I became vegetarian because of the ethical aspects. I really missed Carl's Jr. burgers for a long time until they introduced a burger with a Beyond patty.
I totally empathize with meat eaters who say, "I could never go vegetarian." That's how I feel about the Whole Food CEO's diet. Fifteen fruits and vegetables every day? Unfathomable!
Lol, even in his worst case he’s saying you get one out of two predicted advantages from it. That doesn’t sound too bad, particularly if you eat veggie meat in moderation.
Not true, for all compounds at least. Meat does indeed contain pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. We might not test for it, is a different problem.
> the animals eat that too, which means you eat it
It's not true in general, as some things animals eat get digested into other things and don't exist in the animals anymore. Their components do exists, but we don't consider atoms of meat the meat itself.
Its a moot point if you buy locally from farmers who raise their meat without pesticides and antibiotics. Factory farming is the real culprit in this whole discussion.
One of my biggest frustrations as a 95% vegetarian (for environmental reasons) is this misconception that's emerged about plant-based burgers being healthy. It distracts from the actual benefits of plant-based burgers - environmental and ethical benefits - and gives meat eaters another reason to discount a vegetarian diet. It's a hamburger after all, it's not meant to be healthy.
I've tried both impossible and beyond burgers and you can tell they're different but they're tasty in their own way. The carmelized heme taste is definitely there.
> It's a hamburger after all, it's not meant to be healthy.
Hamburgers aren’t inherently unhealthy (though I’ll concede that in practice they often are). A well-made hamburger contains part protein, vegetables and carbs. It’s a whole meal. A bit too heavy on the carbs maybe, but not extremely so. It can stand on its own with very few additional flavour components, and has the potential of being a more wholesome meal than many others.
The issue, rather, is twofold. First, almost all burgers skimp on the veggies and generally use low-quality ingredients, instead relying on other flavour components (i.e. too much sugar and salt, and often added fat in the form of low-quality cheese and bacon). And secondly, burgers are umami bombs and lead people to overeat, both in terms of quantity (serving size) and frequency.
Fat and protein would be the problem. The typical American diet is very high in fat and protein. More carbs (low GI carbs with fiber) would make it healthier. To make a well balanced burger, you'd probably need to eliminate cheese, reduce the size of the patty significantly, use a whole wheat bun, and add plant fiber. You're basically replacing all of the ingredients.
Hmm, I think you have it backwards. The fat and protein are the healthy parts (including saturated fats). If you take the bun out of the equation you actually have an incredibly nutritious meal - something my family does all the time. We've been on the keto diet for 8 years now and our blood & overall numbers look better than they have ever before in our lives.
>If you take the bun out of the equation you actually have an incredibly nutritious meal
I would argue that a burger with bun included is balanced even for most low-carb diets. It's the addition of fries and a sugary drink that throws it out of balance. I was actually able to lose weight by replacing my routine soda/fries with an additional burger.
I don't think encouraging a keto diet as the de facto "healthy diet" is responsible. Is it un-healthy? Maybe not. There's not enough research to say that conclusively. It's certainly not the standard though.
I have been training hard for about a year now, trying to get my body into as ideal shape as I can get it. During that time, I've experimented with a wide range of diets, including keto. I was on keto for about 4 months. I was decently well fat adapted by the end of it, but I did not feel healthy. I was also not making progress in my training. I plateaued for for months.
I switched to a "high carb" plant based diet and I haven't looked back since. My performance has skyrocketed, my fitness is building at a mind boggling pace, I sleep better, my skin is clearer, and I just feel healthier.
> The decrease in the percentage of kcals from fat during 1971--1991 is attributed to an increase in total kcals consumed; absolute fat intake in grams increased
This is very interesting data, but it doesn't say what you're implying it says. The condensed version is that people are eating more quantity, which is leading to increased obesity. And that's certainly the biggest factor. Macros are far less important that overall quantity.
I agree, my point was that Americans aren't eating anything close to a high fat or high protein diet. And even people on extreme high fat diets can thrive, such as the classic ketogenic diet for epilepsy. Carbohydrate is the only non-essential macro.
