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.
Thoughts on Beyond Burger and other fake meat
Replies
-
So much stuff about beyond burger. I just think okay.. It's processed food. Of course, in a perfect world, we would grind up stuff for our own beyond burgers and make our own from scratch. However, now and then I think it's fair to say most of us eat processed food sometimes and as long as you don't make it a habit oh well..1
-
I personally don't love the taste of the mock meats. I used to eat them but after I lost my taste for meat I also lost my taste for fake meats.
As a plant based eater I do limit my consumption of highly processed foods. I do eat a lot of minimally processed foods such as canned beans, frozen veggies, rice, tofu, etc.
I don't think there is anything wrong with eating highly processed foods, depending on context. I may drink a coke when trail running because it is easy for me to consume and gives me very fast energy when I need it. I don't drink coke at home. I eat bread and cereal which have some added micronutrients that I need in my diet.
Since I've been on this diet i have learned that highly processed foods are much easier for me to overeat than most other foods. I've lost a good bit of weight and have no intention of ever regaining. I limit chips, chocolate, dairy- free ice cream and other foods like this because I will overeat them. On the other hand I do not overeat broccoli, beans or other whole foods. Other people may have different experiences.
4 -
I tend to be a firm believer that the wider variety a consumer has to pick from, the better.
Ecologically speaking, plant-based meat replacements tend to be more sustainable than industrialized meat/poultry/etc farming (I'm not saying those are the only two options, but in our current system those are the two major contenders). That's a big win for the environmentalists in the world. Everything is a balancing game, of course, cus human health matters as well, but it's hard to dislike a system actively engaging with environmental sustainability.
There are two types of veggie burgers in the world - those that are doing their best to imitate meat (Beyond and Impossible are the closest to perfecting that art), and those that embrace their veggieness (quinoa patties, black bean patties, portabella patties, etc). The latter tend to be less processed than the former, because why bother. Personally, I am over the moon that Beyond/Impossible are offered by major fast food chains across the country. This may be taboo on a fitness forum, but it's totally okay to enjoy a fast food meal every now and again - and there are unquestionably circumstances where the pros of a quick BK stop outweigh the cons (group work travel, for example). Been a veggie for over half my life - I am truly grateful that there are more options for me on the menu now than there have been historically.
All that said - if someone is going to a BK for "health food," they've sort of missed the point.7 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »I'm really surprised by some of the price comparisons in this thread. However, I guess you get a lot more super cheap feed lot raised cheap end beef in the US.
If you mean my comparison of WF ground beef vs. the Beyond Burger, it's not likely to be "super cheap" and was identified as pastured, although depending on how they use the labels could have been corn finished on a feedlot, which is common not only for low end beef.
It's actually possible to get ground beef quite a bit cheaper than the WF priced ones I gave, but I thought comparing more like products likely to be purchased by similar buyers made more sense (which is why I also showed a couple of more expensive ground beef options too).
Of course, ANY non fast food restaurant burger is going to cost quite a bit more than ground beef in the grocery store, which is the comparison you are giving. The prices you identify are consistent with what I could get a burger for at, say, a local pub.
I've no idea what WF is or means. However, 3.99USD a pound is about half what it costs here for minced beef.
The only place I know here that has the Beyond Burger only charges an extra 10 SEK compared to the double you'd quoted. I've never seen them sold in a shop here FWIW.1 -
Because different folks, different strokes. For example with white rice vs brown rice - white is more processed than brown but the ingredient list just says rice. From what I've read no one argues white rice is more nutritious that brown rice.
Brown rice says "whole grain brown rice" or the like when it has a label (whole grains in general specify). Even more significantly, we know the difference between white and brown rice, whole grains and more refined grains. That's knowing the ingredients. Focusing on the level of processing seems like a good way to avoid actually discussing or understanding the nutritional differences.
(I prefer brown rice and would give it a slight edge due to a bit more fiber and protein, but the nutritional differences, especially when you look at what is accessible to the body, between brown and white rice are not that high.)Everyone has their own philosophy on food that is supported by the research they've read or chosen to believe. So we interact with the world based on that philosophy. If reading ingredients works for you, good, if it doesn't that's ok too.
