The beef itself is arguably one of the healthiest foods available. The burger ensemble with the fries and buns isn't great. The whole point of vegetarian burgers is so people following those diets can fit into social settings where others are eating burgers. Most vegetarians are such for ethical reasons, knowing it's harder to get adequate nutrition, and planning accordingly. Hopefully they aren't eating vegeburgers and expecting it to have the same nutrient profile as a real burger.
> Most vegetarians are such for ethical reasons, knowing it's harder to get adequate nutrition, and planning accordingly.
Getting adequate nutrition as a vegetarian isn’t difficult at all. Pick a random grain, a random legume, and a random vegetable, maybe throw in a salad, and you’ll average out to everything you need nutritionally.
It’s only a problem when you try to transform vegetables into non-vegetables. There’s nothing natural about eating massive amounts of a single part of any fruit or vegetable.
The same logic applies to explain why most juice is bad for you. It’s simply not evolutionarily sound to consume just the liquid portion of an entire bag of oranges or apples.
It applies to meat as well. A diet of only pork rinds isn’t going to work too well.
This paper is a meta-analysis of studies looking solely at iron stores among vegetarians vs omnivores. It doesn’t broadly address the claim about nutritional deficiencies among those who consume a meat-free diet more broadly. Moreover, among the studies they examined there was significant variability among cutoffs for serum ferritin as indicative of storage iron. About all I can conclude is that premenopausal vegetarian women should supplement with iron.
Exactly. This is evidence that it is hard. I'm glad the person you are replying to is able to manage a vegetarian diet successfully. It's definitely possible to get adequate nutrition, but most people don't have the understanding or discipline required.
Vegan avoids all animal products while vegetarians will eat milk products and sometimes fish. Since the vegan and vegetarian are often used interchangeably, I believe the article is really referring to the vegan lifestyle.
> The whole point of vegetarian burgers is so people following those diets can fit into social settings where others are eating burgers.
I do not think so. I eat meat, but does not go for burgers in general. I have yet to encounter social situation in which me not eating burger would in any way be an issue. It just does not happen, never. Being vegetarian poses social issues I think, but you never need a burger specifically.
It is more that people including vegetarians (excluding me I guess) like burger form and like the bun taste.
By only looking at a boolean "contains all the things your body needs", you can argue that beef patty topped with a cup of sugar is exactly as healthy.
Sure. But cooked meat also generally does not contain anything that is especially bad for you like sugar. Unprocessed meat is a healthy thing to eat. It’s not that controversial. If you’re eating meat and some vitamin c you’re not going to be deficient in anything.
There are plenty of fine vegetarian options too of course. Although some people will struggle with anemia and protein deficiency.
It's really not, though. Not any harder than in a meat eating diet. Maybe if you're following a vegan diet. Or if you have specific health concerns (like low iron absorption). But then, you should probably have to be careful if you're eating meat, as well.
This so much and to hear it often is similar annoying as those "and if they want to eat a burger/sausage then why don't they eat a real one"... People just not understanding that you do not eat no meat because of taste or disgust, but for ethical andor environmental reasons and just still like similar spice/composition or even just form or type of meal from previous times.
Hey grandposter, we even make burgers at home in many different styles without needing to fit into any social settings, but we also like to just try any offering that is out there, unimaginable!
Agreex, if the burger patty is just prime ground beef or black beans and quinoa or something it's probably ok. But people like to eat food that is nice sometimes and so it's everything else, the mayo, the ketchup, the toppings, the bun, the fries, that are part of the mise en place of the burger experience and the same goes for other vegetarian meat substitutes, e.g. sausages or bacon.
Are the patties high in iron and are they making that claim? I don't know.
Orange juice is also high in vitamin C and makes that claim so low information consumers think it's ok to have their children drink litres of the stuff since it's "healthier than soda". The problem you're highlighting has far more to do with the negative aspects of a capitalist food system (marketing and branding) and is far broader than whether these particular patties that are primarily selected on the basis their contents didn't die in terror surrounded by the stench of death with a boltgun through the skull have insufficient zinc or whatever.
Like sure proper labelling and branding is important, for all foods, but I'm reacting to the perceived broader campaign on behalf of the meat industry to single out meat replacements on the basis of them not being, I don't know, as healthy as a prime cut of wagyu beef prepared in the healthiest oil with a side salad of greens (no dressing).
A loaf of bread covered in butter is "perfectly healthy" if it satisfies your macronutrient requirements without going well beyond what your body is going to use. But that doesn't fit in with the average person's diet. Eating a 1200 calorie burger (that's high in fat) if your body burns 2000 calories a day likely isn't a healthy choice for most folks who aren't tracking what they eat, especially if they do it regularly.
title is a little clickbaity. study only seems to talk about zinc and iron which i think while important is more telling than the vagueness of "low nutritional quality"
Is Meat nutritious even though it lacks vitamin C?
