Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Impossible Whopper: Your thoughts on plant-based burgers?
Replies
-
tbright1965 wrote: »The impossible whopper protein is about as real as the American cheese used in fast food burgers.
If someone will choose slice of American Process Cheese Food, it's hard to object to the beef substitute on the grounds of it not being real.
This. I can somewhat understand rejecting fast food on the whole or having reservations about it as a frequently chosen meal. I can't understand specific objections to the Impossible Burger given the context of the rest of Burger King's menu.
Don't like soy? It's already there. Don't like sodium? It's already there. Don't like "unreal" foods? That ship has already sailed. It's hard to think of what there is to object to about the Impossible Burger that couldn't be also said of the Croissan'wich or Chicken Fries.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I do not believe that I was "designed" to eat anything. This is an argument that is absolutely not based in any evidence, it's completely emotional. You're free, of course, to reject foods based on religious grounds. But in the context of a debate, it doesn't really move us forward.
This. It's simply a religious argument (although not a tenet of any religion I know of).5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
0 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »Clearly the answer is that we should all ditch Burger King and meet at The Counter, where there is something for (almost) everyone who has posted on this thread: https://www.thecounter.com/menu/index.php
They do have gluten free options and vegan options, but they don’t yet have the gluten free vegan proteins. I’ll bring roasted chickpeas with a dash of cayenne and garlic so everyone has something to eat.
hell yes! The Counter is amazing. Ate there a lot when I lived in LA
1 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »Clearly the answer is that we should all ditch Burger King and meet at The Counter, where there is something for (almost) everyone who has posted on this thread: https://www.thecounter.com/menu/index.php
They do have gluten free options and vegan options, but they don’t yet have the gluten free vegan proteins. I’ll bring roasted chickpeas with a dash of cayenne and garlic so everyone has something to eat.
hell yes! The Counter is amazing. Ate there a lot when I lived in LA
It seems like the only universally agreed upon thing in this thread is we should all go eat at The Counter8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »The impossible whopper protein is about as real as the American cheese used in fast food burgers.
If someone will choose slice of American Process Cheese Food, it's hard to object to the beef substitute on the grounds of it not being real.
I 100% agree with this statement. It's an abomination that should require wait staff to use air quotes and a weird vocal stress when asking you if would like American on that. "Would you like Swiss, pepper jack,sharp cheddar cheese, or (sigh) American cheese?"
I also agree with the assertions about being designed to eat meat. I evolved to be an omnivore, I also am lucky enough to be one of those humans who evolved to drink milk as an adult.
So I will happily argue against fake burgers based on how I like my burgers to taste, but not that the fact that it's made out of plants means I shouldn't have it. Especially since the rest of that meal will likely be french fries and a milkshake.4 -
Clearly I’m avoiding my other responsibilities today in favor of interesting internet rabbit holes.
TIL that Canadian beef spends 2-6 months on feedlots (compared to 3-6 months in the US), and is finished primarily on barley instead of corn: https://canadabeef.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/3208_CANBEEF_factsheet_NUTRITION-2016.pdf
The majority of barley grown in Canada is purpose-grown as a feed crop, “sometimes as much as 80%” per the Alberta Barley Board: http://www.albertabarley.com/about-us/industry-overview/
Personally I advocate for a much higher percentage of barley grown to make malts for me.
I don’t know what the environmental impact of typical Canadian barley production is compared to typical US corn production, but if anyone else is interested in diving down that rabbit hole, please do.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.3 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I wouldn't eat it. I have no reason to eat a replacement food when I can eat the real thing. IMO, replacement foods are not generally up to the same nutritional level as the real food.
I like the option of it for those vegetarians who enjoyed meat but gave it up for some other reason, and for those who cant eat fast food because they are halal.
I would stick to meat for a few reasons:
Gluten- as a celiac, it would not be safe, not that fast food is often safe.
Nutrition - meat is generally more nutritious than plant proteins.
Limiting seed PUFASs - I'd rather eat saturated fats that we've eaten safely (badically) forever.
Environmental reasons- fewer animals die for beef than monocrops; pastured animals improve the soil and water retention; grasslands help with carbon sinks.