I'm not talking about personal philosophies of food, since I have my own preferred way of eating that is not something I try to preach to others or claim is the one healthiest way to eat. I very much prefer to focus on whole foods or minimally processed foods, but I don't pretend that's other than personal preference and taste or that I can only overeat more processed foods (in fact since I think less processed and home (or good restaurant) made foods are tastier I think they are easier to overeat. What I am instead talking about are claims like "it's processed so it must not be healthy." That's not a personal philosophy, that's a fact claim about how to interpret the nutritional qualities of foods, and I don't think it's a very good metric. (It's like assuming someone is too dumb to use good sense in navigating a grocery store so telling them that you must only buy food along the perimeter and not in the aisles, ignoring that a lot of stores have things like wine and beer and the bakery and cheeses and the lunchmeats along the perimeter, and frozen foods (including fruit and veg) and canned foods and nuts and oats and other whole grains and in some cases even fresh fruit and veg not on the perimeter. It's distracting from the real distinctions, and assuming people cannot make sensible judgments about what actually is nutritious and not, so must learn a simplistic distinction (processed=bad, more processing=more bad) that is simply not true.
My problem with trying to substitute generalized and not well distinguished categories based on levels of processing is that people seem to ask if something is processed and use that to decide its nutritional qualities when there are better (and IMO more intelligent and informed) ways. Focusing on an analysis such as "this has these nutritional qualifies and ingredients so it does or does not count as ultraprocessed and I think ultraprocessed is bad" doesn't seem to add anything except another level of confusion. Let's (again) take the white bean patties I mentioned. Some would call them ultraprocessed, some highly processed, some perhaps minimally processed, some would say they are ultraprocessed but the exact same ingredients at home would = minimally processed or even not processed. So how does that help one decide if the white bean patty is a positive addition to their diet? I don't think it does. I think looking at the ingredients and nutritional profile, on the other hand, does, along with how they feel/react when they eat it, and how it tastes.My comment about grass fed related to canadjineh's comment
Thanks for clarifying.3 -
Think of processed meat replacements like any other processed thing and/or fast food. If you enjoy it, have it as an occasional treat. Good for the earth but not great for your body. If you are doing it for your health.... limit (or cut out) processed.
So yogurt, protein powder, kimchi, canned tomato sauce with a sheer lack of ingredients (tomatoes, onions, olive oil, salt, pepper, garlic, basil, and oregano), frozen peas (because lord knows peas are only in season for so long) are all "not great for your body"?
This is one of many reasons why this whole "processed foods are bad for you" doesn't hold water because the definition of processed is very broad. The preserved lemons that are curing in my pantry are processed, and the only ingredients are meyer lemons, salt, and maybe a tbsp of water. They're not something I'd recommend to anyone who needs to watch their salt intake, but they are bad neither for me nor the environment, unless you're arguing that shipping meyer lemons from California to Oregon is bad for the environment (and shipping the salt for where ever it's processed to here which is likely a longer distance), which is a very different (but valid) discussion.
The "bone broth" that so many people are raving about and buying in the stores is also processed, as is the homemade chicken stock and beef stock that is in my freezer despite my knowing all of the ingredients that I put into said stock.
Good grief, I guess I need to be 100% perfectly clear with the words 'processed foods'. Ultra processed as opposed to mildly or very little process. I think we all know the difference. Pepperoni or hot dogs(unless they're 100% organic/natural/homemade, etc.) for example, unless you make your own and you know specifically what goes into it. Ultra sugared cereals that have all the good grains taken out only to have vitamins sprayed back in. Any of the Little Debbie type stuff(AFAIK) are all ultra processed. Canned fruit cocktail as opposed to a piece of fresh fruit, no matter what season we're in, will never IMO be as healthy as that plain piece of fresh fruit. Sure, it's fine to eat, but in moderation. Milk, bread, meat, oatmeal, rice, vegs/fruits, they've all been processed to a point. And as far as the canned fruit cocktail comparison it was just the 1st thing that came to my mind.
TO ME, eating an apple or a couple clementines is a healthier choice. I'm not saying give up processed foods but I believe the less processing a food goes through(IOW less flavors/colors/additives) the better for our bodies.
You can pick apart just about any food and say it's been processed. To an extent. I kind of figured(or hoped!) you know what I meant.
Everyone I know off-site means 'ultra processed foods' when they say 'processed foods' but here on MFP the more precise definition prevails so I always say 'ultra processed foods' and refer to the Brazilian definition: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Doesn't Beyond Burger cost 2X+ what decent ground beef costs?
I just checked, and yes -- at WF you can get ground beef for $3.99/lb, and the Beyond Meat is $7.99/lb.
But apparently there's also a market for $8.99/lb ground beef (grass-fed and organic) or $14.99 (Niman Ranch).
Regarding whether being processed = ingredients you would not want, one of the options is the Engine2 Kale and White Beef Plant Burger (sold as a burger sub, in patties, not cheap).
