I wonder what effects these foods have on the microbiome and health? I read an article this morning about two studies that linked ultraprocessed foods to cardiovascular problems and early death: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/6/11/18652653/di... It seems like these foods fit in the category of "ultraprocessed", unfortunately.
The human body is pretty resilient for most foods. While fortifying "ultra-processed" foods with simple sugars and hydrogenated fats have negative health effects, people have been consuming processed proteins for a while now without that much negativity.
Problems arise when these faux meats are themselves over-fortified with simple sugars and trans fats, in order to mimic real meat. Then you're losing health benefits of eating the real thing, and you should be careful.
This is the Soylent hypothesis. "Processed food" as such is not the problem—it's processed food used as a delivery vehicle for as many addictive sugars, fats, and simple carbs as possible. I would guess that the bad kind of processed food is much more common because it's both easier to make and more profitable (flour is cheap; oil is cheap; protein is expensive).
The same hypothesis (that we can reclaim the idea of processed food for nutritionally complete foods) is also on display in a product like Vite Ramen which explicitly patterns itself after a nutritionally dubious staple food (i.e., instant ramen). I would expect to see more startups in this space in the next few years.
Does the current state of society not give you pause when you state that our bodies are so resilient to most foods? US obesity rates have nearly tripled in way less than a single generation, there are skyrocketing rates of mental illness, reduced academic achievement, and even evidence of a decline in IQ in developed nations.
I find it challenging to attribute this entirely to lifestyle changes and the internet. In the mean time we have been increasingly introducing manufactured substances and products into our food systems that fit the timeline extremely well. Of course perhaps one problem is that we've introduced so many things that it's become impossible to discern cause from effect. Because while I find it difficult to attribute all change to lifestyle changes, that's undoubtedly played and is playing some role.
You're correct, but I feel like that's a huge question that may be partially answered by processed foods, but not fully.
For instance, work/life pressure results in stress, which could result in overeating which is easy to do given that not only is fast food more readily available than ever, but now so is restaurant quality foods though Uber. By ordering Uber at home you aren't going out, therefore you are being less social, which by being less social may lead to mental health issues. All the while not exercising and watching Netflix and sitting on social media looking at the lives of others.
Very out there example, but I think it's all intertwined
Sure, I think all of that is completely reasonable - and quite likely. The only thing that gives me concern in addition to this is leaded fuel and similar such stories over time. We now know longterm exposure to leaded fuel causes all sorts of nasty things including reduced IQ and reduced impulse control. Of course lead is a neurotoxin but neurotoxicity is all about the amount of exposure -- fluoride, for instance, is also a neurotoxin in sufficient quantities. The amount of lead fumes people were being exposed to was negligible on a parts per x basis. Try to put your mindset into a time before we knew this, and when governments and substantial amounts of industry funded research were mostly all declaring leaded fuel safe. The idea that exposure to negligible ambient levels of fumes could, over time, lead to lowered IQ, reduced impulse control, and other factors sounds really just quite absurd.
In the past several decades now we've seen a huge array of companies now rushing to introduce all sorts of engineered consumables into the marketplace. This is not just genetic engineered food products, but also purely chemical compounds such as aspartame (first introduced in 1981), sucralose (first introduced in 1998), etc. And now factor in the recent discovery that our gut biome seems to be connected to far more than we ever thought in our body. And we have mostly no real clue whatsoever how these things are affecting people. Safety trials tend to be short term and only concerned with overt physical affects - a standard by which leaded fuel was also deemed harmless.
This was what stood out to me about your comment. I think there are quite a large number of questions yet to be answered about how what we're eating in recent decades has been affecting us. And we're only just beginning to be able to pursue these answers at the same time that an ever greater number of engineered products are being introduced for consumption.
> even evidence of a decline in IQ in developed nations
Can you expand on this? Only thing I've heard is the Flynn effect, which is probably longer-term... And the only other thing I think of in association with "long-term, potentially worrisome, population-wide unexplained decline" is testosterone levels.
Sure, it's a fairly recent discovery. Like you know of course the Flynn effect was the observation that 'real' IQs were increasing over time. They're always normalized such that the mean is 100 with a 15 point standard deviation, but that 100 market kept representing a higher and higher 'real' score.
