed ethical grounds would be "Where do you draw the line of what is 'too much' like an animal product to be okay?"

    I relate to this. I don't typically think about what meat really is or where it comes from when I eat a burger or a ham sandwich or a fried egg and bacon. Like my story about the abandoned bird's egg, while I can't eat a runny yolk, I eat hard cooked eggs all the time. But I cannot bring myself to eat an entree that still looks like the animal, like a fish with it's head, or a whole pig that they actually carve in front of you. I eat cleaned shrimp, but am grossed out by crawfish with the heads still on. Like the Chinese duck in A Christmas Story, I can't eat it if it's looking at me! But my brain is habituated to thinking about a chicken cutlet or a steak as just disassociated "food", it just doesn't register for me. And I don't think that's all that unusual. I assume it's tied in to how separated many of us are from where our food comes from. It's what allows these industries to get away with the horrific practices they do. And it's not something I'm putting forward as a good thing, it's something I'm actively working to change in my thought process.

    And I agree with @AnnPT77 that disagreeing with that "reasoning" is an odd choice of words. You don't choose what tastes you enjoy and which make you gag. They just do. You can choose not to eat something tasty for other reasons, just like you can choose to eat something that grosses you out because you are starving or to be polite. But you don't decide to like the taste of something.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 22,096Member Member Posts: 22,096Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.

    This is an interesting topic to me. My guess, just based on observations and experience, is that most people aren't actively thinking of the animal and experiencing pleasure specific to the action of eating them when they're eating meat. It's a pleasure of taste and texture, not a pleasure based on the actions that brought the animal to the state of being meat.

    I think the exceptions would be hunters/farmers, who may feel pride/pleasure/pleasant associations with memories of the hunt or raising the animal (similar, perhaps, to how a gardener may feel when they're eating vegetables they grew themselves?) and maybe some people who have spiritual/mystical associations with the specific practice of consuming the body of someone who used to be alive (I've seen some people who are part of the "humane meat" community talk about quite specific pleasures of eating someone who they felt had a happier life than is usually given animals within the farming system).

    Once you take this relatively small group of people out, I think there are people who enjoy meat and would even avoid faux meat due to concerns about processing/ingredients/unnaturalness, but still aren't actively focusing on how it all comes together.

    When I ate meat, I certainly wouldn't have classified eating an individual animal as one of the pleasures of eating meat. It was simply something that had to happen so that I could eat meat, something that I thought was relatively inevitable. So once eating an animal was no longer acceptable to me, I had no problem with the opportunity to continue the "eating meat" part without the need to eat an animal.

    I do think the argument that vegans should avoid meatlike products doesn't really make sense to me, given that we commonly eat foods that replicate milk, butter, cheese, etc. We also have a pretty widespread acceptance of things like portobello burgers. I guess my question for those who oppose faux meat on supposed ethical grounds would be "Where do you draw the line of what is 'too much' like an animal product to be okay?"

    I relate to this. I don't typically think about what meat really is or where it comes from when I eat a burger or a ham sandwich or a fried egg and bacon. Like my story about the abandoned bird's egg, while I can't eat a runny yolk, I eat hard cooked eggs all the time. But I cannot bring myself to eat an entree that still looks like the animal, like a fish with it's head, or a whole pig that they actually carve in front of you. I eat cleaned shrimp, but am grossed out by crawfish with the heads still on. Like the Chinese duck in A Christmas Story, I can't eat it if it's looking at me! But my brain is habituated to thinking about a chicken cutlet or a steak as just disassociated "food", it just doesn't register for me. And I don't think that's all that unusual. I assume it's tied in to how separated many of us are from where our food comes from. It's what allows these industries to get away with the horrific practices they do. And it's not something I'm putting forward as a good thing, it's something I'm actively working to change in my thought process.

    And I agree with @AnnPT77 that disagreeing with that "reasoning" is an odd choice of words. You don't choose what tastes you enjoy and which make you gag. They just do. You can choose not to eat something tasty for other reasons, just like you can choose to eat something that grosses you out because you are starving or to be polite. But you don't decide to like the taste of something.