It's ingredients are: navy beans, brown rice, tomatoes, plus small amounts of salt, garlic, citric acid, onion, natural flavors, oats, kale, bell pepper, flaxseed, basil, black pepper.
Clearly highly processed, but cals are 120 per patty, sodium 20 mg (less than a beef patty), no added sugar, no sat fat, 1 g of fat, 6 g of fiber. Main problem with this one is only 5 g of protein, so not really a good meat sub IMO, but I am not convinced that the processing makes it unhealthful.
Stuff like BeyondBurger is supposed to taste more like a burger for someone who wants an occasional burger but doesn't want to eat beef (or wants to cut back on it).
Now I'm wondering how many servings you can get for that $8 when you buy the dried navy beans, brown rice, and tomatoes separately!1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Think of processed meat replacements like any other processed thing and/or fast food. If you enjoy it, have it as an occasional treat. Good for the earth but not great for your body. If you are doing it for your health.... limit (or cut out) processed.
So yogurt, protein powder, kimchi, canned tomato sauce with a sheer lack of ingredients (tomatoes, onions, olive oil, salt, pepper, garlic, basil, and oregano), frozen peas (because lord knows peas are only in season for so long) are all "not great for your body"?
This is one of many reasons why this whole "processed foods are bad for you" doesn't hold water because the definition of processed is very broad. The preserved lemons that are curing in my pantry are processed, and the only ingredients are meyer lemons, salt, and maybe a tbsp of water. They're not something I'd recommend to anyone who needs to watch their salt intake, but they are bad neither for me nor the environment, unless you're arguing that shipping meyer lemons from California to Oregon is bad for the environment (and shipping the salt for where ever it's processed to here which is likely a longer distance), which is a very different (but valid) discussion.
The "bone broth" that so many people are raving about and buying in the stores is also processed, as is the homemade chicken stock and beef stock that is in my freezer despite my knowing all of the ingredients that I put into said stock.
Good grief, I guess I need to be 100% perfectly clear with the words 'processed foods'. Ultra processed as opposed to mildly or very little process. I think we all know the difference. Pepperoni or hot dogs(unless they're 100% organic/natural/homemade, etc.) for example, unless you make your own and you know specifically what goes into it. Ultra sugared cereals that have all the good grains taken out only to have vitamins sprayed back in. Any of the Little Debbie type stuff(AFAIK) are all ultra processed. Canned fruit cocktail as opposed to a piece of fresh fruit, no matter what season we're in, will never IMO be as healthy as that plain piece of fresh fruit. Sure, it's fine to eat, but in moderation. Milk, bread, meat, oatmeal, rice, vegs/fruits, they've all been processed to a point. And as far as the canned fruit cocktail comparison it was just the 1st thing that came to my mind. TO ME, eating an apple or a couple clementines is a healthier choice. I'm not saying give up processed foods but I believe the less processing a food goes through(IOW less flavors/colors/additives) the better for our bodies.
You can pick apart just about any food and say it's been processed. To an extent. I kind of figured(or hoped!) you know what I meant.
Everyone I know off-site means 'ultra processed foods' when they say 'processed foods' but here on MFP the more precise definition prevails so I always say 'ultra processed foods' and refer to the Brazilian definition: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf
No one I know off-site is even aware of the Brazilian definition and I doubt they'd know what it means, and most certainly would understand that bread and pasta and cottage cheese and protein powder and olive oil and that white bean patty I mentioned are all processed foods.
They would also likely think that highly processed and ultra processed mean the same thing (it's not clear that that's the case under the Brazilian definition), and consider protein powder and the white bean patties to be highly processed.
Thus, I don't think claiming that everyone off MFP agrees on what "processed" means (and that it means "foods that are bad for you" as Reenie seemed to be saying we should understand) is accurate -- and it kind of sounds like you are calling us disingenuous* rather than legitimately confused and saying that the language being used tends to obscure rather than clarify.
I still would really like to know if the argument about the highly processed Engine2 white bean patties is that they are really bad for us (because highly processed) or if they are being claimed to not be highly processed at all (in which case we are in Orwell land, but we already knew that, sigh).
*I know you don't mean to say that, and I think you and I usually mostly agree. It just reads to me that you are saying that we must be pretending not to understand since everyone else understands perfectly and means the same thing (which is not my experience, offline I just ignore weird usages, like someone heating up an Amy's meal in the work microwave while explaining they've given up processed food).4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Doesn't Beyond Burger cost 2X+ what decent ground beef costs?