> Hamburgers aren’t inherently unhealthy ... lead people to overeat, both in terms of quantity (serving size) and frequency.
Most (all?) foods aren't. It's less the quality of ingredients and more the latter you wrote about--the consumption rate relative to their nutritional values that makes the more or less healthy.
Quality of ingredients may lend itself to poor nutritional values, but over-consumption is the bigger problem.
Some foods are just too low in NV to over consume, like say broccoli. Others, are much easier, leading to the moniker of "unhealthy."
> " A well-made hamburger contains part protein, vegetables and carbs. It’s a whole meal"
Why do people continue to make nutritional arguments using macronutrients as the basis? Macronutrients tell you very little about how healthy something is.
"It's a whole meal" - what does that even mean?
What tells you if something is healthy is the nutritional value - vitamins, minerals, enzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients etc. Just because something is high in protein or high in carbs or low in fat does not tell you whether it is healthy.
> "I can get those easily with multivitamin tablets"
Multivitamins are not a replacement for a balanced diet[1], most likely provide very little protective health effects[2] and can, in some cases, be dangerous[3].
> It's the macronutrients that matter when it comes to actual meals
Why? What difference does it make what ratios of macronutrients individual meals are comprised of?
> A burger is not unhealthy, but eating only burgers probably is
That's not saying much at all. You can probably say that about most edible things.
Can you articulate what is unhealthy about a hamburger? Minus the fries and the bacon, a bread, meat, veggies and cheese combo contains tons of nutrition and calories.
A hamburger from any restaurant is going to be at least 20% fat not counting the cheese, roughly equivalent to a typical sausage or bacon. The high fat content and "red meat" aspect with accompanying saturated fat, cholesterol etc., have led many to believe that hamburgers are unhealthy. Is this up-to-date with evolving nutrition wisdom? Maybe not.
Higher percentage of the amino acid Methionine in the protein portion of meat/dairy/egg vs. plant protein, which promotes cancer and diabetes in adulthood.
These are reasons to avoid meat not an explanation of why hamburgers in particular are worse which was the original question.
Your studies are mildly interesting but correlations are low and large scale studies of vegetarians do not show any benefit in terms of longevity. The reasonble take away is that, while meat consumption may certainly increase the risk of some things, it also prevents other things.
Compared to a diet of pure fruits and vegetables and grains as the guy says? True, Beyond/Impossible aren't as healthy as that.
But he's literally comparing a veggie burger to a salad, not what it's replacing: ground up cow meat that's reassembled in a factory. You won't find everything in ground beef listed on a label.
Fake burgers are a transition and off-ramp for people looking to eat less meat. Not people living a purist lifestyle like the Whole Foods CEO.
Beyond Meat/Impossible serve as nice punching bag for people denying the impact of the beef trade has on the environment and this article is catnip for them.
Absolutely. Oreos are vegan and nobody would argue they're healthy. As processed as some "meat alternatives" may be, it's still a better path than meat for health.
Objectively, nicorette is unhealthy, but doctors will recommend it all day if it helps you quit smoking.
>At present, it is not possible to draw a conclusion whether nicotine itself may act as a complete carcinogen
If you're going to quote it, include the bits that don't agree with you as well. The paper basically says "it may affect the role of other cancer causing agents, but we're not sure yet. We cannot say that nicotine is, in and of itself, a carcinogen"
Also reach back in time 30 minutes and remember that you claimed nicotine is, by itself, a "well known carcinogen", which is false.
The local news and hospitals were citing a recent upward trend in the numbers of teens with a certain lung symptom. They linked it to vaping in teens. At the very end of the segment they said the lung issue could be caused by nicotine alone being inhaled, didn’t matter it if was vape or smoke.
Which would be a ridiculous use case. Everything is deadly at a high enough dose. No one in their right mind is vaping pure nicotine. It could kill you via skin absorption alone.
It's an immunosuppressant. Which can be useful at times, but the immune system has an important function and you probably don't want it suppressed except as a specific measured response to a particular problem.
Nicotine is a stimulant, and stimulants are not without side-effects. There isn't a stimulant known that doesn't put stress on the cardiovascular system. Nicotine increases blood pressure, heart rate and vasoconstriction.