    I've known several people who don't like eating meat off the bone -- whether it's ribs or a fried chicken leg or whatever. They'll happily eat the same meat deboned, but eating it off the bone takes it out of the "food" category for them.

    I was a relatively unbothered eater when I ate meat. I mean, there was stuff I didn't like the taste of, but there was little that really bothered me. I could eat, for example, a fish with a head. One thing I couldn't ever have done was eat something that was still alive (not a common practice in the West, but not unheard of in, say, Japan). It's something I couldn't ever have brought myself to try. I don't think the faux meat industry will ever make it that far into replicating culinary experiences!
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,124Member Member Posts: 1,124Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.

    If that's the contention, I extremely don't get it. Would a person who was raised vegan be okay, then, to eat beyond burgers, but someone that knows eating cows is doing something wrong having one? If not, the argument seems like there's an assumed spiritual component to veganism? Pretty sure nonspiritual veganism exists.
  • lrober11lrober11 Posts: 4Member Member Posts: 4Member Member
    I feel like we make everything complicated in this country. The BEST diet for you (unless you have very specific health concerns that REQUIRE you to eliminate certain foods) are a REAL, WHOLE FOODS DIET. The less processed the better... that goes for everything including food substitutes like the beyond meat burgers. Getting back to our basics- fruit, vegetables, and proteins consisting of fish, meat, poultry is what's needed. It's that simple. I lost 20 lbs 2 years ago before I was pregnant. Hardly ever exercised... literally just eliminated almost anything processed from my diet including *gasp* breads and vegetable oils, unless it was a special occasion that I felt I wanted to eat something at a restaurant or what have you. Didn't feel deprived. Didn't have to count macros. My taste buds literally changed. Inflammation went down, bloating gone, skin issues gone. It was eye opening. I switched to wild caught fish, grassfed or pasture raised meats. You literally cannot go wrong getting back to our primal, basics. If you want some hard truth on a lot of these issues I love the approach from integrative dietician Ali Miller, RD. It will change how you view our food.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 22,096Member Member Posts: 22,096Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    ceiswyn wrote: »
    mbaker566 wrote: »
    i understand what you all are saying but I can't really agree with it.
    i wouldn't wear fake leather or fake fur either if i were a vegan but whatever if it works for you.

    What do you mean by 'I can't agree with it'? You think we're wrong about our own tastes, reasons and decisions?

    i'm saying your reasoning doesn't make sense to me. but again, whatever works for you

    If you were vegan would you quit: eating jello, using shampoo and conditioners, using paintbrushes, doing your makeup, and many other products just because they usually contain non-vegan ingredients? Using a synthetic paint brush should not really be an issue for a vegan, but you're saying it should. How does that make sense?

    Yes, you explained well why mbaker's argument is one that I don't so much disagree with, but just don't follow at all. Or why would the same argument not mean that vegans should avoid soy milk, as that is largely used because it somewhat shares the taste and mouthfeel and use of milk, and also has a similar protein content?

    I think kimny's answer helped me somewhat -- the line of thought must be that someone eating a plant-based product intended to taste like beef is mimicking the experience of "eating cow." Instead, I think they are enjoying an experience of eating a tasty food that is usually (but not necessarily) made from beef. And I would add that I don't think most meat eaters enjoy a burger because it is the experience of "eating cow." I think they mostly don't think much about where the food comes from and unless they are specifically eating food they hunted for themselves aren't likely to be thinking about the animal much at all, more the taste. They simply are okay with that taste (and the nutrients it comes with) being provided by the animal.

    If that's the contention, I extremely don't get it. Would a person who was raised vegan be okay, then, to eat beyond burgers, but someone that knows eating cows is doing something wrong having one? If not, the argument seems like there's an assumed spiritual component to veganism? Pretty sure nonspiritual veganism exists.

    This is such an interesting observation. If the "wrongness" of a vegan eating a meat substitute comes from experiencing the similarity to animal-based meat, then a vegan who is unable to appreciate the similarity wouldn't be doing anything "wrong."

    However, if the wrongness comes from *others* observing the behavior, then it would only be wrong if those observing you recognized that it was similar to meat. By this standard, any vegan eating any kind of ambigious or potentially misclassified food is doing something wrong.