I just checked, and yes -- at WF you can get ground beef for $3.99/lb, and the Beyond Meat is $7.99/lb.
But apparently there's also a market for $8.99/lb ground beef (grass-fed and organic) or $14.99 (Niman Ranch).
Regarding whether being processed = ingredients you would not want, one of the options is the Engine2 Kale and White Beef Plant Burger (sold as a burger sub, in patties, not cheap).
It's ingredients are: navy beans, brown rice, tomatoes, plus small amounts of salt, garlic, citric acid, onion, natural flavors, oats, kale, bell pepper, flaxseed, basil, black pepper.
Clearly highly processed, but cals are 120 per patty, sodium 20 mg (less than a beef patty), no added sugar, no sat fat, 1 g of fat, 6 g of fiber. Main problem with this one is only 5 g of protein, so not really a good meat sub IMO, but I am not convinced that the processing makes it unhealthful.
Stuff like BeyondBurger is supposed to taste more like a burger for someone who wants an occasional burger but doesn't want to eat beef (or wants to cut back on it).
Now I'm wondering how many servings you can get for that $8 when you buy the dried navy beans, brown rice, and tomatoes separately!
Oh, absolutely. Way cheaper that way, but it's generally purchased by the same demographic buying the Niman Ranch beef and pre chopped veg for enormous mark-ups, and single serving bottled non alcoholic beverages for $4+.0 -
I consider something highly processed if it is has a whole bunch of added ingredients like preservatives, artificial colors, etc. I understand that technically bread and pasta are also processed since we aren’t eating wheat in its raw form, but those grains usually don’t have a bunch of fake colors and things in them like a gummy bear or other candy does, for example. I also try to eat the whole grain version that is unbleached. I don’t really think of canned beans or chocolate as highly processed either although they are processed somewhat. I guess veggie burgers are processed but I don’t mind eating them since I’m plant based.
3 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »I'm really surprised by some of the price comparisons in this thread. However, I guess you get a lot more super cheap feed lot raised cheap end beef in the US.
If you mean my comparison of WF ground beef vs. the Beyond Burger, it's not likely to be "super cheap" and was identified as pastured, although depending on how they use the labels could have been corn finished on a feedlot, which is common not only for low end beef.
It's actually possible to get ground beef quite a bit cheaper than the WF priced ones I gave, but I thought comparing more like products likely to be purchased by similar buyers made more sense (which is why I also showed a couple of more expensive ground beef options too).
Of course, ANY non fast food restaurant burger is going to cost quite a bit more than ground beef in the grocery store, which is the comparison you are giving. The prices you identify are consistent with what I could get a burger for at, say, a local pub.
I've no idea what WF is or means. However, 3.99USD a pound is about half what it costs here for minced beef.
The only place I know here that has the Beyond Burger only charges an extra 10 SEK compared to the double you'd quoted. I've never seen them sold in a shop here FWIW.
WF = Whole Foods, a high-end grocery store chain that features a lot of organic products, humane animal products, etc. It was bought by Amazon.com a few years back.4 -
Stockholm_Andy wrote: »Stockholm_Andy wrote: »I'm really surprised by some of the price comparisons in this thread. However, I guess you get a lot more super cheap feed lot raised cheap end beef in the US.
If you mean my comparison of WF ground beef vs. the Beyond Burger, it's not likely to be "super cheap" and was identified as pastured, although depending on how they use the labels could have been corn finished on a feedlot, which is common not only for low end beef.
It's actually possible to get ground beef quite a bit cheaper than the WF priced ones I gave, but I thought comparing more like products likely to be purchased by similar buyers made more sense (which is why I also showed a couple of more expensive ground beef options too).
Of course, ANY non fast food restaurant burger is going to cost quite a bit more than ground beef in the grocery store, which is the comparison you are giving. The prices you identify are consistent with what I could get a burger for at, say, a local pub.
I've no idea what WF is or means. However, 3.99USD a pound is about half what it costs here for minced beef.
The only place I know here that has the Beyond Burger only charges an extra 10 SEK compared to the double you'd quoted. I've never seen them sold in a shop here FWIW.
Lynn explained WF already. I'll just say that if you are comparing prices in restaurants, that's a different question. I think the prices in restaurants here are likely close too. [Edit: I did a quick check of this at a burger place (online, Epic Burger) that has meat and non meat burgers. There a single burger is $6.49, a double is $7.99, and a BeyondBurger is $7.99 (but it doesn't have single and double and only a single patty, it seems, so hard to directly compare the amount of meat. I'd guess it's more comparable to the single but the patty might be thicker).]