Reminder that a low-grade stimulant like caffeine is considered to have deleterious effects.
Not all ground beef is bottom of the barrel ground beef. Obviously buying the cheapest thing in a 10 lb tube isn't exactly a recipe for success, but let's be honest, the Beyond Impossible crowd probably wasn't purchasing that to begin with.
probably analysis of the carbon emissions that beef and beef externalities produce compared to the average emission of a typical car and then aggregate that into a single comparison to highlight just how much beef and beef production emits to the environment.
Comparing a Beef patty to a Beyond Meat patty shows roughly comparable macro nutritional values. [1],[2]
Beyond Meat "wins" in that it does not have any cholesterol, and no trans fats. But each has comparable calories, and fat levels. (Though it should be noted that Beyond Meat is most likely much better for the environment oz for oz).
The issue that the Whole Foods CEO is taking is that Beyond Meat is marketed as a healthy alternative to meat. It is only marginally more healthy at best. Replace a cheese burger with Beyond Meat and you still have something that is unhealthy.
I'd liken this to the same diet fad marketing that vegetarian food was healthier. This lead to Americans believing they were being healthy while over consuming pastas and other processed grains simply because they omitted the meat.
The study is about plant-based diets, not "vegetarian food."
I don't have access to the article, so I'm not sure what they define as a plant-based diet, but Harvard defines them as a diet focused mostly on plants, not one that omits meat (vegetarian) and/or animal products completely (Vegan).
I wouldn't argue a diet based around plants is more healthy than one that is not, but I wouldn't generalize and say vegetarian (read: no meat) is more healthy than one that does involve meat.
> How is "marginally more healthy _at_ best" defined?
Just comparing the nutritional values between 4oz of beef vs 4oz of Beyond Meat.
No it isn't, and that study isn't even about vegetarians.
Studies done in the USA can have very disparate conclusions because questionnaire studies are terrible w.r.t. diet "in your study, "The ARIC study did not assess whether participants were following a plant‐based diet.", the average person eats insanely unhealthy (> 70% overweight) and the average american's idea of meat is basically fried bread with condiment levels of meat. It's further confounded because vegetarians are usually higher SES or conscientious about what they're eating in the first place.
So you would expect to find studies disputing this and also studies that find the health effects of vegetarian diets are not unique. And you do:
> CONCLUSIONS: The health benefits of vegetarian diets are not unique. Prudent plant-based dietary patterns which also allow small intakes of red meat, fish and dairy products have demonstrated significant improvements in health status as well. At this time an optimal dietary intake for health status is unknown. Plant-based diets contain a host of food and nutrients known to have independent health benefits. While vegetarian diets have not shown any adverse effects on health, restrictive and monotonous vegetarian diets may result in nutrient deficiencies with deleterious effects on health. For this reason, appropriate advice is important to ensure a vegetarian diet is nutritionally adequate especially for vulnerable groups.
2017 study shows "no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/
In Australia, which I think has one of the highest meat intakes in the world, "We found no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality."
That study does not say a vegetarian diet is more healthy, it says that people who self-report following a vegetarian diet are more healthy.
And you would expect people who eat a vegetarian diet to be more healthy on average. They're likely more affluent, educated and aren't drinking, smoking or eating junk food as much as the general population.
Real beef patties definitely don't have any trans fat, unless maybe they contain weird additives. Trans fat comes from hydrogenation of vegetable oils.
Sort of this. Also remember the meat alternatives like Beyond are processed foods and there's more to health than just comparing macros. Ingredients for Beyond:
"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)"[0]
Edit: I am aware you can buy processed burgers/meat. But you can also buy/make burgers from meat that is not processed. I am not aware of a process to make meat free burgers/meat without processing and a ~dozen ingredients
> Fake burgers are a transition and off-ramp for people looking to eat less meat.
This is similar to the argument for vaping vs. smoking, and just yesterday there was report, and have been in the past, about the harm caused by the other chemicals in vaping liquid which IMO may make it worse than smoking.