This has been observed to have reversed in many developed nations. By reversed it's not like it's reaching an asymptotic zero rate of growth, but genuinely decreasing. This was first observed in Scandinavian countries in the mid nineties. Outside of Scandinavia this decline has been corroborated in at least the UK, Australia, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. It's probably reasonable to hypothesize that the reason it's yet to be corroborated elsewhere is a mix of the lack of testing or a lack of earlier testing to compare against. Scandinavia, for instance, has compulsory enlistment which, in turn, entails compulsory IQ testing which is then made publicly available. The declines are also extremely significant. For instance in the extreme case, Denmark IQ's dropped by 1.5 points on average in just 5 years.
For now the exact cause(s) are not agreed upon and it's a topic that isn't receiving anywhere near the attention deserves due to people's sensitivity to the topic. Dysgenic factors are almost certainly playing some role, but a decline has also been observed even between brothers. Again, yet another mystery of society somehow deteriorating for no apparent reason. In this case, I do think us inadvertently poisoning ourselves (yet again) in some way or another is probably the best case scenario.
Wiki has a decent paragraph on the topic . Searches or things like Google Scholar can turn up far more as well.
I saw that that the 'The Impossible Burger' contains near equal nutritional value of real meat; does the veg fish fillets and crab cakes you speak of contain Vitamin D3 and other essential vitamins seen mostly only in sea food?
Beyond Rhino, Whale, and Mammoth would be nice. Beyond Human. Beyond Jeff Bezos. I mean, while we’re doing simple nutritional approximations with plant matter, I don’t see why we wouldn’t get more ambitious.
There was actually a group of biohackers working on producing lab cheese a while back ("Real Vegan Cheese" IIRC) that included producing narwhal cheese as a stretch goal in their crowdfunding campaign. Sadly I don't think they've gotten even as far as cow thus far.
If it's cheaper than the price of fish (which I think is the long term aim of Beyond Meat et. al.), you will definitely sell the poor and lower middle class. Meats and seafood are more expensive parts of a diet.
It's better for the environment (smaller carbon footprint), it's more ethical, and it's cheaper -- if the manufacturing of meatless and seafoodless substitutes can achieve this at scale.
This is a growing space. Besides WildType (mentioned in the article), there are at least 2 other companies working on lab grown fish: Finless Foods and BlueNalu. None of these companies have a product in the market yet, but things appear to be moving fast.
Odd that they made the comparison to Beyond Meat since they talked about cell culture fish, not really comparable to Beyond Meat which uses plants which we already know how to grow at scale. I think if they are looking for the Beyond Meat of salmon Terramino Foods (I think they rebranded as Prime Roots) is a much closer pick https://www.fastcompany.com/40559474/this-salmon-burger-tast...
> it may be that producing lab grown meat costs 100x as much and there is no way to reduce that.
This may or may not be true in the short term, but it seems unlikely to me in the long run. There are physical processes occurring inside the cow which don't require many resources. I can't see what would stop us from _eventually_ being able to mimic the key aspects of those processes and to do so somewhat efficiently. Of course, it may end up taking quite a long time to develop this capability.
Memphis Meats is one company I'm aware of that's working to commercialize cell cultured meats. I haven't really checked up on them since their demo day, but a cursory glance suggests that they seem to be going strong.
To me, seeing YuppieVCFoodStartup brand names in a restaurant is akin to the restaurant advertising they’re selling me Lays(tm) chips as the side to my burger. While I have no urge to eat food for its ability to imitate meat (so I’m not the target audience anyway), I think these products belong in a grocery or convenience store, not a dining establishment. It feels to me like paying a premium to eat frozen store-bought dinners, and as bonus points, they’re the vegetarian equivalent of over processed mystery meat. Can’t wait for this hype to level off or for the trend to go the way of shilling Soylent.
Sorry to be a downer, but anything remotely touching alt-food startups on HN is hyped with positive sentiment to the point where any criticism gets discouraged.
What about ordering Mary’s free range chicken? Lots of restaurants advertise that on the menu. Sounds better than a normal chicken sandwich. Or Coca Cola braised short ribs from your favorite food truck? Sounds better than cola braised short ribs.