Before my understanding was that Theoldguy was talking about in the store, and that's what I was comparing -- you can buy BeyondBeef (the "meat" in a BeyondBurger) and other similar products at the grocery store here.
Yes, meat is pretty cheap in general in the US. I wanted to clarify that the prices I was showing were not based on going to the cheapest as you seemed to assume.0 -
Too many carbs for me.0
-
Even 2 carbs can kill, kimny.13
-
YellowD0gs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »As the plant-based meats run about 7x higher in Sodium content over ground beef...pretty much a will-not-touch-unless starving choice for me, and those on Sodium restricted diets should really give a long hard look.
The majority of plant-based meats are designed to be eaten with little additional seasoning, so comparing them to ground beef in sodium content doesn't really make sense, as most people are adding seasoning to ground beef.
It would be more accurate to compare these products to the average hamburger patty, which in many cases has sodium added to it, at least in restaurants.
This post misses the point. People on a sodium restricted diet are limited to 1,500 mg/day Na (at least in the US). They're also likely on that diet because of a diagnosed medical issue (hypertension, heart disease, stroke, etc), so it's not really something they're doing by choice. Comparing raw material to raw material is exactly proper and accurate, as those on a sodium restricted diet are most likely NOT ADDING SALT during preparation. It defeats the point. Evaluating only the raw materials, one Beyond Burger 4 oz. patty has 390 mg sodium. That's 26% of the daily limit tied up in one single patty, and doesn't count the additional sodium contained in the ketchup, mustard, special sauce, bacon, cheese, and bun. All told, the Burger King reports the Impossible Burger at 1,240 mg sodium, or 83% of the daily limit. A direct comparison to 85/15 ground beef shows 81 mg sodium in a 4 ounce patty, or 5% daily limit. Burger King also reports 980 mg sodium (65%) for the regular Whopper, even with the assumed "salt added during preparation". The difference between the 2? 18% of the daily sodium limit, which is pretty obviously the result of choosing a high sodium content patty to start with. So, being on a low sodium diet, I'll generally avoid the Beyond Burger things unless absolutely necessary for one simple reason, sodium.
You shouldn't be comparing the Impossible Whopper to plain ground beef. You should be comparing it to the regular Whopper. I'm guessing people on sodium restricted diets aren't eating a lot of those either, are they?
As someone on a sodium restricted diet, I'm guessing you'd be avoiding fast food burgers generally unless they were absolutely necessary. As I pointed out, there are other options for faux meat and if there is a real market demand for reduced sodium products, I'd expect to see them on the market pretty soon.3 -
Think of processed meat replacements like any other processed thing and/or fast food. If you enjoy it, have it as an occasional treat. Good for the earth but not great for your body. If you are doing it for your health.... limit (or cut out) processed.
Again, the white bean patties I mentioned in the post immediately above yours are highly processed. Why is something like that bad for one's body (assuming one has sufficient protein in the overall diet that day)?
You're misquoting me... I didn't say it's bad... I said it's "not great". Fresh, whole foods are generally better for health. OP specifically mentioned Beyond Meat, which is not made of whole foods for health, but various food products intended to mimic meat and its nutrients. It's "not great". I reiterate that I believe in enjoying all foods, even if they're not healthful, but in moderation.
I don't understand why it isn't great. If I've been eating green vegetables all day and want some protein, a Beyond Burger is going to be a better choice nutritionally than, say, an apple or more green vegetables.8 -
More on the Whopper vs Impossible Burger comparison, the sources I've seen show the sodium difference as 980 vs. 1080, with the Whopper with cheese over 1300.
So the Impossible Whopper does have about 10% more sodium (or 100 mg).
How much salt do you need for 100 mg of sodium? 0.25 g.
I can see an argument that the Impossible Whopper is not nutritionally or health-wise much different (better or worse) than the Whopper for the vast majority of people. I'd agree. I think the difference would be ethical or taste preference (in that I don't like Whoppers I'd be curious to see if I like Impossible Whoppers more since occasionally I do end up doing a FF stop on a road trip). What I don't see is an argument that it's meaningfully worse.
If 390 mg sodium is a deal-breaker vs. the 75 mg in the same size ground beef patty (and you don't use salt), than that's a concern for you, sure. I tend to add a little seasoning to a burger, including salt, and also -- gasp! -- like to put pickles on them, and pickles come with lots of sodium. (Mustard often does too.)