The question is, are we going to find out soon that the additives in these fake meat burgers are worse (or at least equally bad) for health than real meat?
The title of the article states that meat alternatives are good for the environment so how did you arrive at the conclusion that this in any way denies the impact of the meat trade on the environment?
It's not meat that's bad for the environment, it's the large scale factory farming methods. There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too.
More efficient if you're starving and need some calories immediately without having to gather grass.
Not efficient in terms of environmental resources invested.
How much grass being eaten by the lamb resulted in a pound of lamb? How much water did the lamb consumer per pound of weight?
From the article:
>a plant-based burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 45% less energy, has 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of traditional U.S. beef.
Unfortunately some plants like rice are worse than livestock. Rice cultivation produces significant amounts of methane, which is a greenhouse gas worse than carbon dioxide itself.
yes and no. With the massive increase of meat consumption, there needs to be more livestock, which require more land, even if free ranged (unsure of correct term here, but non-factory industrial methods). This land, in lots of cases requires cutting down forests and the greenhouse gas releases of having such a large amount of livestock
> "It's not meat that's bad for the environment, it's the large scale factory farming methods
Best estimates show that 70%+ of cows and 98%+ of all other meat in the US comes from factory farms(CAFO's)[1], so to say "it's the large scale factory farming methods" is describing most meat people consume. So in this context, MOST meat IS bad for the environment
> "There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too"
I'm hearing these kind of lazy whataboutism's a lot lately. They are mostly not well thought through, knee-jerk defenses in response to having lifestyle choices/beliefs questioned. Most recently it was "soy beans for vegan products are also causing rainforest destruction" as if it's even slightly comparable to animal agriculture destruction. Do you have any examples or data to back up this statement?
What is it exactly about "processed foods" that make it bad for you. Is it just that they tend to be the ones with high sugar and fat content, or is there something about the processing of processed foods that is unhealthy?
FWIW, John Mackey has a pretty warped view on the environment, so I have a hard time lending him credibility regarding his opinions on the topic.
"We’ve been in a gradual warming trend since the ending of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1870, and climate change is perfectly natural and not necessarily bad. In general, most of humanity tends to flourish more when global temperatures are in a warming trend and I believe we will be able to successfully adapt to gradually rising temperatures."
Seems like a perfectly reasonable opinion to have? Humans have adapted to climate change before and now we have better technology than ever before to help us deal with it whether that’s by transportation, new construction, irrigation, and so on.
When I hear the phrase, "climate change is perfectly natural and not necessarily bad", it comes across a denial that human beings are the cause of climate change. Rhetoric that dilutes the message that we're facing the biggest existential threat in the history of humankind is universally harmful.
This again; is there seriously anyone who ate these things and thinks they are healthy? Or anyone who eats burgers and thinks they are healthy? As vegetarian I like them once a month and it would be great if they were extremely good for us; I think we will get there, but for now; if you bake one, smell one, feel one; it definitely does justice to the original; it feels fatty and unhealthy. Which is great as it is better for the world, but healthy, nah.
Yes, we eat burgers all the time sans the bun and it's an incredibly nutritious meal with a perfect mix of macro-nutrients. Great protein, good source of fat, and tons of nutrients. Hard to beat honestly.
I wonder how many non-keto people would be making this claim...
> "a perfect mix of macro-nutrients"
What is this "perfect mix"? who is determining this? Macronutrients say very little about how good a food it for you.
> "Great protein, good source of fat, and tons of nutrients. Hard to beat honestly."
Hamburgers contain trans fat[1], cholesterol[2], Neu5Gc[3], heme iron[4] and other cancer causing compounds from cooking/charring[5]. But yea, it's the bun you need to worry about...
This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat. The main source of trans fat is hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was invented to be a cheap, "healthy" alternative to lard and tallow.
> This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat
I'm sorry, but what was misleading? I didn't say "most trans fat in hamburgers is from animal fat". Pointing out that a main source is probably hydrogenated vegetable oil does not negate the animal fat source or the amount of trans fat overall.
I might be wrong, but last time I visited the US (coming from Europe) I couldn't find in Whole Foods _fresh _ veggie patties.