Some people wouldn’t even consider a veggie burger on the menu, but an impossible burger? Sure. It’s about _branding_.
The first time I tried impossible meat I was eating dinner with my old boss and he’d asked if I had heard about impossible meat. I’d heard about it but never tried it, so I ordered it and it was honestly better than I expected.
I never would have tried it if it wasn’t for word of mouth marketing because it was on the menu. Restaurants are in the business of selling food. It’s their job to make items on their menu sound appealing. Just like those Michelin star restaurants including ingredients I’ve never heard of, let alone can’t pronounce. I could never find that ingredient at my local store. Maybe I should try it.
Based on your tone it sounds like you’ve never tried “imitation meat” as you describe it but i can see why people are hyping it. I eat plenty of meat but have started buying beyond meat patties at the store every now and then. It’s magnitudes better than your run-of-the-mill black bean veggie burger.
It's not just about branding, it's also about knowing what you eat. And also about restaurants not being able to make every possible piece of food from scratch.
If they made their own veggie burger, I love that. If they bought the best veggie burger on the market, that's also great.
There are plenty of brands involved in restaurants, in meat, in fake meat, in the preparation of the food (Big Green Egg for example). It's rarer to come across brands in vegetables or non-meat/meat-like products, but it happens. Sometimes their bread comes from the best bakery in town and they want you to know that.
Making everything from scratch is a lot of work for a small restaurant. There's nothing wrong with outsourcing it to a specialist.
And they also sell branded drinks, don't they? They don't brew their own cola or beer (well, some do), and they will tell you what brand they've got.
Honestly, that branding for actual meat also makes me feel like I am getting a commodity product: I start to associate the food item together with all of the other food items I get which are "this same thing with different condiments" as opposed to "this unique meal that is notable for being from this restaurant". I actually really like the Impossible Burger, but it now feels like I am ordering the exact same product from every single restaurant... and this is not at all helped by how, to maintain the strength of their brand, they insist on certain kinds of preparations of their patties.
> I eat plenty of meat but have started buying beyond meat patties at the store every now and then.
Pretty off-topic, but a question: after seeing so many mentions on HN, I was pretty interested to give it a try after seeing Beyond Burgers appear in my Dutch grocery store recently. One thing that struck me, though, was that they were twice as expensive as the A brand plant-based burgers we already had, and over three times as expensive as the cheap ones. How expensive are they in the US? (i.e. are they just this expensive because they're from outside the EU?)
Probably not as expensive. They were pricier than other options, but not as extreme as you're describing. Generally, I notice these brands are more expensive than their meat counterparts and other fresh vegetarian options in the restaurants I visit. They're not cheap. I think a lot of that has to do with the marketing and hype around these products rather than inherent cost of producing or shipping them - and I hope the prices will become more reasonable in the future.
Actually drinks were the first thing that came to my mind as well. With drinks it is basically normal to order by brand (several brands of beer on tap for example). But there are also restaurants and bars that brew their own beer, and people go there for exactly that purpose. So it is not directly comparable, maybe, but at least comparable and a good example on how you actually think about this with other parts of your diet...
> While I have no urge to eat food for its ability to imitate meat (so I’m not the target audience anyway)
That's a very short sighted view. This isn't about vegetarianism. It's about the environmental crisis, and the overfishing crisis, that we're currently experiencing at a global level. I don't care whether you are vegetarian or not, we are all in the target market for solutions to these problems. That's what replacement meat and fish are about.
I disagree, and I’m worried that this view will prevent adequate nutrition for children more and more frequently (meatless Monday etc). The next step is then preventing adequate nutrition for myself from special taxes or regulations on meat.
Your children will survive not eating meat one day of the week - in fact it's probably beneficial to only eat meat every other day or less (not by eating processed food like beyond/impossible etc just eating "normal" vegetarian meals).
On the contrary, to me it would be a net positive if a restaurant was going to advertise their sources. I for one am highly skeptical of the perverse incentive between restaurantees and restauranteurs—restauranteurs being incentivized to buy the cheapest ingredients possible to minimize cost. That doesn’t align with my goal as a consumer to nourish myself with the best quality food. If the restaurant can assure me they only use organic/high quality ingredients that gives me some peace of mind and is a +1 in my book.