For me, a 315 mg difference is nothing, given it's one food item, but then I have no sodium worries and eat mostly whole foods (and plenty of potassium) anyway.4 -
in my own experience (and i'm the fat chick who will eat anything) They get an A+ for making me think I'm eating meat, it's smoky and greasy and pretty hard to tell while you are eating it. They also get an F- for making a product that just made me feel heavy and 1/2 poisoned after I ate it. It's like my body said "Hey! That's not food!!!" I'll just eat the meat thank you.5
-
aolwapoody wrote: »in my own experience (and i'm the fat chick who will eat anything) They get an A+ for making me think I'm eating meat, it's smoky and greasy and pretty hard to tell while you are eating it. They also get an F- for making a product that just made me feel heavy and 1/2 poisoned after I ate it. It's like my body said "Hey! That's not food!!!" I'll just eat the meat thank you.
Feeling heavy after any type of fast food burger isn't an unusual experience for many people. I've had that feeling from foods containing meat before.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »aolwapoody wrote: »in my own experience (and i'm the fat chick who will eat anything) They get an A+ for making me think I'm eating meat, it's smoky and greasy and pretty hard to tell while you are eating it. They also get an F- for making a product that just made me feel heavy and 1/2 poisoned after I ate it. It's like my body said "Hey! That's not food!!!" I'll just eat the meat thank you.
Feeling heavy after any type of fast food burger isn't an unusual experience for many people. I've had that feeling from foods containing some foods with meat before.
If feeling heavy was a way to judge what is food and what isn't, then 99% of the foods I overeat are not food, including some foods people consider the epitome of health.9 -
Before going there, I want to clarify that as I understand it we are talking about the whole group of meat substitutes (based on OP's question), not merely the Impossible Burger.
That's why I posted this test taste: https://www.foodandwine.com/news/plant-based-burger-taste-test
Here's another one that understands the category much more broadly: https://www.thespruceeats.com/best-vegetarian-meats-and-substitutes-33777420 -
Re: GMO, I don't see any reason why the GMOs used in the Impossible Burger would be problematic, but I'd be interested in any reasoned argument.
My own view, to restate it, is that the attack on "meat substitutes" because they are processed is a silly attack because: (1) processing is not inherently bad, look at the ingredients and nutritional profiles; and (2) meat substitutes have a huge range of different ingredients (and processing, for that matter) and different nutritional profiles, so they would need to be looked at specifically. (I don't think the nutritional profiles of some of these products are all that great, although I think those of others are pretty good, and therefore for me the decision between some of them and meat would come down to ethics. A vegan likely would be, and I personally might be more comfortable ethically choosing an Impossible Burger than a Whopper or a BeyondBurger than some other mass-marketed chain restaurant burger. Another factor is going to come down to taste -- I don't actually like the Whopper, so would I like the ImpossibleWhopper more, dunno?)
If one were bothered by GMOs (or the relevant GMOs specifically), it's worth pointing out that this just demonstrates that you have to look at the products based on their specifics, as the BeyondMeat products apparently are not GMO.5 -
plant-based is the healthy way to go. BUT avoid fake meat because it's all highly processed.
Opinions? Just curious.
I had the impossible whopper at Burger King. It tasted just like meat, had the same texture, but the sandwich had more calories than the regular meat patty version. Not many, like 30-40, but still. I feel like if I'm eating something plant based, it shouldn't have more calories than meat (otherwise, since I'm not vegan/vegetarian, what's the point?). Not to mention, to get a non-meat patty to taste like meat, I imagine it's highly processed, and I don't like the idea of that. I tried googling the exact ingredients, but they just vaguely list the kinds of things that are in the meat (and so I'm even more suspicious when a company won't give me a direct list).
I prefer my husband's Veggie-Turkey burgers. He does 2/3 ground turkey, 1/3 finely chopped veggies (like broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots). It tastes AMAZING. It's nice way to get some extra veggies in your diet.
4 -
The ingredients of Beyond Burger (and I'd assume Impossible Burger) are listed on the packages sold at the grocery store, just like every other food product. If you go to the website of a store that sells them, most have the option to see the nutrition label or have an Ingredients tab. It's not a secret.
And I suspect the point is that these burgers are mostly intended for vegetarians or folks concerned about the environmental impact of beef (rightly so or not) and as a novelty item for others.4 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »plant-based is the healthy way to go. BUT avoid fake meat because it's all highly processed.
Opinions? Just curious.