Meat is cheaper - fake is less nutrition for more money.
I am all for offering it as an option though. It will work for some. As long as they dont force it on me with a meat tax or something, I say to each their own.
Nutrition: Speaking of the general when this thread is about a specific product isn't necessarily that useful. The Impossible Burger is specifically designed to be similar to beef nutritionally. For this specific product, is there a nutritional concern compared to a ground beef patty?
Keep in mind that the person choosing a Whopper made from an Impossible Burger is likely eating it instead of an equivalent fast food meal made with meat, so the nutritional differences should be considered in that context instead of compared to completely different meals.
Environmental: The typical fast food burger is made from cows being fed soy and corn. If monocrops are a concern, then eliminating beef makes more sense as it takes many pounds of feed to produce just a pound of beef. Eating the soy ourselves is the more rational choice for those with this environmental concern, as it reduces the overall demand. Comparing the environmental impact to a pastured animal makes sense only if the majority of fast food burgers are coming from pastured animals. Are they?
Nutritionally, if someone is eating fast food once in a while, it probably makes little to no difference what burger they chose because other foods will fill in for deficiencies. My point was just that they are probably not equal, and that meat us probably more complete. Not a big deal unless it is an everyday thing.
Most beef only spend a very short time on feedlots. The vast majority of their time is on a pasture, so no, they are not mono cropped. At least not in my country. And when they do go to a feedlot, they tend to get the waste crops that we cant or dont eat as well.
While it’s true that they spend the majority of their lives literally on pasture, most beef cattle are not eating grass for the majority of their lives. They’re weaned at around 8 months, sold to the feed lot around 12 months, and slaughtered at 15 to 18 months. Source: The US Beef Board, a pro-beef marketing association. https://www.beefboard.org/pocket-guide/beef-lifecycle.html
And according to the Iowa Corn Board, 99% of the corn grown in the US is field corn. Per the Iowa Corn Board, “While a small portion of “Field Corn” is processed for use as corn cereal, corn starch, corn oil and corn syrup for human consumption, it is primarily used for livestock feed, ethanol production and manufactured goods. It’s considered a grain.” https://www.iowacorn.org/media-page/corn-facts
I’m not claiming that 99% of corn grown in the US is for feeding cows. Clearly it’s significantly less than that given that so much Field corn is used to make ethanol. However, it’s completely misleading to say that feedlot cattle are fed “waste” crops, when the corn is specifically grown to feed them.
Full disclaimer-I eat beef. I’m phasing out beef at home and am actively trying ground beef replacements for recipes. I do eat beef at restaurants and other people’s houses and don’t ask whether their beef is ethically sourced.
As I said, not in my country.
Doh! My apologies for being the boorish American.
The best numbers I've found for Canada and corn so far are for Ontario specifically, 2006-07:
38% for both industrial (including ethanol) and human use combined. 62% for animal feed. The total amount of corn used includes over 13% imported. Way less grown than in the US, of course.
Here's something on the Canadian beef industry: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/beef/news/vbn0804a3.htm
I haven't found any indication that Canadian cattle are less likely to be grain-fed as a percentage of their overall diet than US cattle.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
I personally think that is good context when someone is answering the question about whether or not they would choose a plant-based burger at a fast food place. If fast food is something that you're never eating anyway due to other dietary restrictions, that's (IMO) relevant.6 -
So, the primary objections seem to be along these lines:
- Clean eaters/food purists: Not natural, list of scary ingredients
- Sodium fears, soy fears, etc...
- Carnivore/keto: a vegan beef substitute implies that their sacred cows are unnecessary
Did I miss anything?
The subset of vegetarians who thought meat didn't taste very good in the first place, so the closer a "veggie burger" gets to tasting like meat, the less we want to eat it.
That's not an objection to the food existing or being offered, of course; it's just a personal objection to ordering/eating it.
And it's definitely a minority who think that. But I'm in it.3 -
So, the primary objections seem to be along these lines:
- Clean eaters/food purists: Not natural, list of scary ingredients
- Sodium fears, soy fears, etc...
- Carnivore/keto: a vegan beef substitute implies that their sacred cows are unnecessary
Did I miss anything?