Those are kept in the fridge, not in the freezer. They are somewhat processed, but surely not as heavily as BM/Impossble.
Seems a nice middle ground. Not as intense as meat / meat imitations, but I'm quite sure they are healthy (given their relative simplicity) and provide sufficient protein.
Have consumed them non-stop over 6 years, and I've kept myself in shape and energetic.
>Whole Foods CEO on plant-based meat: good for the environment, not for health
That's literally not what he said, though.
The quote from the article is:
>“As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
Not endorsing something as being healthy as the CEO of a health foods chain and saying something is "not good for health" are two completely different statements.
There are probably insider trading implications holding him back from making absolute promotional statements for a company that he most likely holds stock in.
I agree the Beyond burgers could be "less processed", but IMHO the main health benefit from eating Beyond Meat burgers is because they're "not meat".
That's the main point people seem to be missing.
They're perhaps not as healthy as eating raw nuts and berries for dinner, sure.
But if it's a choice between traditional beef patties and a beyond meat burger of the same size and weight, the beyond meat burger is "healthier" hands down.
> “I don’t think eating highly processed foods is healthy. I think people thrive on eating whole foods,” Mackey says. “As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
Having been a vegetarian for fifteen years, I simply don't see how it's possible to eat vegetarian healthily without cooking for yourself from scratch. Of course these burgers are not healthy especially compared to meat burgers whose worst ingredient is the bun (which could be replaced by healthy beard instead of the sugar cake it is at most places). Since I started eating meat again, I dropped fifty pounds without even trying (exercise helped a bit). I agree, eating processed foods is terrible and as a vegetarian that doesn't cook there are few alternatives. It's easy to eat garbage and get fat as a vegetarian.
WHO has details [1] about the carcinogenic impacts of animal meat consumption. There's nothing of that sort for any plant-based burgers. The arguments in these types of articles seem to ignore what I think are more serious health risks from animal proteins.
And animals don't subsist on air. In terms of 'processed', the types of nutrients fed to factory-farmed animals are terrible, including massive amounts of antibiotics. Cows are regularly fed the cheapest carbs available, including Skittles [2]
104 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 186 ms ] threadI totally empathize with meat eaters who say, "I could never go vegetarian." That's how I feel about the Whole Food CEO's diet. Fifteen fruits and vegetables every day? Unfathomable!
https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat...
> the animals eat that too, which means you eat it
It's not true in general, as some things animals eat get digested into other things and don't exist in the animals anymore. Their components do exists, but we don't consider atoms of meat the meat itself.
Like mercury does in tuna.
Hamburgers aren’t inherently unhealthy (though I’ll concede that in practice they often are). A well-made hamburger contains part protein, vegetables and carbs. It’s a whole meal. A bit too heavy on the carbs maybe, but not extremely so. It can stand on its own with very few additional flavour components, and has the potential of being a more wholesome meal than many others.
The issue, rather, is twofold. First, almost all burgers skimp on the veggies and generally use low-quality ingredients, instead relying on other flavour components (i.e. too much sugar and salt, and often added fat in the form of low-quality cheese and bacon). And secondly, burgers are umami bombs and lead people to overeat, both in terms of quantity (serving size) and frequency.
Fat and protein would be the problem. The typical American diet is very high in fat and protein. More carbs (low GI carbs with fiber) would make it healthier. To make a well balanced burger, you'd probably need to eliminate cheese, reduce the size of the patty significantly, use a whole wheat bun, and add plant fiber. You're basically replacing all of the ingredients.
I would argue that a burger with bun included is balanced even for most low-carb diets. It's the addition of fries and a sugary drink that throws it out of balance. I was actually able to lose weight by replacing my routine soda/fries with an additional burger.
I have been training hard for about a year now, trying to get my body into as ideal shape as I can get it. During that time, I've experimented with a wide range of diets, including keto. I was on keto for about 4 months. I was decently well fat adapted by the end of it, but I did not feel healthy. I was also not making progress in my training. I plateaued for for months.
I switched to a "high carb" plant based diet and I haven't looked back since. My performance has skyrocketed, my fitness is building at a mind boggling pace, I sleep better, my skin is clearer, and I just feel healthier.