I had the impossible whopper at Burger King. It tasted just like meat, had the same texture, but the sandwich had more calories than the regular meat patty version. Not many, like 30-40, but still. I feel like if I'm eating something plant based, it shouldn't have more calories than meat (otherwise, since I'm not vegan/vegetarian, what's the point?). Not to mention, to get a non-meat patty to taste like meat, I imagine it's highly processed, and I don't like the idea of that. I tried googling the exact ingredients, but they just vaguely list the kinds of things that are in the meat (and so I'm even more suspicious when a company won't give me a direct list).
I prefer my husband's Veggie-Turkey burgers. He does 2/3 ground turkey, 1/3 finely chopped veggies (like broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots). It tastes AMAZING. It's nice way to get some extra veggies in your diet.
The Impossible Whopper has less calories than the beef whopper, not more. It has 630 calories, compared to 660 of the original whopper. As you mentioned, not a huge difference, but it is still less, not more.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »As the plant-based meats run about 7x higher in Sodium content over ground beef...pretty much a will-not-touch-unless starving choice for me, and those on Sodium restricted diets should really give a long hard look.
The majority of plant-based meats are designed to be eaten with little additional seasoning, so comparing them to ground beef in sodium content doesn't really make sense, as most people are adding seasoning to ground beef.
It would be more accurate to compare these products to the average hamburger patty, which in many cases has sodium added to it, at least in restaurants.
This post misses the point. People on a sodium restricted diet are limited to 1,500 mg/day Na (at least in the US). They're also likely on that diet because of a diagnosed medical issue (hypertension, heart disease, stroke, etc), so it's not really something they're doing by choice. Comparing raw material to raw material is exactly proper and accurate, as those on a sodium restricted diet are most likely NOT ADDING SALT during preparation. It defeats the point. Evaluating only the raw materials, one Beyond Burger 4 oz. patty has 390 mg sodium. That's 26% of the daily limit tied up in one single patty, and doesn't count the additional sodium contained in the ketchup, mustard, special sauce, bacon, cheese, and bun. All told, the Burger King reports the Impossible Burger at 1,240 mg sodium, or 83% of the daily limit. A direct comparison to 85/15 ground beef shows 81 mg sodium in a 4 ounce patty, or 5% daily limit. Burger King also reports 980 mg sodium (65%) for the regular Whopper, even with the assumed "salt added during preparation". The difference between the 2? 18% of the daily sodium limit, which is pretty obviously the result of choosing a high sodium content patty to start with. So, being on a low sodium diet, I'll generally avoid the Beyond Burger things unless absolutely necessary for one simple reason, sodium.
You shouldn't be comparing the Impossible Whopper to plain ground beef. You should be comparing it to the regular Whopper. I'm guessing people on sodium restricted diets aren't eating a lot of those either, are they?
It's my bad if this has already been pointed out (my excuse is that I'm getting over a nasty virus), but the Impossible Whopper was compared to the regular Whopper in the post you replied to was it not?All told, the Burger King reports the Impossible Burger at 1,240 mg sodium, or 83% of the daily limit. A direct comparison to 85/15 ground beef shows 81 mg sodium in a 4 ounce patty, or 5% daily limit. Burger King also reports 980 mg sodium (65%) for the regular Whopper, even with the assumed "salt added during preparation".
Mind you, it appears that recently the Impossible Whopper's sodium content has dropped down to 1080 according to Burger King's US based website.
edit: the impossible Whopper is the only Impossible product on Burger King sells so it's safe to assume that's what was being referred to.0 -
I don't want it. It's mega processed, it's jam packed with soy and about the estrogen level of a birth control pill if you discount that it is a plant estrogen rather than an animal one. Granted I cut carbs and sugars because F U diabetes, but that's where it stops. Cutting out meat is not a thing I will do. My doctor is on the plant based wagon and I said, look, doc, you're a grown woman and you can eat whatever you want, but I'm not doing that. You tell me I need certain macros, I'll do those macros. I'll avoid things that will objectively make me sick. Meat isn't on that list of things that hurt me. I'll buy lean ground beef at the grocery store.3
-
It's my bad if this has already been pointed out (my excuse is that I'm getting over a nasty virus), but the Impossible Whopper was compared to the regular Whopper in the post you replied to was it not?
I did point out earlier that there was a small (100 mg) difference between the Whopper (no cheese) and the ImpossibleWhopper (which is a pretty tiny difference). I'm not sure why the numbers claimed by the PP for the ImpossibleWhopper were wrong, although I pointed out that they were.