The subset of vegetarians who thought meat didn't taste very good in the first place, so the closer a "veggie burger" gets to tasting like meat, the less we want to eat it.
That's not an objection to the food existing or being offered, of course; it's just a personal objection to ordering/eating it.
And it's definitely a minority who think that. But I'm in it.
Fair enough. Personal preference is, imho, not really an objection. It's just a preference for other options instead.
But, another item did come to mind as an objection would be anti-GMO advocates, since the heme component used by Impossible Foods is from GMO yeast.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Here’s the full ingredient list for the new recipe:
Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy
Here’s the full ingredient list for the original recipe.
Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy, Wheat
Like I said in an earlier post: No Thanks!
I'm not following: what do you find objectionable about these ingredients?
For context, here are the ingredients of the bun that all Whoppers (including the beef ones) are served on: Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid), Water, Sugar and/or Liquid Sugar (Water, Sugar), Soybean Oil, Yeast. May Contain 2% or less of the following: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Yeast Food (May contain one or more of the following: Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Dough Conditioners (May contain one or more of the following: Wheat Starch, Distilled Monoglycerides, Sodium-Stearoyl Lactylate, Ascorbic Acid, [Ethoxylated] Mono- and Diglycerides, Calcium Staeroyl-2-Lactylate, Calcium Peroxide, Datem, Potassium Iodate), Guar Gum, Enzymes, Milled Flaxseed, Maltodextrin, Ascorbic Acid, Cultured Wheat Flour, Soy Flour, Soy Lecithin, Corn Starch.
I have no objections to eating any of those things.
I'm probably just being snooty here (so be it), but frequently I find ingredient lists like that (patty & bun both) to be signifiers that the food will be bland, overly-engineered based on questionable consumer focus-group testing and cost-driven measures, and just generally not very tasty/satisfying.
But I get that others' preferences differ, and I don't think they're poisoning themselves because big words and too many of them.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Here’s the full ingredient list for the new recipe:
Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy
Here’s the full ingredient list for the original recipe.
Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Contains: Soy, Wheat
Like I said in an earlier post: No Thanks!
I'm not following: what do you find objectionable about these ingredients?
For context, here are the ingredients of the bun that all Whoppers (including the beef ones) are served on: Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate (Vitamin B1), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Folic Acid), Water, Sugar and/or Liquid Sugar (Water, Sugar), Soybean Oil, Yeast. May Contain 2% or less of the following: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Yeast Food (May contain one or more of the following: Calcium Sulfate, Calcium Carbonate, Monocalcium Phosphate), Dough Conditioners (May contain one or more of the following: Wheat Starch, Distilled Monoglycerides, Sodium-Stearoyl Lactylate, Ascorbic Acid, [Ethoxylated] Mono- and Diglycerides, Calcium Staeroyl-2-Lactylate, Calcium Peroxide, Datem, Potassium Iodate), Guar Gum, Enzymes, Milled Flaxseed, Maltodextrin, Ascorbic Acid, Cultured Wheat Flour, Soy Flour, Soy Lecithin, Corn Starch.
I have no objections to eating any of those things.
I'm probably just being snooty here (so be it), but frequently I find ingredient lists like that (patty & bun both) to be signifiers that the food will be bland, overly-engineered based on questionable consumer focus-group testing and cost-driven measures, and just generally not very tasty/satisfying.
But I get that others' preferences differ, and I don't think they're poisoning themselves because big words and too many of them.
As buns go, this probably wouldn't be the first one I'd pick because (like you) I would have some notions about how it would taste. It's probably pretty standard as far as fast food hamburger buns go though . . .
I've had the Impossible Burger from a couple of difference places now and I think the experience can vary widely. I've had it twice at places where all the burgers were more expensive (nicer bun, nicer garnishes, etc) and it fit in really well. I paid around $12-15 and it seemed to me to be worth it. And I've had it in a more fast food settings and it was very typical of fast food . . . worth what I paid for it, but no more. IMO, it's just like a regular beef patty -- you can dress it up or you can dress it down. So if you like Whoppers, you'll (possibly) enjoy the Impossible Burger Whopper. But if Burger King isn't your thing, this probably won't be either.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.15 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
You're working with outdated info. The ingredient in question has since been approved by the FDA as safe to eat. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/25/fda-impossible-burgers-safe-to-eat/4 -
BecomingMoreAwesome wrote: »Clearly I’m avoiding my other responsibilities today in favor of interesting internet rabbit holes.