And this isn’t just fearmongering. For most restaurants it is uneconomical to cook with anything but the cheapest vegetable oils which are guaranteed to oxidate/become carcinogenic at the temperatures required to cook the food they’re serving. So if you eat out often, being informed about a restaurants sourcing and cooking habits is definitely worth knowing about.
Are you a vegetarian? I am! And as a vegetarian, I can tell you that I love it when restaurants sell Impossible Burgers. First, I don't cook (unless you count making a bowl of cereal cooking), so it's not like I'm going to make it for myself. Second, restaurant dining is about more than just calorie intake - sometimes I want to go to a restaurant, and as a vegetarian I appreciate when they have tasty things for me to eat. Third, if I'm going to a restaurant as part of a larger social gathering, or as a company outing or whatever - in other words, if I'm at a restaurant when I would not have otherwise chosen to (which I'm sure doesn't happen to just me!), then I appreciate it when there are options for me.
I’d add to that: big brands make vegetarianism more palatable to everyone. If I’m stuck ordering a salad at a bad restaurant, I’m more likely to be mocked by meat eaters than if the restaurant sells good burgers (esp in the US). When I was in the states recently and the restaurant had an impossible burger, instead of people saying “why are you vegetarian? Where do you get your protein?” people said “oh, the impossible burger, yeah I tried that recently and really liked it”. It was a very pleasant change.
Absolutely. It's one thing for fast food service to do this, quite another for a real restaurant - which is presumably making their own burgers from ground beef, maybe butchering sides of beef, etc. - to be advertising retail-grade consumer products.
> I think these products belong in a grocery or convenience store, not a dining establishment
I heard somewhere that the fake burger companies sold to restaurants first because the parameters for cooking it well are much narrower than a regular burger (for now). They didn't want to ruin their products' reputation because of mistakes people made cooking the burgers at home, whereas restaurants will probably do a better job.
You're probably right, and I do expect at some point to see Impossible on grocery store shelves. I tried it in a restaurant once and liked it, and wouldn't mind having it as a quick option at home, but until it shows up in the freezer section I'll probably stick with the stuff the restaurant makes from scratch.
Great, you have no urge to be a part of saving our planet, good for you, I'm sure you're old and wealthy enough to think this way. But there's already a gazillion ways to do as you do, let's support the small efforts being made to offer alternatives.
Not wanting to order pre-packaged frozen meals when I go out to eat is different from not eating vegetarian at all, for what it's worth. Why would me paying extra for an Impossible brand name in a restaurant save the planet more than ordering a vegetarian meal prepared locally from local seasonal ingredients? Are you saying I should go out of my way to find a Burger King that serves Impossible burgers in order to maximize my saving the planet? The environmental cost of shipping that product all over the country isn't free.
Eating vegetarian isn't entirely based on saving the planet/environmental issues. Think of it this way, if we could make it so eating meat had 0 environmental impact and eating vegetarian/vegan had 0 environmental impact would there still be major reasons to be vegetarian/vegan?
I'd say the main reasons for being vegetarian include not wanting to contribute to raising animals just to slaughter them, or eating other "living" beings and objecting to the conditions in which they are raised before they are slaughtered.
Paying extra for the Impossible brand name is mainly for those wanting to switch from meat yet still yearning for the texture/taste of meat. A brand like Impossible foods ensuring consistency across restaurants would contribute to people choosing to switch from meat knowing they are getting a product they have had (and enjoyed?) before.
>Paying extra for the Impossible brand name is mainly for those wanting to switch from meat yet still yearning for the texture/taste of meat. A brand like Impossible foods ensuring consistency across restaurants would contribute to people choosing to switch from meat knowing they are getting a product they have had (and enjoyed?) before.
I agree with this and the rest of your comment. You said it better than I did at the top level. There's something about food imitating food that puts me off, as is there with seeing branding on items at restaurants; but, I don't have problem going an entire week without eating meat in the first place. These products have a target audience and a good mission, but they're not for me (well, I'd get them in the grocery store when available because I like having a frozen veggie burger option at home for when I'm too lazy to cook).