Just because an athlete at peak performance can utilize carbs effectively does not mean the average person does.
And refined sugars and grains.
The average American eats significantly less fat, and more carbohydrate now than fifty years ago.
Interesting how this trend appears to track perfectly with the rise of obesity...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm
This is very interesting data, but it doesn't say what you're implying it says. The condensed version is that people are eating more quantity, which is leading to increased obesity. And that's certainly the biggest factor. Macros are far less important that overall quantity.
Most (all?) foods aren't. It's less the quality of ingredients and more the latter you wrote about--the consumption rate relative to their nutritional values that makes the more or less healthy.
Quality of ingredients may lend itself to poor nutritional values, but over-consumption is the bigger problem.
Some foods are just too low in NV to over consume, like say broccoli. Others, are much easier, leading to the moniker of "unhealthy."
Why do people continue to make nutritional arguments using macronutrients as the basis? Macronutrients tell you very little about how healthy something is.
"It's a whole meal" - what does that even mean?
What tells you if something is healthy is the nutritional value - vitamins, minerals, enzymes, antioxidants, phytonutrients etc. Just because something is high in protein or high in carbs or low in fat does not tell you whether it is healthy.
A burger is not unhealthy, but eating only burgers probably is.
Multivitamins are not a replacement for a balanced diet[1], most likely provide very little protective health effects[2] and can, in some cases, be dangerous[3].
> It's the macronutrients that matter when it comes to actual meals
Why? What difference does it make what ratios of macronutrients individual meals are comprised of?
> A burger is not unhealthy, but eating only burgers probably is
That's not saying much at all. You can probably say that about most edible things.
1. https://time.com/5564574/supplements-vitamins-health/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multivitamin#Research
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419320
Source: https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-lowe...
Intake of animal fats linked to 21% higher risk of dying from any cause.
Source: https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/plant-based-fats...
Higher percentage of the amino acid Methionine in the protein portion of meat/dairy/egg vs. plant protein, which promotes cancer and diabetes in adulthood.
Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-07-diet-cancer-treatment...
The sugar Neu5Gc, found in most mammalian meat. We don't have it, and it seems to increase colon cancer rates.
Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/evolutionary-story-of-red-meat-...
Your studies are mildly interesting but correlations are low and large scale studies of vegetarians do not show any benefit in terms of longevity. The reasonble take away is that, while meat consumption may certainly increase the risk of some things, it also prevents other things.
No, I don't think it's a reasonable takeaway, unless you have something to back that up besides opinion.
Whole Foods CEO: Highly-processed food not good for health.
Highly-processed organic matter is not food.
But he's literally comparing a veggie burger to a salad, not what it's replacing: ground up cow meat that's reassembled in a factory. You won't find everything in ground beef listed on a label.
Fake burgers are a transition and off-ramp for people looking to eat less meat. Not people living a purist lifestyle like the Whole Foods CEO.
Beyond Meat/Impossible serve as nice punching bag for people denying the impact of the beef trade has on the environment and this article is catnip for them.
Objectively, nicorette is unhealthy, but doctors will recommend it all day if it helps you quit smoking.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/
Recent studies have shown that nicotine can affect several important steps in the development of cancer
>At present, it is not possible to draw a conclusion whether nicotine itself may act as a complete carcinogen
If you're going to quote it, include the bits that don't agree with you as well. The paper basically says "it may affect the role of other cancer causing agents, but we're not sure yet. We cannot say that nicotine is, in and of itself, a carcinogen"
Also reach back in time 30 minutes and remember that you claimed nicotine is, by itself, a "well known carcinogen", which is false.
https://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2018/07/nicotine-cause-...
Reminder that a low-grade stimulant like caffeine is considered to have deleterious effects.
But they point out 372 million people not eating meat is the same as 12 million cars off the road for 1 year! Where do they get these garbage numbers?
Comparing a Beef patty to a Beyond Meat patty shows roughly comparable macro nutritional values. [1],[2]
Beyond Meat "wins" in that it does not have any cholesterol, and no trans fats. But each has comparable calories, and fat levels. (Though it should be noted that Beyond Meat is most likely much better for the environment oz for oz).