TIL that Canadian beef spends 2-6 months on feedlots (compared to 3-6 months in the US), and is finished primarily on barley instead of corn: https://canadabeef.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/3208_CANBEEF_factsheet_NUTRITION-2016.pdf
The majority of barley grown in Canada is purpose-grown as a feed crop, “sometimes as much as 80%” per the Alberta Barley Board: http://www.albertabarley.com/about-us/industry-overview/
Personally I advocate for a much higher percentage of barley grown to make malts for me.
I don’t know what the environmental impact of typical Canadian barley production is compared to typical US corn production, but if anyone else is interested in diving down that rabbit hole, please do.
Heh, I cross-posted with this while looking for the same information.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
I'm sure you're not trying to deliberately frighten people, but your link contains inaccurate or outdated information.
Impossible Foods provided data to the FDA about leghemoglobin and received a "no questions" letter from the FDA in response. To describe this as being "specifically disapproved" isn't accurate.
From this year: https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2019/01/07/FDA-declares-Impossible-Foods-ingredient-safe-to-eat6 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
You're working with outdated info. The ingredient in question has since been approved by the FDA as safe to eat. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/25/fda-impossible-burgers-safe-to-eat/
I'm not actually - novel foods introduced recently are not something I'd consider safe to eat.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
You're working with outdated info. The ingredient in question has since been approved by the FDA as safe to eat. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/25/fda-impossible-burgers-safe-to-eat/
I'm not actually - novel foods introduced recently are not something I'd consider safe to eat.
Your link wasn't about your personal considerations of safety -- it was about the FDA's assessment.12 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
You're working with outdated info. The ingredient in question has since been approved by the FDA as safe to eat. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/25/fda-impossible-burgers-safe-to-eat/
I'm not actually - novel foods introduced recently are not something I'd consider safe to eat.AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I'm guessing that people who don't eat fast food aren't exactly Burger King's target market.
So it's the soy, specifically, that you're objecting to here?
yeah, not a fan of soy.
That's going to eliminate virtually everything at Burger King (according to their own nutritional information).
Hence why I don't eat there or any other fast food chain for that matter.
Same but if need be I'd be content to order a hamburger patty. Ingredients: 100% USDA inspected ground beef (broiled).
That anyone who eats meat would opt to pay more to eat this stuff is a testament to the power of marketing. The food industry is creating a market for this junk in real time the same way they created a breakfast food market, snacks, drinks, formula etc.
You're working with outdated info. The ingredient in question has since been approved by the FDA as safe to eat. https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/25/fda-impossible-burgers-safe-to-eat/
I'm not actually - novel foods introduced recently are not something I'd consider safe to eat.
There are plenty of things that have been around thousands of years that are unhealthy or downright toxic for us to eat. Newness or oldness is not a determining factor.9 -
I will try one. I am skeptical though. In general I don't like food that promises to be similar in taste and texture as its intended replacement. I have eaten many veggie burgers and I like them. I am fine if it tastes different and has a different texture. I expect it.
I generally go meatless at least one day a week and sometimes two. I don't do this for any ethical reason I do it because I like a wide variety and I like to push myself and use alternative protein sources. It benefits me for ff restaurants to offer more options in case I want to stick to my routine but I need something in a hurry. Just because I can ditch a meatless day if life is getting in the way a bit doesn't mean I want to if there is an alternative.
0 -
I will try one. I am skeptical though. In general I don't like food that promises to be similar in taste and texture as its intended replacement. I have eaten many veggie burgers and I like them. I am fine if it tastes different and has a different texture. I expect it and I do not want a company to do something more to the product than necessary.
