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
-
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 -
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.
Which brings us back to the question -- does "highly processed" = "should be avoided if one cares about health."
I would say no, and that foods like this (among many others) illustrate why that's a problematic standard.
Is a specific "fake meat" product highly processed? I would expect so (depending on how we define fake meat -- I'll define it as "food intended to taste like meat"). Does it fit into a healthy diet? I can't answer that without knowing more about the specific product (although most foods do fit well into a healthy diet if the dosage makes sense).
What I disagree with is the claim that anything that qualifies as "highly processed" must be avoided if one cares about one's health.
(I also would agree with you, Ann, in disagreeing with any claim that 100% plant-based is the only healthy way to eat, although I would agree that eating more veg and fruit and more whole foods containing fiber than, say, the average American is a good idea, and that the average American also has a variety of other issues with their diet that a largely (and well-formulated) WFPB diet would improve upon. But so would a well-formulated Med diet, and a number of other sensible ways of eating.)2 -
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 repI lied 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.)
I suspect that at some point the sodium content of the Impossible Whopper was 1,240 mg, given that there are more than a few website that say that mention that it has 1,240 mg of sodium. I only posted to point out that yes, the Impossible Whopper was being compared to a regular Whopper. I have no skin in the game as I more or less completely stopped eating fast food in my early teens and now only eat it when I'm in a major bind and there are no other options.4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »And if the corn syrup and sugar bother you that much, you can dump the contents of the can into a colander and rinse. (Taste suffers a bit, but well, that's why they put the sugar syrup in the can in the first place.)
Or buy the canned fruit in its own no sugars added juice, instead of the one in syrup.
Calories aside, that is my preference on taste anyway.
3 -
I don't buy much canned fruit, tbh. But I do have a hard time finding fruit cocktail that isn't in syrup. Peaches, pears, pineapple, no problem finding it in its own juice. But fruit cocktail, not so much. (Should probably point out that I need it kosher-certified, and in Toronto, I find it difficult to locate. Not that I've tried much recently.)2
-
Not a 'healthier' choice - lots of dubious ingredients - I do not eat meat but am not tempted in the least to have one of these things. They are suppose to taste like meat - which is one (there are other reasons too) of the reasons I am a vegetarian. I don't like the taste of it.
It is expensive too.
I guess I can get behind the fact that it might sway a meat eating family/person to go meat-less every once in a while - better for the the environment (Beyond Burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions and requires 46% less energy, 99% less water and 93% less land compared to a quarter pound of U.S. beef. www.cnbc.com.
Not appealing to most non-meat eaters - these are for the meat eaters out there. I like burgers...but ones that don't taste like meat!1 -
From my supermarket trip earlier tonight.
7 -
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 repI lied 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.)
I suspect that at some point the sodium content of the Impossible Whopper was 1,240 mg, given that there are more than a few website that say that mention that it has 1,240 mg of sodium. I only posted to point out that yes, the Impossible Whopper was being compared to a regular Whopper. I have no skin in the game as I more or less completely stopped eating fast food in my early teens and now only eat it when I'm in a major bind and there are no other options.
Perhaps it was in the past, depending on the source. The PP seemed to be claiming it was from the BK.com site, which it was not, and I was suspicious of the motivation of the post and the sources for it given it inflated the difference (I also wondered if the PP understood what a truly tiny difference the 100 mg was).
I think neither you nor I have any personal investment here, but I wanted to add the prior context, which is why I think jane's post made sense. Someone concerned about not exceeding 1500 mg of sodium to the point of caring about a 100 mg difference (or even a 315 mg difference, which is less than an average pinch of salt) presumably wouldn't think the 980 mg in the Whopper, no cheese, was acceptable either (saying 1080 is outrageous but 980 is okay makes absolutely no sense). So the mere fact that they did give the amount in the Whopper didn't change the argument, IMO.
But reasonable minds can differ!2 -
Not appealing to most non-meat eaters - these are for the meat eaters out there. I like burgers...but ones that don't taste like meat!
Lots of non meat eaters like the taste of meat, though, and might like having an occasional option that tastes like meat.
I dislike most fast food and in particular there's nothing at BK I like, but if I were someone who went vegetarian for ethical reasons (and I know plenty) yet really liked and missed a Whopper, and the ImpossibleWhopper tasted just like it, then I would probably be happy to have it occasionally.
I see the BeyondBeef burger at places like EpicBurger as an effort to give vegetarians more of an option -- some won't be interested, don't like meat or find fake meat too similar for comfort, but plenty likely would. Some meat eaters would likely try it out of curiosity too.
I eat limited meat, and I haven't tried any fake meats since I eat meat occasionally so what's the point, and because I am pretty prissy about what I eat when I make it at home (I tend to have a whole foods bias, although I don't claim that's necessary for health because it is not, it's just how I prefer to eat). But if I gave up meat entirely for ethical reasons (I'm not there yet, maybe never will be), I can see wanting the occasional taste of it (of specific favorites) if something were really a legitimate substitute.
I'll also add that there are an increasing number of vegan restaurants around here, and at least many of them seem to serve a lot of meat substitutes, as well as other options. I think those are mostly for actual vegans, not just the people they bring with them. (I'm also drawing on occasional reading of reviews on places like HappyCow about what's good at those places.)4 -
What about the Impossible Burger being bio-engineered and GMO? I feel like if you eat fast food you have to expect bio/gmo in everything so it's on par there, but for most? people it's a different story when buying at the grocery store and bringing home.
GMO
https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360023038894-Does-it-contain-genetically-modified-ingredients-
Bio-Engineered
https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036138833-Why-does-the-package-have-a-bioengineered-symbol-
What are your concerns with that? I don't have a blanket expectation that foods I buy at the grocery store aren't GMO/bio-engineered.3 -
What about the Impossible Burger being bio-engineered and GMO? I feel like if you eat fast food you have to expect bio/gmo in everything so it's on par there, but for most? people it's a different story when buying at the grocery store and bringing home.
GMO
https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360023038894-Does-it-contain-genetically-modified-ingredients-
Bio-Engineered
https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360036138833-Why-does-the-package-have-a-bioengineered-symbol-
Well I for one am not scared of science. If people don't want to eat GMO, that's their choice, but it's become just a random scare word that doesn't have any proven scientific concerns behind it.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions