>The popular fake meats, such as Impossible burgers, seem like ultra-processed foods. Is that right? Very highly processed, but 'what is processed' really anyw

>The popular fake meats, such as Impossible burgers, seem like ultra-processed foods. Is that right? Very highly processed, but 'what is processed' really anyway. That's not a proper metric to judge things. >Is that right? Are they healthier than meat (a question without a general answer, but worth considering)? If you believe the status quo, the impossible meats are tremendously unhealthy. Almost always being higher in saturated fats and such than any real meats. If you believe that political activists have wrongly accused fat of being a problem. Then these impossible meats are fantastic. >They could help with climate change, regardless. Most likely not. This is just another political activist move. Yes a cow farts, but if you properly assess carbon capture of animal agriculture... meat production is good for climate change. Those cow patties is practically all carbon that was taken out of the air and is being returned to the earth. The problem is that animal rights activists want to propose any idea to have animals no longer slaughtered. >A basic question, but I haven't found an authoritative answer: Warnings about carbohydrates talk about processed foods but are silent on whole grains. Are whole grains a more healthy way to consume carbs? Glycemic index is what you're looking for. The magic number is 30. Anything above 30, avoid. Regular white bread is ~69 Wholegrain is ~79 Rice ~72 So it's marginally worse, and that's because the process to make it white removes various parts of the grain and ends up adjusting for more protein and less carbs in ratio.