The issue that the Whole Foods CEO is taking is that Beyond Meat is marketed as a healthy alternative to meat. It is only marginally more healthy at best. Replace a cheese burger with Beyond Meat and you still have something that is unhealthy.
I'd liken this to the same diet fad marketing that vegetarian food was healthier. This lead to Americans believing they were being healthy while over consuming pastas and other processed grains simply because they omitted the meat.
1: https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/
2: https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/ground-bee...
Vegetarian food is healthier, and reduces all cause mortality. Here's one of many studies that say so:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31387433
I don't have access to the article, so I'm not sure what they define as a plant-based diet, but Harvard defines them as a diet focused mostly on plants, not one that omits meat (vegetarian) and/or animal products completely (Vegan).
I wouldn't argue a diet based around plants is more healthy than one that is not, but I wouldn't generalize and say vegetarian (read: no meat) is more healthy than one that does involve meat.
> How is "marginally more healthy _at_ best" defined?
Just comparing the nutritional values between 4oz of beef vs 4oz of Beyond Meat.
Studies done in the USA can have very disparate conclusions because questionnaire studies are terrible w.r.t. diet "in your study, "The ARIC study did not assess whether participants were following a plant‐based diet.", the average person eats insanely unhealthy (> 70% overweight) and the average american's idea of meat is basically fried bread with condiment levels of meat. It's further confounded because vegetarians are usually higher SES or conscientious about what they're eating in the first place.
So you would expect to find studies disputing this and also studies that find the health effects of vegetarian diets are not unique. And you do:
(2012) Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr 15: 2287–2294. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717188
> CONCLUSIONS: The health benefits of vegetarian diets are not unique. Prudent plant-based dietary patterns which also allow small intakes of red meat, fish and dairy products have demonstrated significant improvements in health status as well. At this time an optimal dietary intake for health status is unknown. Plant-based diets contain a host of food and nutrients known to have independent health benefits. While vegetarian diets have not shown any adverse effects on health, restrictive and monotonous vegetarian diets may result in nutrient deficiencies with deleterious effects on health. For this reason, appropriate advice is important to ensure a vegetarian diet is nutritionally adequate especially for vulnerable groups.
2017 study shows "no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519/
An Austrian study suggests vegetarians are less healthy and have a lower quality of life, and higher rates of mental illness: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/jo...
In Australia, which I think has one of the highest meat intakes in the world, "We found no evidence that following a vegetarian diet, semi-vegetarian diet or a pesco-vegetarian diet has an independent protective effect on all-cause mortality."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28040519?dopt=Abstract
And you would expect people who eat a vegetarian diet to be more healthy on average. They're likely more affluent, educated and aren't drinking, smoking or eating junk food as much as the general population.
https://nutritionfacts.org/2014/02/27/trans-fat-in-animal-fa...
"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)"[0]
[0] https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/
Edit: I am aware you can buy processed burgers/meat. But you can also buy/make burgers from meat that is not processed. I am not aware of a process to make meat free burgers/meat without processing and a ~dozen ingredients
To simplify the discussion though, I focused on the nutritional values, which seem very similar to beef.
This is similar to the argument for vaping vs. smoking, and just yesterday there was report, and have been in the past, about the harm caused by the other chemicals in vaping liquid which IMO may make it worse than smoking.
The question is, are we going to find out soon that the additives in these fake meat burgers are worse (or at least equally bad) for health than real meat?
I don't wake up any longer coughing so hard the neighborhood can hear it.
There are 1,300 deaths in the US every day from smoking. Are these in the papers? You know the answer to that.
There has been 1 reported death by the CDC from vaping, and people are losing their minds over it.
We don't even know if it was because of vaping; we know that someone got sick, and they smoked a vaporizer.
This stuff isn't subjective. No one with any amount of credibility attached to their name is making that claim, so what's your basis for it?
Eating a cube of lamb is more efficient than eating grass, surely?
Not efficient in terms of environmental resources invested.