How nutritious food is really depends on context. Potatoes cover a larger percentage of our nutritious needs than Bananas. Bananas however cover a few things lacking in normal western diets so we think of them as nutritious.
I think it would be fair to say meat lacks nutrition if it were advertised as an orange substitute. That’s the “context” you’re talking about. Meat substitutes aren’t true substitutes for meat without bio-available iron.
'Vegitarian Meat', if we are talking about it's role in a diet, is a flavor/texture substitute, not a nutritional substitute. If it wasn't about the flavor, there would be pretty much no reason to buy it.
If you want to pretend it is a nutritional substitute for meat, people on average suffer much more from too much, as opposed to too little, of what meat has, so it's still not really a problem.
I don't think you can really separate nutrition from flavor/texture. For instance, I cook dinner for my children every night. I want to cook tasty, flavorful food, but I also want my kids to receive adequate nutrition. Perhaps one day I'm at the store and see a meat substitute that's better for the environment. I think it's important to understand that, nutritionally, the substitute is deficient compared to meat.
This is a very common thing that comes up with nut "milks." You can find an endless stream of graphs and charts that highlight how much better nut "milks" are compared to cows milk. However, the graphs never ever ever include a comparison of the nutrient content. Sure, you can say adults get too much of everything, but the same is not true for children. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends 2-3 8oz cups of milk a day for children under 5. It would be a equivalent to give your children nut "milk" instead.
> I don't think you can really separate nutrition from flavor/texture.
You shouldn't, but you most certainly can. Cake and cookies exist.
Also, you're just hand-waving away the fact that most adults in the US don't suffer from malnutrition, and the one that do often eat lots of meat. A healthy diet is just as much about what you aren't eating.
The point is that the consumers who are purchasing vegetarian meats are probably either:
1. Already vegetarian and the vegetarian meat isn't replacing foods with those nutrients because the rest of their diet already covers it
2. Omnivores looking to remove some meat from their diets, who are still getting iron and zinc from the meat that they do consume
For a variety of reasons, essentially nobody is finding themselves subsisting on a diet where vegetarian meats replace their only (or primary) sources of iron and zinc.
I don’t think vegetarians are really looking for Iron as Spinach provides as much as Meat.
Meat substitutes are about flavor and mouth feel not nutrition, but for those with excess iron (Hemochromatosis) I am sure they will appreciate the option. Which again shows how nutrition exists in context not isolation.
> ... studies have shown that the absorption of dietary nonheme iron in rats is much higher and less responsive to dietary variables than in human subjects.
“(Bezwoda, Bothwell, Charlton et al.) the bioavailability of heme iron was measured to be about 20%, while the availability of non-heme iron varied between 6% and 18% depending on the amount of iron present in the meal.”
Spinach has dramatically more Iron than Beef does so being absorbed at a lower ratio is offset by a much larger quantity of Iron being in the food.
How did you calculate that? If it’s got 2.5x as much and Bioavailability of iron in beef is ~20% and non beef ranges from 6% to 18% then…
Worse case 2.5x * 0.06 / 0.20 = 75% as much per unit weight so you need 1/3 of a pound of Spinach. Best case was 2.5x * 0.18 / 0.2 = 225% so you need 1/9th of a pound.
I am not saying your wrong, I just don’t get how you did that calculation.
Imagine a 1 lb steak contains N milligrams of of iron. After eating you'd absorb 0.2N milligrams. In 1 lb of spinach, there would be 2.5N milligrams of iron, and you'd absorb 6%, meaning you'd absorb (2.5 * 0.06)N milligrams, i.e. 0.15N milligrams. So clearly you need to eat more spinach to get the same amount of iron in the worst case. So you need to eat 33% more spinach in this case to get the same amount of iron. But some places list absorption of non-heme iron as low as 2%.
I read it, but it doesn't provide much actual evidence. The details are just a bunch of tropes that sound like just what nutritionists keep pushing down Americans throats while we all get fatter and sicker.
The study you link then only talks about vit C degradation in cooking.
I don't see the relevance to this topic?
How about a Harvard study directly refuting your original artical's claims?
> The study you link then only talks about vit C degradation in cooking.
Are you suggesting people eat uncooked meat? Because that’s got an entirely different set of risks.
As to your study, only “37% denied vitamin supplement use.” You can get Vitamin C from vitamins that’s what they are designed to do. Similarly these people where only on an 85% meat diet, you don’t actually need many fresh sources of vitamin C and you don’t even need to eat it every week.
