4 ms·

For my part, I enjoy fast food burgers (think Wendy's, Burger King, etc...). These burger patties are not exactly rare Kobe beef. Once you put that thing on a b

For my part, I enjoy fast food burgers (think Wendy's, Burger King, etc...). These burger patties are not exactly rare Kobe beef. Once you put that thing on a bun, add cheese, slather it in sauce, etc... I don't find the difference in the patties very noticeable. I notice how fresh the lettuce is more than the patty. I eat plenty of meat, so I don't have an anti-meat agenda. But, for me, for fast food burgers, I may as well choose a less environmentally damaging, and yes, more animal friendly, alternative, because it hardly makes a difference.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
This is something I don't understand either. People saying things like "the texture and mouthfeel is not like real meat", and yet ground beef burgers vary wildly and are also not like real meat.
wyager 5y ago
The nutritional profile of a fast food beef patty is actually quite excellent, especially once you factor in the cost. The same cannot be said of the fake meat alternatives.
- rickspencer3 5y ago
  I am not eating Burger King for the nutritional profile.
- spicymaki 5y ago
  Nutritionally meat alternatives stack up well against fast food beef. With the added benefits of fiber and lack of cholesterol and saturated fat. The costs have to do with scale and government incentives. Plant protein is clearly cheaper to produce than animal protein.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Fiber is unnecessary unless you eat too much undigestible plant matter and cholesterol is not as simple as “it’s bad”. Most men are cholesterol deficient.
    - spicymaki 5y ago
      > Fiber is unnecessary unless you eat too much undigestible plant matter I am not exactly sure how to parse this. Could you explain? > and cholesterol is not as simple as “it’s bad”. Most men are cholesterol deficient. LDL cholesterol is pretty bad given that they build up in your arteries causing arteriosclerosis. I think it is pretty well understood that saturated fat found in animal products as well as dairy products raise LDL levels. Fiber reduces cholesterol levels in addition to aiding in regulating metabolic function. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/f... Not exactly sure about cholesterol deficiency in men, I have not heard that before. Pointers to that would be helpful.
      - wyager 5y ago
        > I am not exactly sure how to parse this. Could you explain? Much of plant fiber is approximately indigestible to humans. The primary benefit of consuming insoluble fiber is to more rapidly push the other insoluble fiber that’s sitting in your intestine out. If you don't consume fiber in the first place there’s no problem. There are no clear nutritional benefits to consuming fiber. Anyone saying you will have bowel problems if you don’t eat fiber is (literally) full of shit. It’s more like you should eat a lot or none at all (I prefer the latter). > LDL cholesterol is pretty bad given that they build up in your arteries causing arteriosclerosis It’s not that simple. If you look into it, the cholesterol studies that boil down to “LDL bad” are excessively simplistic. The current best knowledge suggests that the implications of blood cholesterol content are A) better analyzed in relative (LDL/HDL ratio) rather than absolute terms B) highly dependent on genetic factors. There are large populations where cholesterol has a totally different effect on heart disease risk. Every single piece of historical advice based on nutrition “science” of the form “X common metabolite is bad” has been completely wrong despite being widely accepted. “Fat is bad” was widely accepted for decades. Apply the appropriate skepticism here. Production of several hormones, including testosterone, is rate-limited by cholesterol availability. Endogenous synthesis in humans is too slow to support sufficient T synthesis. This is likely the origin of the archetype of the manly meat eater, which is almost culturally universal.
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    >Plant protein is clearly cheaper to produce than animal protein. Cheaper for who? Cheaper how, in terms of monetary cost? I raise most of my vegetables and all of my meat. There's a reason I can't raise all of my vegetables, and it has everything to do with cost. It is vastly more expensive in terms of my time, water, space, soil nutrients to raise my family's vegetables, vs. letting my animals raise themselves on the vegetation that grows naturally. I'd like to add, that I eat many wild plants that modern Americans consider "weeds", and include them in this equation.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago

This is something I don't understand either. People saying things like "the texture and mouthfeel is not like real meat", and yet ground beef burgers vary wildly and are also not like real meat.

wyager 5y ago

The nutritional profile of a fast food beef patty is actually quite excellent, especially once you factor in the cost. The same cannot be said of the fake meat alternatives.

rickspencer3 5y ago
I am not eating Burger King for the nutritional profile.
spicymaki 5y ago
Nutritionally meat alternatives stack up well against fast food beef. With the added benefits of fiber and lack of cholesterol and saturated fat. The costs have to do with scale and government incentives. Plant protein is clearly cheaper to produce than animal protein.
- wyager 5y ago
  Fiber is unnecessary unless you eat too much undigestible plant matter and cholesterol is not as simple as “it’s bad”. Most men are cholesterol deficient.
  - spicymaki 5y ago
    > Fiber is unnecessary unless you eat too much undigestible plant matter I am not exactly sure how to parse this. Could you explain? > and cholesterol is not as simple as “it’s bad”. Most men are cholesterol deficient. LDL cholesterol is pretty bad given that they build up in your arteries causing arteriosclerosis. I think it is pretty well understood that saturated fat found in animal products as well as dairy products raise LDL levels. Fiber reduces cholesterol levels in addition to aiding in regulating metabolic function. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/f... Not exactly sure about cholesterol deficiency in men, I have not heard that before. Pointers to that would be helpful.
    - wyager 5y ago
      > I am not exactly sure how to parse this. Could you explain? Much of plant fiber is approximately indigestible to humans. The primary benefit of consuming insoluble fiber is to more rapidly push the other insoluble fiber that’s sitting in your intestine out. If you don't consume fiber in the first place there’s no problem. There are no clear nutritional benefits to consuming fiber. Anyone saying you will have bowel problems if you don’t eat fiber is (literally) full of shit. It’s more like you should eat a lot or none at all (I prefer the latter). > LDL cholesterol is pretty bad given that they build up in your arteries causing arteriosclerosis It’s not that simple. If you look into it, the cholesterol studies that boil down to “LDL bad” are excessively simplistic. The current best knowledge suggests that the implications of blood cholesterol content are A) better analyzed in relative (LDL/HDL ratio) rather than absolute terms B) highly dependent on genetic factors. There are large populations where cholesterol has a totally different effect on heart disease risk. Every single piece of historical advice based on nutrition “science” of the form “X common metabolite is bad” has been completely wrong despite being widely accepted. “Fat is bad” was widely accepted for decades. Apply the appropriate skepticism here. Production of several hormones, including testosterone, is rate-limited by cholesterol availability. Endogenous synthesis in humans is too slow to support sufficient T synthesis. This is likely the origin of the archetype of the manly meat eater, which is almost culturally universal.
- daddylongstroke 5y ago
  >Plant protein is clearly cheaper to produce than animal protein. Cheaper for who? Cheaper how, in terms of monetary cost? I raise most of my vegetables and all of my meat. There's a reason I can't raise all of my vegetables, and it has everything to do with cost. It is vastly more expensive in terms of my time, water, space, soil nutrients to raise my family's vegetables, vs. letting my animals raise themselves on the vegetation that grows naturally. I'd like to add, that I eat many wild plants that modern Americans consider "weeds", and include them in this equation.