How much grass being eaten by the lamb resulted in a pound of lamb? How much water did the lamb consumer per pound of weight?
From the article:
>a plant-based burger generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions, requires 45% less energy, has 99% less impact on water scarcity, and 93% less impact on land use than a ¼ pound of traditional U.S. beef.
yes and no. With the massive increase of meat consumption, there needs to be more livestock, which require more land, even if free ranged (unsure of correct term here, but non-factory industrial methods). This land, in lots of cases requires cutting down forests and the greenhouse gas releases of having such a large amount of livestock
Best estimates show that 70%+ of cows and 98%+ of all other meat in the US comes from factory farms(CAFO's)[1], so to say "it's the large scale factory farming methods" is describing most meat people consume. So in this context, MOST meat IS bad for the environment
> "There are plenty of veggie farms that damage the environment too"
I'm hearing these kind of lazy whataboutism's a lot lately. They are mostly not well thought through, knee-jerk defenses in response to having lifestyle choices/beliefs questioned. Most recently it was "soy beans for vegan products are also causing rainforest destruction" as if it's even slightly comparable to animal agriculture destruction. Do you have any examples or data to back up this statement?
1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iUpRFOPmAE5IO4hO4PyS...
It’s incredibly easy and tempting to overeat when consuming ultraprocessed foods compared to consuming more traditional foods.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-find...
"We’ve been in a gradual warming trend since the ending of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1870, and climate change is perfectly natural and not necessarily bad. In general, most of humanity tends to flourish more when global temperatures are in a warming trend and I believe we will be able to successfully adapt to gradually rising temperatures."
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/whole-foods-...
> "a perfect mix of macro-nutrients"
What is this "perfect mix"? who is determining this? Macronutrients say very little about how good a food it for you.
> "Great protein, good source of fat, and tons of nutrients. Hard to beat honestly."
Hamburgers contain trans fat[1], cholesterol[2], Neu5Gc[3], heme iron[4] and other cancer causing compounds from cooking/charring[5]. But yea, it's the bun you need to worry about...
1. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/plant-based-fats...
2. https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/heart-disease-lowe...
3. https://www.sciencealert.com/evolutionary-story-of-red-meat-...
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/
5. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...
This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat. The main source of trans fat is hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was invented to be a cheap, "healthy" alternative to lard and tallow.
> This is pretty misleading. Animal fat has a very small amount of trans fat
I'm sorry, but what was misleading? I didn't say "most trans fat in hamburgers is from animal fat". Pointing out that a main source is probably hydrogenated vegetable oil does not negate the animal fat source or the amount of trans fat overall.
Those are kept in the fridge, not in the freezer. They are somewhat processed, but surely not as heavily as BM/Impossble.
Seems a nice middle ground. Not as intense as meat / meat imitations, but I'm quite sure they are healthy (given their relative simplicity) and provide sufficient protein.
Have consumed them non-stop over 6 years, and I've kept myself in shape and energetic.
Here are some examples https://www.vegetalia.com/categoria-producto/vegeburgers/
That's literally not what he said, though.
The quote from the article is:
>“As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
Not endorsing something as being healthy as the CEO of a health foods chain and saying something is "not good for health" are two completely different statements.
There are probably insider trading implications holding him back from making absolute promotional statements for a company that he most likely holds stock in.
I agree the Beyond burgers could be "less processed", but IMHO the main health benefit from eating Beyond Meat burgers is because they're "not meat".
That's the main point people seem to be missing.
They're perhaps not as healthy as eating raw nuts and berries for dinner, sure.
But if it's a choice between traditional beef patties and a beyond meat burger of the same size and weight, the beyond meat burger is "healthier" hands down.
He says:
> “I don’t think eating highly processed foods is healthy. I think people thrive on eating whole foods,” Mackey says. “As for health, I will not endorse that, and that is about as big of criticism that I will do in public.”
And animals don't subsist on air. In terms of 'processed', the types of nutrients fed to factory-farmed animals are terrible, including massive amounts of antibiotics. Cows are regularly fed the cheapest carbs available, including Skittles [2]
[1] https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/health/spilled-skittles-road-...