It’s really easy to cover your basic dietary needs. 85% cooked meat and a multivitamin is fine. 100% cooked beef + water isn’t going to cut it.
> Are you suggesting people eat uncooked meat? Because that’s got an entirely different set of risks.
This is irrelevant to the original conversation, but actually I think in some circumstances yes. Most of the real danger from uncooked or undercooked meats comes from the way we factory raise and handle animals today. I've personally drank raw egg shakes 1000s of times in my life, but I stick to high quality eggs.
Overall, the cooking vs vit C argument is irrelevant and I don't know why you've brought it up when my original assertion for which you said I was "...dangerously missinformed." was "I think eating meat also doesn't require vit C to process..."
So who cares if cooking does or doesn't degrade vitamin C?
As to the study itself 2029 participants of which:
"""
Red meat consumption was reported as daily or more often by 85%. Under 10% reported consuming vegetables, fruits, or grains more often than monthly, and 37% denied vitamin supplement use. Prevalence of adverse symptoms was low (<1% to 5.5%).
"""
It's how often they ate red meat, not how much of their diet was meat.
Given
> Under 10% reported consuming vegetables, fruits, or grains more often than monthly, and 37% denied vitamin supplement use.
There's bound to be some crossover for which the 10% that didn't eat anything but meat also didn't take any supplements.
Seeing as the belief is that meat alone is sufficient among most of those that didn't supplement and or eat anything other than meat, I think it's fair to surmise that a larger portion of people did this than had issues since
Prevalence of adverse symptoms was low (<1% to 5.5%).
And really from the way you keep dodging the original topic for which you called me dangerously misinformed, and you misinterpreted much of the abstract in your argument's favor, I'm inclined to believe you are not really arguing in good faith.
Uncooked meat is associated with several extremely serious health conditions. It’s less guaranteed to kill you than a long term complete lack of Vitamin C in your diet, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Anyway, you replied to someone saying “I don’t believe meat actually lacks vitamin C.”
With: “I think eating meat also”
If that wasn’t agreement with what they said then never mind, but clearly you are reading stuff into that study that it doesn’t actually say. There’s a huge difference from hard data and well some people probably didn’t take a vitamin and also only ate meat.
What your doing is not gathering scientific evidence but perpetuating your own biases. This is why you believe things that aren’t true and you should take some time to think about why you’re doing it.
PS: Even just occasionally squeezing a lemon across a stake or lobster completely changes the impact of a nearly complete meat diet. Which is why self reported dietary studies are nearly useless.
consisting solely of a third hand anecdote from the 90s is totally not just `perpetuating your own biases.` /s
My original claim was _I think_ and not written in concrete, but I just gave you far greater evidence than you've given me to show that I may be at least reasonable in my thinking and not `dangerously misinformed.`
That trial was recent and included 2029 participants. At the very least we should both be willing to concede that it may be perfectly possible to live on meat alone, but there's not much evidence either way.
> Anyway, you replied to someone saying “I don’t believe meat actually lacks vitamin C.”
Fair enough, I see why you brought up cooking and vit C degradation, but it's not really relevant to my original claim for which again, you believe I'm dangerously misinformed.
> Uncooked meat is associated with several extremely serious health conditions.
And the reduction of pirates since 1800 is associated with global warming...
of course I do realize in this case an acid is used to essentially cook it.
Still, I'm perfectly happy to eat raw meat if I know and trust the source. For sure I would not go near raw meat from your average restaurant or grocery store.
I agree, Beef tartare is delicious as is many kinds of raw fish.
> associated with global warming
But that’s just wordplay. Eating a diet of raw meat results in a dramatically lower life expectancy. Knowing your sources doesn’t particularly help here it’s just a form of conformation bias because most of the time raw meat isn’t a problem. Unfortunately, a lifetime consistent of a vary large number of meals so low risks are still meaningful.
That said, if uncooked meat is your only source of vitamin C then it’s better than dying. Traditional Eskimos diet was almost completely meat for months, but included such things as chewing on raw blubber.
So, sure a carnivore diet is possible. But simply eating nothing but cooked stakes will fairly quickly kill you, this isn’t a contradiction. Healthy animal and water only diets are extremely difficult to achieve.
PS: I also standby what I said about your view of that study. There’s actual evidence and wishful thinking the difference is critical.
I do regular blood work and I only eat plants, and I only supplement D3 and B12. My iron and zinc levels are great.
I suppose the answer would be no, we would get sick and die without those. But it seems like you’re implying that we can’t get them without meat. If that’s correct, I’d say that’s a false assumption — I am doing great, and the rest of my family is as well.
Although some nutrients appear less bioavailable in plants when tested in labs, evidently this is not true in situ. My gut feeling (ha) is that bioavailability (even with foods we consider highly available) depends quite a lot on healthy gut flora. There is some great and some more tenuous evidence of this depending on the food and nutrient in question, and I suspect it’s why some people don’t thrive on plants.
Of course, I’m simply saying that it’s possible. I also acknowledged that this differs for some people; I know I’m a single data point and my experience is my own.
I would contend that vegetarians being deficient still doesn’t say that the diet overall has to be deficient. It is also not uncommon or rare for vegetarians or vegans to be very healthy, so I know I’m not a special case.
Most people, regardless of their choice of diet, are going to be deficient in something. For people who eat meat in North America, a serious and common deficiency is simply fibre. It’s much less likely to be true among vegetarians, but in both cases it doesn’t need to be true.
My point is that with a monitored and balanced diet, eating plant-based is not inherently deficient in anything besides B12. I know some people have difficult experiences with plant-based diets, and I suspect it’s either due to gut issues or unbalanced/non-diverse eating tendencies.
Vegetarians should not be getting the majority their nutrients from vegetarian meat. These products are not even designed with that goal in mind. Vegetarians should have a varied plant based diet and supplement if necessary.
No one should be eating these as their main source of nutrients or protein for that matter. A proper plant based diet consists of less processed whole grains, legumes, and leafy vegetables.
One thing I noticed is that you have to watch out for the protein content in vegetarian "meat", it is sometimes quite low. It varies a lot depending on which type though.
I think the amino acid profile is more important, because it's not really stated anywhere. You don't need to really worry about it with meat, but with non meat sources, you (allegedly?) need to start thinking about it.
I am a degenerate that consumes a lot of Huel, and they claim to think about it but who knows if our understanding is good enough to properly model this stuff.
High protein is not a diet requirement and studies have shown detriment to too much protein consumption. The protein craze is a marketing gimmick, yet most westerners are drawn in by products that advertise it and seem to be concerned about it even when they live a lifestyle that doesn't require increased protein consumption [0].
> People who exercise regularly also have higher needs, about 1.1–1.5 grams per kilogram. People who regularly lift weights, or are training for a running or cycling event need 1.2–1.7 grams per kilogram
That's a quote from your article, which matches what gym bros tell you that you need. It's actually pretty hard to get that much even if you eat meat whilst trying to eat only 2-3k calories.
I'm curious what your diet consists of? And how many people you know of in Western society that have been diagnosed with "protein deficiency". I'd wager a guess that the answer is zero.
I don't eat red/white meat and I fulfill daily protein intake easily for my activity levels while staying under 2k cals. My diet is mostly fruits, veggies, nuts for lunch (sometimes cheeses, beans/lentils). If you think meat is where it's at for protein you'd be way off base. Red meat barely makes it into the top 10 if you're generalizing foods. At that rate you're well over 3k calories by eating nutritionally boring foods (spoiler: meat isn't very well rounded).
Finally it's very easy to overestimate working out. But most people who are actually into fitness can also calculate where and how to get their protein correctly as well and know where it's most beneficial, for them, to get it from. I can tell you hardcore "gym bros" aren't all focusing on meat.
When entire stores pop up around products which, the majority they're selling have labeling highlighting protein content, it's not marketing? And if some, or many, of those products are filling said products with low quality / cheap protein that's not a gimmick? Not all protein is the same. I'd say there's plenty of marketing gimmicks around protein.
Case in point... Check out GNC's website. Open the source. As of writing this, on the front page, protein is called out 98 times. Fiber? 4. Nutrition? 6.
Search products on their site... When searching for protein it shows 1004 products. Fiber? 31. Nutrition? 304.
I'm sure that the Ghost Whey Protein powder [0] that tastes like Chips Ahoy cookies - isn't a gimmick at all. But, what do I know?
Feel free to share with me any studies highlighting the rampant protein deficiency epidemic in the west. I'd love to read them.
Plant based sources of protein have all the essential amino acids, just in different ratios to meat, and maybe a little less bioavailable. Though I've never seen any literature indicating that this has any negative effect on the average person. Maybe in athletes but they will generally have a more controlled diet anyway, supplementing protein with things like shakes.
So you need heme to have bioavailable iron… there is plant-based heme in some of the ‘meats’ these days. Seems like it might be good to increase use of that.
I can’t see any obvious cynical conflicts of interest here in the funding sources, but I don’t know the Bertebos Foundation.