This is my general reaction, but with a fast food burger I think taste is going to be more about the other ingredients anyway. (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't really care for fast food and has it a couple times a year, when on road trips.) As an aside, I enjoy a plain ground beef patty if I make it at home, but the idea of eating one of the typical fast food ones without the trimmings and bun is extremely unappealing to me -- they are greasier or fattier and definitely saltier than what I typically make.
I think my thing with foods pretending to be other foods is that I expect a certain taste and not having it makes me feel like the food is lacking something, whereas if I simply eat it as something else I enjoy it. That's how I've been with foods like black bean based veggie burgers, and also things like cauliflower rice (I like cauliflower more than rice, usually don't want it chopped tiny but sometimes it works, but I never think of it as a rice replacement, just a way of eating cauliflower).
That said, especially since I'm not a big fan of the meat in fast food burgers, I'd be curious how this tastes. According to at least one vegan podcast I listen to (forget which one) the Impossible burger is tasty, although they considered it rather akin to an occasional treat and not super healthy because meatless (which I think is a strawman being imposed on this conversation).0 -
I will try one. I am skeptical though. In general I don't like food that promises to be similar in taste and texture as its intended replacement. I have eaten many veggie burgers and I like them. I am fine if it tastes different and has a different texture. I expect it and I do not want a company to do something more to the product than necessary.
This is my general reaction, but with a fast food burger I think taste is going to be more about the other ingredients anyway. (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't really care for fast food and has it a couple times a year, when on road trips.) As an aside, I enjoy a plain ground beef patty if I make it at home, but the idea of eating one of the typical fast food ones without the trimmings and bun is extremely unappealing to me -- they are greasier or fattier and definitely saltier than what I typically make.
I think my thing with foods pretending to be other foods is that I expect a certain taste and not having it makes me feel like the food is lacking something, whereas if I simply eat it as something else I enjoy it. That's how I've been with foods like black bean based veggie burgers, and also things like cauliflower rice (I like cauliflower more than rice, usually don't want it chopped tiny but sometimes it works, but I never think of it as a rice replacement, just a way of eating cauliflower).
That said, especially since I'm not a big fan of the meat in fast food burgers, I'd be curious how this tastes. According to at least one vegan podcast I listen to (forget which one) the Impossible burger is tasty, although they considered it rather akin to an occasional treat and not super healthy because meatless (which I think is a strawman being imposed on this conversation).
Exactly. There are so many tasty foods in the world. I find turning one into a fake version of another to be kind of perplexing, especially in that IMO the real one often tastes better. (I get that people who are ethical vegetarians but like meat want fake meat, I guess, since they've decided that they can't ethically have what is to them a tasty food and they miss is.)
The most pointed example I can think of is the McDonald's apple pies (those little deep-fried packets of oversweet apples, with more sugar on the outside). If I tried to think of them as an apple pie, they were pretty horrid - suffered from the comparison. If I thought of them as an apple pastry candy sort of thing, they weren't so bad.2 -
I will try one. I am skeptical though. In general I don't like food that promises to be similar in taste and texture as its intended replacement. I have eaten many veggie burgers and I like them. I am fine if it tastes different and has a different texture. I expect it and I do not want a company to do something more to the product than necessary.
This is my general reaction, but with a fast food burger I think taste is going to be more about the other ingredients anyway. (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't really care for fast food and has it a couple times a year, when on road trips.) As an aside, I enjoy a plain ground beef patty if I make it at home, but the idea of eating one of the typical fast food ones without the trimmings and bun is extremely unappealing to me -- they are greasier or fattier and definitely saltier than what I typically make.
I think my thing with foods pretending to be other foods is that I expect a certain taste and not having it makes me feel like the food is lacking something, whereas if I simply eat it as something else I enjoy it. That's how I've been with foods like black bean based veggie burgers, and also things like cauliflower rice (I like cauliflower more than rice, usually don't want it chopped tiny but sometimes it works, but I never think of it as a rice replacement, just a way of eating cauliflower).
That said, especially since I'm not a big fan of the meat in fast food burgers, I'd be curious how this tastes. According to at least one vegan podcast I listen to (forget which one) the Impossible burger is tasty, although they considered it rather akin to an occasional treat and not super healthy because meatless (which I think is a strawman being imposed on this conversation).