The original point that the same poster made was the supposedly significant difference between a plain beef burger and a patty from the BeyondBeef product (or some other similar product). Those do have a difference of about 315 mg (which is still less than an average pinch of salt). The poster insisted that of course one would never add salt if concerned about sodium (sure, I assume one would also not add pickles and be careful in the choice of mustard), but the point was initially raised -- at least as it seemed to me -- to suggest that there was something inherently unhealthful about the level of sodium in the fake meat product, and the initial reference by that same poster to the sodium in the ImpossibleWhopper was to support that point (vs. the plain meat) in a way that didn't seem like a fair argument.
Most people who make a burger at home (not people who are super concerned about sodium and compliant to restrictions on it) likely aren't going to end up with a big difference (if any) between the burger and the BeyondBeef, and who knows which would have more sodium?
Most people aren't going to see the difference in sodium between a Whopper and Impossible Whopper as significant.
If someone is really, really concerned about avoiding sodium, they will have a burger, no salt or sodium containing condiments or pickles, etc., and might think the BeyondBeef's 390 mg sodium is too much for them, great, but that's hardly some kind of argument for the statement cited by the OP, as it was presented.
(ImpossibleWhopper also has soy if one wants to avoid it, as do some other meat substitutes that some here consider to be within the realm of what is being discussed and some do not. The BeyondBeef product does not have soy. As I eat tofu and tempeh, I don't personally find soy a disqualifier, but worth noting that "meat substitutes" are not all the same.)1 -
I watched a talk show with Marco Borges, saying plant-based is the healthy way to go. BUT avoid fake meat because it's all highly processed.
Opinions? Just curious.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of fake meat, where we've mostly focused . . . .
I don't think "plant-based is the healthy way to go" in any kind of absolute sense. I think that:
* a fully plant-based diet can be healthy
* a diet that includes meat can be healthy
* a large percentage of the population would improve their diet's healthfulness significantly if they ate more veggies and fruits than they're now eating (whether while still eating meat, or omitting meat entirely)
* a diet that includes a material fraction of processed foods can be healthy (it might be hard to come up with a healthy all-highly-processed diet, maybe; I've never tried - but the stuff in that Hall study didn't seem ridiculously terrible health-wise)
* it is odd to believe that foods humans have been eating for centuries or millennia (such as meat) are somehow inherently bad for us
Yes, additives, yes, hormones, yes, GMOs, yes, processing (to whatever degree), yes, antibiotics, yes, packaging, yes, new varieties of whatever bred for keeping and shipping qualities intead of nutrition/taste, yes, residues, yes, yes, blah blah blah. Whatever. Mostly minor issues, in the context of overall diet, unless making overall truly idiotic choices that most anyone would recognize as unreasonable.
Mostly, IMO, the best return on effort comes from eating a well-rounded, well-balanced, calorie-appropriate diet that one actually enjoys and finds practical and filling.
By "well balanced", I mean with rational levels of macronutrients (fat, protein especially), and plenty of inherently-food-based micronutrients (usually this is going to mean a decent amount of veggies, fruits, whole grains). I specify "inherently food-based" micros because bunches of essential and beneficial nutrients have been "discovered" over my lifetime, that were in food all along, and eating mostly food for nutrition hedges bets on that front (vs. fortified products or supplements) . . . though even that is probably a relatively minor issue in the big picture.
Once the nutritional positives one needs are in one's eating, I don't think there's extra credit for extra broccoli, or whatever. At that point, it's fine to eat some potato chips or a Milky Way bar or whatever the heck you want, as long as it's not poison**, and you're not allergic to it. (** Although alcohol is poison, and I think that's OK in moderation, too).
Clearly, if one has nonstandard medical conditions that come with eating guidelines, then those need to be followed, too, and may have special implications.
So:
Eat meat, don't eat meat. If you care about your weight, get appropriate calories. If you care about your health and performance, get good overall nutrition. That's the majority of benefit, right there.
And I say this as someone who's been vegetarian for 45 years, not a shill for Big Meat.
Personally, I don't care for most actual fake meat (that tries to simulate or taste like meat). I never liked meat much in the first place, so I'm not in search of food that tastes like it. I don't eat those things, because I don't enjoy them. (There are some I consider not worth their calories even if I did enjoy them, BTW.)
I don't think of (say) a black bean "burger" as fake meat (or the navy bean patty Lemurcat mentions) because it's a "fake meat" only in the very loosest metaphorical sense (might have a similar place in a meal, or in some cases similar nutritional benefits - though clearly not always). I do eat "highly processed" plant foods (peanut butter powder, tofu, others) when they fit well into my nutritional goals, and taste good to me.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions