3 ms·
> they're what I would consider mostly junk food. Highly processed, low in naturally occurring nutrients and rich in salt and additives This is my main issue w
by GordonS 4y ago
> they're what I would consider mostly junk food. Highly processed, low in naturally occurring nutrients and rich in salt and additives
This is my main issue with most modern "meat alternative" products too - they're basically a high GI mashup of wheat flour, potatoes, sugar and other low-cost carbs, with a load of flavourings and salt added. And of course, they're often coated in breadcrumbs or batter. Basically any old shite with breadcrumbs. Even the macros aren't close to those of actual meat.
- lofatdairy 4y agoYeah, from personal experience and a few friends who are vegetarian, meat replacements are more about texture and flavor than actual nutrition. It's often the case that people who are vegetarian/vegan aren't so out of dislike for meat so much as other reasons, and these products exist to serve that craving. That said, most people I know obtain their nutrition elsewhere, the meat substitutes are far more expensive than the real thing and mostly just an occasional treat.
- hombre_fatal 4y agoThough, for greasy products like bacon and chorizo, it doesn't seem hard for ultraprocessed plant-based look-alikes to be healthier.
- coffee_beqn 4y agoMost fake meats I eat like impossible have macros very close to real meat. And for the junkier cuts like nuggets often slightly better. They are salty though so I try to avoid adding extra salt to other parts of the dish
- GordonS 4y agoI didn't mean the few expensive products that are meant to be half decent, like Impossible; my comment was more about the bulk of the market, which is frozen aisle nuggets and the like, mainly made of high-GI cheap shite and pea protein.