My motivations are primarily ethical and environmental, though I have grown more sympathetic to certain of the health arguments too. If it were ethically and environmentally acceptable, then I'd have no moral compunction about eating lab-grown meat (aka "cellular agriculture" products). But I don't "miss" meat, after about six years of (ostro-)veganism, so I'd probably only eat lab-grown poultry and seafood on occasion, and skip red meat altogether insofar as it has (according to my understanding) deleterious health impacts that poultry and seafood probably don't.
Similarly, my GF is veg not for any ethical reason, but simply because for some reason she can't stand the taste of meat. The improvements to veg meat have been good for her so far. But, if they get much better it will actually be a turn-off for her. So, there's no way she's eating vat meat.
There are many reasons why people are vegetarian. Environmental, spiritual, ethical, health, digestion issues, etc. So it very much depends on the reason, and on the specifics. Speaking for myself, I'm an ethical vegan and I would probably eat lab-grown meat.
I see the "I don't crave meat" take a lot from people who have been vegan for a long time, but among my friends who have all become vegan in the last three years we eat an absolute _ton_ of gardein products. I'd say I buy around three fake meat products a week. I'd definitely eat lab grown meat if it were relatively healthy.
I'm mostly vegetarian - rare chicken consumption only. Last week my company cafeteria had beyond meat burgers as the vegetation option. From what I've read on HN they're reasonably close to the taste of meat, and similar in terms of texture.
I don't think I've missed out on anything by restricting myself to a vegetarian diet.
Very likely. It would have to be good of course, and it might get some getting used to, but much of our food is already far more artificial than that, and lab-grown meat might well end up being healthier, more economical, and certainly more animal friendly than real meat.
Eating carbohydrates spikes your blood sugar and therefore insulin response, which has several problems: one, it makes you hungry again very quickly, and makes your energy levels spike and dip more than if you avoid them. Enough simple carbohydrates cause diabetes.
It is also very easy to eat a large number of calories via carbohydrate. Essentially, carbs make you fat.
I can personally observe in myself that if I eat a chocolate bar in the morning, I will be more hungry in an hour or two than if I had eaten nothing at all.
This is very black and white and borderline incorrect. There's nothing inherently bad about carbohydrates. Eating anything will make you more fat; simple carbs are just easy to eat.
Unrefined carbs like in potatoes and (whole)wheat and oatmeal etc. are not bad; those foods provide many good nutrients and do not cause the negative carb effects you mentioned.
It's the same as fruits containing sugar (which is a carbohydrate actually I think) but not causing the same ill effects as eating the same amount of sugar from Sour Patch Kids (candy which is ~80% sugar by weight).
But without fat it's pretty hard to eat a lot of potatoes; they're just too bland.
That's the thing that everyone in this discussion seems to be missing: taste. There are good reasons to believe that better-tasting food may have physiological effects beyond just being pleasurable to eat . This is not controversial when it comes to other substances but with food it's a much tougher battle.
If you do not consume any fats, you can handle the blood sugar spike easily. With fat in your blood you become less insulin sensitive. Thus it is the combination of fat+carbs that it the diabetes causer.
Is it carbs or is it starches? We, as a species, are not used to eating starches as a main component in our diet. We as a species are used to eating much like bonobos, chimps and utangs: thus lots of carbs but from fruits instead of starches.
Start with unhealthy high-carb refined grains and add anti-nutrients like lectin and phytates, plus fiber that you would probably be better off getting from whole fruits and vegetables and you don't end up with something healthy.
Pretty much any of the myriad resources on paleo / low-carb / grain-free diets will cover most of the reasons and point to research backing up why whole grains are not healthy. Nutrition science is a weirdly controversial topic however so for every study that points in one direction you'll find someone passionately committed to a different theory who will dig up conflicting evidence.
Having read a lot on the subject over the years (and through personal experience) I'm persuaded by the evidence in favour of a low-carb, largely grain-free, high fat paleo style diet but I've largely given up trying to convince anyone who feels differently on the Internet as for whatever reason nutrition debates are as heated and futile as political ones.