I think I've seen "better for people" in Impossible Burger's promotional text (although I don't think they specify what that means and I would assume it means "better than beef," not "better that what vegans would be eating otherwise"), but I haven't seen Burger King making any specific claims about this being "better" nutritionally than a Whopper. Most of Impossible Burger's claims seem to center on the environmental impact of beef.1 -
I will try one. I am skeptical though. In general I don't like food that promises to be similar in taste and texture as its intended replacement. I have eaten many veggie burgers and I like them. I am fine if it tastes different and has a different texture. I expect it and I do not want a company to do something more to the product than necessary.
This is my general reaction, but with a fast food burger I think taste is going to be more about the other ingredients anyway. (Again, speaking as someone who doesn't really care for fast food and has it a couple times a year, when on road trips.) As an aside, I enjoy a plain ground beef patty if I make it at home, but the idea of eating one of the typical fast food ones without the trimmings and bun is extremely unappealing to me -- they are greasier or fattier and definitely saltier than what I typically make.
I think my thing with foods pretending to be other foods is that I expect a certain taste and not having it makes me feel like the food is lacking something, whereas if I simply eat it as something else I enjoy it. That's how I've been with foods like black bean based veggie burgers, and also things like cauliflower rice (I like cauliflower more than rice, usually don't want it chopped tiny but sometimes it works, but I never think of it as a rice replacement, just a way of eating cauliflower).
That said, especially since I'm not a big fan of the meat in fast food burgers, I'd be curious how this tastes. According to at least one vegan podcast I listen to (forget which one) the Impossible burger is tasty, although they considered it rather akin to an occasional treat and not super healthy because meatless (which I think is a strawman being imposed on this conversation).
Now that McD serves breakfast all day my on-the-go ff item is an egg mcmuffin because the quality is about the same as I would prepare at home and it would be approx the same calories. I limit my fast food though (especially burgers) not from a judgment of food but as a judgment of me. In the past my food complacency/laziness was a contributing factor to my weight gain. I promised myself I would be pickier and if I can get a better burger for about the same calories as a ff burger that is what I need to do. However, if I was actually craving a ff burger because of a childhood memory or something I wouldn't hesitate to eat one.1 -
CaptainPicaro wrote: »I'll start this post off by saying that I'm a big meat eater and have been pretty much since birth. That being said, I'm sympathetic to the argument about the environmental impact of meat, especially beef production, so the idea of plant based burgers that were supposedly as good as the real thing has always intrigued me.
Today (in what is not an April's Food joke), Burger King announced they are debuting the "Impossible Whopper", made with the plant based Impossible Burger patty at 59 location in St. Louis, as a test for a potential national wide roll-out. Most of the reviews say that the burgers are basically indistinguishable in taste and texture from the real thing. They currently cost about $1 more than a regular whopper, but that could go down as production increases and cost efficiency is built in.
If you are a meat eater, what are your thoughts about the idea of plant based burgers? Would you be willing to incorporate them into your diet if the taste and cost was the same as a beef burger? Would you be willing to pay a premium for it? Or is nothing taking you away from the real thing?
From a calorie perspective, the impossible version of the whopper has 9 grams of fat less and 50 calories less than a regular Whopper.
https://www.cnet.com/news/no-april-fools-joke-this-burger-king-whopper-is-meat-free-and-youd-never-know/
Gimmie that steak. We evolved to eat meat. Plant based diets are a ridiculous concept. I'm not going to lower my standard of living just because so many men's libbers don't know the concept of 'no'. Overpopulation is a major environmental problem.
You'll be quite relieved to know that Burger King has no plans to stop selling meat, so your manhood is safe.
For now.10 -
Not aware of BK selling a steak, let alone one worth eating.4
-
I live right smack in the middle of corn and cow country. Sorry - I don't want to eat a fake burger -not even to try it. give me my beef and call it good. Now I'm not opposed to making a burger outta something else (turkey, ground chicken) - but call it what it is - a turkey burger or veggie burger - but I don't dress it up the same or try to pass it off as something it isnt. Personally, I haven't found a 'fake' version that I liked - even when I tried to tell myself it was just something else.3
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
- 426 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