    If I go to Whole Foods and buy a vegan chocolate chip cookie and then walk down the street eating it, someone I pass may see me and assume it is a standard cookie. I have now transgressed as I am *appearing* to engage in the behavior of consuming animal products. This expectation would result in most vegans consuming food privately unless it is clearly labelled or obviously a non-animal product.

    So level 5 vegans eat nothing that cast a shadow, but level 6 vegans eat everything in shadows?

    :D
  • Nony_MouseNony_Mouse Posts: 5,317Member Member Posts: 5,317Member Member
    lrober11 wrote: »
    I feel like we make everything complicated in this country. The BEST diet for you (unless you have very specific health concerns that REQUIRE you to eliminate certain foods) are a REAL, WHOLE FOODS DIET. The less processed the better... that goes for everything including food substitutes like the beyond meat burgers. Getting back to our basics- fruit, vegetables, and proteins consisting of fish, meat, poultry is what's needed. It's that simple. I lost 20 lbs 2 years ago before I was pregnant. Hardly ever exercised... literally just eliminated almost anything processed from my diet including *gasp* breads and vegetable oils, unless it was a special occasion that I felt I wanted to eat something at a restaurant or what have you. Didn't feel deprived. Didn't have to count macros. My taste buds literally changed. Inflammation went down, bloating gone, skin issues gone. It was eye opening. I switched to wild caught fish, grassfed or pasture raised meats. You literally cannot go wrong getting back to our primal, basics. If you want some hard truth on a lot of these issues I love the approach from integrative dietician Ali Miller, RD. It will change how you view our food.

    She offers cancer treatment as a service on her website. Interesting that an RD is moonlighting as an oncologist.

    "With food-as-medicine approaches, we can aggressively fight tumor growth" followed by this "Food-as-medicine tip": "Try sauteeing broccoli with garlic."

    Now I am a huge broccoli fan, but even I think that's promising a bit too much.

    https://www.alimillerrd.com/treatments/cancer/

    I'm skeptical about the benefits of a lifestyle where you hardly ever exercise. What's aspirational about avoiding physical activity? With my diet which includes *gasp* the occasional Beyond Burger, I actually look forward to exercise and do it frequently. Inflammation, bloating, and skin issues . . . lots of people don't have those (although I'm glad that yours are gone). So if you asked me to choose between my current life with bread and running and skin that's pretty darn good and some "primal" life where I have to believe that broccoli is a cancer treatment . . . well, I've already chosen.

    Particularly from someone touting the benefits of a 'primal' lifestyle...
    lrober11 wrote: »
    I feel like we make everything complicated in this country. The BEST diet for you (unless you have very specific health concerns that REQUIRE you to eliminate certain foods) are a REAL, WHOLE FOODS DIET. The less processed the better... that goes for everything including food substitutes like the beyond meat burgers. Getting back to our basics- fruit, vegetables, and proteins consisting of fish, meat, poultry is what's needed. It's that simple. I lost 20 lbs 2 years ago before I was pregnant. Hardly ever exercised... literally just eliminated almost anything processed from my diet including *gasp* breads and vegetable oils, unless it was a special occasion that I felt I wanted to eat something at a restaurant or what have you. Didn't feel deprived. Didn't have to count macros. My taste buds literally changed. Inflammation went down, bloating gone, skin issues gone. It was eye opening. I switched to wild caught fish, grassfed or pasture raised meats. You literally cannot go wrong getting back to our primal, basics. If you want some hard truth on a lot of these issues I love the approach from integrative dietician Ali Miller, RD. It will change how you view our food.

    Rarely have I found a post I disagree with so much, and yet felt so little interest in bothering with presenting counter factuals.
    At most I feel like just bring up the cliched life expectancy of our primal ancestors as died at the ripe old age of found a delicious spot of tuberculosis infected carrion.

    Yep, me too.
  • snickerscharliesnickerscharlie Posts: 8,549Member Member Posts: 8,549Member Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Why is less processed always better?

    It's the thread-reboot point . . . every four or five pages someone new will come in, read the first post, and proceed to blow our minds with the nutritional wisdom they assume was previously unstated.

    This makes perfect sense. Thanks!
    edited February 20
Sign In or Register to comment.