“Lectins and phytates” are the black box doom and gloom ingredients of the paleo world. Let’s straighten up a couple misconceptions:
1. Lectins. Lectins are substances found in many raw foods, like tomatoes, lentils, beans, and whole grains. Some lectins are toxic (like those in kidney beans) and some are completely harmless (like those in tomatoes). Toxic lectins are completely destroyed by proper cooking. Some high lectin foods (like lentils and beans) are strongly correlated with longer lifespans, so diets suggesting they be avoided are probably worth scrutiny.
2. Phytates. Phytates can bind to vitamins and minerals and make them biologically unavailable in digestion. In practice, this is only problematic in already nutrient deficient diets. And like most dietary concerns, the picture is more complex. Phytates also have remarkable positive effects, such as decreased rates of cancer, kidney stones, diabetes, and heart disease.
The paleo diet (basically rebranded Atkins) runs contrary to every developed nation’s dietary guides. To believe it’s healthy is to believe in conspiratorial thinking as silly as flat earth or faked moon landings.
To believe the typical developed nation's dietary guidelines are the best advice on a healthy diet is to show a level of credulity and lack of critical thinking as silly as thinking paleo is rebranded Atkins.
What is "healthy"? Whole grains provide me with carbs, carbs provide me with sugar, sugar is burnt for energy. Eat the amount you actually need and, unless you've got Celiac, you're gonna be fine.
Some of you people sound like you should just become Breatharians instead of burdening the rest of us with your tiresome dietary restrictions. For those of us that can eat real food without it ruining our lives, you're like so many annoying flies always pushing your strange food fads when the rest of us just want a reliable source of clean meat and bread.
If you don't think "healthy" can be quantified and you're satisfied with your demonstrated level of ignorance about nutrition then why are you engaging in a discussion about nutrition on the Internet? I don't give a crap what you eat. I do somewhat object to people spreading misinformation about nutrition but I also recognize that trying to stop it is a King Canute level exercise in futility.
Your body will break down protein and fat into carbs if it isn't supplied with enough carbs. Your body has developed a mechanism to make carbs from other things because it needs carbs so badly. It would seem folly to think we should rely on this round-about disaster-mitigation mechanism instead of just supplying it with what it wants, which is partly carbs.
The premise of the keto diet is that the human body is adapted to function best when deriving most of its energy from fat (dietary or stored). This makes a certain amount of sense from an evolutionary perspective as regular meals with an abundance of easily digested refined carbs were not a feature of our ancestral evolutionary environment. The evidence that "fat-burning" is a healthier default is persuasive but not conclusive at this point I would say.
I think there has been some dietary research that showed people, especially those of European ancestry, have been exposed to grains long enough to have adapted. And, like with lots of nutrition information, there's counter examples of ancestral diets comprised largely of carbohydrates.
I think people need to realize there probably isn't a one-size-fits-all diet because humans are so varied genetically and well adapted to many different environments
I haven't tried the chickpea pasta so I can't comment there, but my wife and I found some edamame (soy) based pasta at Costco that's not bad. It's 7 net carbs for a 2 oz serving and so far I think it's the closest thing to a regular noodle that we've had.
As I understand it, assuming we are talking about carbs, fats and proteins, as in their whole-food forms, not as in say a cookie, no, it's easier/quicker for your body to store say fat as fat than carbs as fat, which it will have to transform into fat first. Carbs are also loaded with water and fibers which makes digestion even slower to make this effect even better.
> Carbs and sugar are the culprit behind the obesity epidemic, not meat
Processed food as well as particularly overeating of delicacies like meat, cheese, eggs, fish, and oil and sugar prepared plant-foods, is the mayor culprit, I believe.
Nobody got fat from eating plain potatoes, beans and apples. It's also very hard to overeat on those kinds of foods because of the high water and fiber content. People get fat by eating too much dairy, meat, eggs, and plants prepared in oils, or other highly processed plant-foods, which are easy to overeat on.
> it's easier/quicker for your body to store say fat as fat than carbs as fat, which it will have to transform into fat first.
It's not that simple. Dietary fat doesn't spike insulin levels and that is a primary signal to the body to store excess calories in fat cells. High carb foods tend to spike insulin but to what degree depends on the food.
>CONCLUSIONS: Fish-eaters, vegetarians and especially vegans had lower BMI than meat-eaters. Differences in macronutrient intakes accounted for about half the difference in mean BMI between vegans and meat-eaters. High protein and low fibre intakes were the factors most strongly associated with increasing BMI.
Correlation rather than causation, would be my first thought. A randoml vegan is vastly more likely to be getting regular exercise and be generally health-conscious than your randomly selected traditional diet person. This study tries to downplay non-dietary lifestyle factors, but can't help conceding that:
> Vegans tended to report higher levels of physical activity; there were no clear patterns for education level across the diet groups; vegans were least likely and meat-eaters most likely to be married and almost the whole cohort reported ethnicity as white. Nulliparity was most common in the vegan women and least common in meat-eaters, with meat-eaters tending to have a greater number of children than the other diet groups. Some of these differences in lifestyle factors between the diet groups are likely to result from the disparity in median ages.
So, more exercise, less marriage, fewer children, and younger age for the vegans...
Converting carbs into fat is very ineffective, losing about 40% of the calories in the process. You can get fat just from carbs but it’s not easy. But start adding empty fat calories like oils to those carbs and you’ll store the fat directly and just burn the carbs for energy.
It’s pretty hard to gain weight eating boiled potatoes but you’ll pack on pounds eating fries.
Thats because you haven't had proper potatoes in their season then.
In Denmark it's a national delicacy to have same day potatoes cooked or in salads. They are silky smooth, super easy to peel (you simply just rub the skin off) and are amazing with dill, creme fraîse and any meat you can think off.
Maybe not. Maybe in Denmark you have tasty heirloom varieties. Here in North America, most of the potatoes you see in the store are white, waxy, starchy, and bland. If you're not going to fry them then you usually need copious amounts of butter and salt.
Having said that, have you tried your potatoes completely plain (no fat or salt)?
I don't think meat per se is fingered as the cause from what I read in these and similar comment threads, but the fat that usually comes with most affordable cuts of meat, so meat gets tarred with the same brush.
Here are the ingredients of a Beyond Burger from their website:
> Water, Pea Protein Isolate*, Expeller-Pressed Canola Oil, Refined Coconut Oil, Rice Protein, Natural Flavors, Cocoa Butter, Mung Bean Protein, Methylcellulose, Potato Starch, Apple Extract, Salt, Potassium Chloride, Vinegar, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Sunflower Lecithin, Pomegranate Fruit Powder, Beet Juice Extract (for color)
Here are ingredients of a regular burger:
I avoid seed oils and starches. Otherwise the Beyond Burger ingredients don't sound too bad. But clearly it's a highly processed food product compared to ground beef. That will also be true of a fish version compared to fish. The artificial versions will be relatively deficient in other nutrients like B-12, omega 3 fats, vitamin D, heme-iron, zinc and some amino acids.
In terms of nutrition rather than ethics it looks like an inferior substitute.
Beef is not a homogeneous substance. It contains many constituent substances, just like the Beyond Burger contains ingredients, and many of the constituents are analogous to Beyond Burger ingredients, which is why the taste is so close.
It's also made of whatever the cow consumed, and depending on the source of the beef, that can vary a great deal.
Also, the human body is very resilient as to the source of its nutrients, as long as it gets those nutrients in sufficient quantity and balance.
It took 100 million years for evolution to design cows and 400 million years of evolution have been impacting fish, so it will take approximately 4x as much investment or time to develop a "Further Than Fish" replacement
Also, the meat substitutes that currently exist are all based on plants, which also went through all those years of evolution – they’re not chemically synthesized from the ground up. And they seem set to be supplanted in the future by meat grown artificially from real animal cells, which will make the whole point moot.
Food science isn't a linear process based on the evolutionary complexity of the organisms we eat.
Arguably cows have been impacted by as much evolution as any organism. It's not as though cows spontaneously generated 100M years ago - there were hundreds of millions of years leading up to cows becoming what we recognize today.
I don't think those numbers have any relationship to taste, but if you insist - life first appeared on earth 3.5 billion years ago, so the majority of that will be the exact same, it should take a minor modification to get to fish.