While I’m aware of some meat industry campaigns to dissuade people from eating vegetarian alternatives, this study seems plausibly good-faith.
The object level claim is “some of these products contain phytates” (aka anti-nutrients). Not my field but the first few search results suggest this is not considered to be a big issue? Eg https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/
Anyway, if there are steps these products can take to improve their nutritional profile, I’m sure they will work towards them. My model here is that it’s a recent capability gain to make meat-like products that are pretty close to the real thing in taste and texture, and further improvements to nutrition will follow inevitably.
Amino acid and fatty acid compositions should be directly compared between meat/eggs raised with access to a complex outdoor supplemental food biome vs outdoor-raised industrially fed meat/eggs vs indoor raised (and also grass fed vs grainfed vs grain finished beef/dairy)
The garden burger was fine. The new wave of vegetarian meats was always meant to be a low cost substitute for the real deal, for the growing class of plebs. That’s why they stuck it next to the real meat section.
On a related note, I’ve noticed that vegetarian jerky and other vegetarian meat-product substitutes have a slightly lower protein-to-calorie ratio than the originals. Not a big difference, but consistent.
I really don’t understand eating vegetarian, presumably for well-being, and then making fake “meat” food science experiments a major part of your diet.
I have nothing against people choosing to eat vegetarian either. I’m not vegetarian, but I abstain from meat from time to time so sometimes I eat vegetarian. And when I do I’d much rather have something like delicious traditionally vegetarian Indian food than the output of some novel process chemistry reactor.
I’ve been veg’an for decades. I really enjoy “meat” substitutes for their texture and flavour absorption ability. For me it is no way an effort or experience of meat substitution. In short, meat eaters don’t have some copyright over “meatiness” and it is perfectly fine for non meat eaters to enjoy or seek out a gamut of food textures.
Typically, I eat the traditional foods of tofu, tempeh, and seitan/gluten and they are a “major part of my diet”.
Over the past decade, “food science experiments” have given us mycoprotein products (Quorn), textured vegetable proteins (TVPs) made from pea etc, and more recent eattempts like Beyond. Frankly, I prefer the “traditional” forms but the new types are improving and I eat them for some variety. My only “beef” is that they tend to push traditional veg’an proteins out of precious supermarket space.
I make sure I understand the protein, sugar, carbs, aminos, vitamins (especially B) I eat, as should everyone, and am perfectly healthy.
Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food that don’t require so many resources. People clearly like to eat meat, so if we can replace a lot of it with something plant based that also satisfies those needs, then why not do it?
Most people will hardly notice the difference now if ground beef in meat sauces, taco meat, etc was replaced, or even only half of it, with plant based meat.
> Raising animals takes a huge amount of resources, so in order to sustain the number of people we have in the planet, we need to find other ways to make food that don’t require so many resources.
Is that really true? Livestock farming can be entirely sustainable using renewable inputs. The per unit resource usage might be high by some simplistic arbitrary metrics, but when those resources are basically sunlight and its natural products, what’s the problem? In any event we’re nowhere near the planet’s renewable carrying capacity.
I’m against foolish, cruel, and unsustainable “factory farming” practices, but the existence of a bad method of doing something doesn’t mean there aren’t good ones.
> People clearly like to eat meat, so if we can replace a lot of it with something plant based that also satisfies those needs, then why not do it?
People clearly like to drink sugar water too. So we replaced sugar with food science experiments like aspartame and sucralose that can’t be metabolized. But now we’re learning they’re endocrine disrupters with significant side effects.
Yes. Livestock farming needs more than “sunlight and it’s natural products.” There isn’t enough land to replace factory farming with better pasture-raised methods [1]. Beef production is the leading causes of deforestation in the world [2], responsible for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon [3].
You’re misquoting your sources. For example your second source says “In the countries that account for most of the deforestation” and not “in the world.” That qualifier complete invalidates the point you’re trying to make. And “concerned scientists” are well and good, but perhaps you should look to experts that actually live and work agriculture?
And it’s sustainable because pasture is reusable and so is the farmland that grows corn and other feed.
There isn’t enough land for your utopia full of pastured livestock and farmland for animal feed to exist among an ever growing human population that is eating more meat than ever before. Discrediting my valid sources doesn’t change that.
There observably is enough now and for the foreseeable future. We know population won’t grow without bounds unless we become multiplanetary. Whether we eat fake meat or real meat is asymptotically irrelevant.
If there was enough CAFOs wouldn’t exist to the extant they do now. If there was enough the world’s rainforests wouldn’t be getting razed to support more livestock. Stay delusional.
Do you have any background at all in agriculture besides reading alarmist websites? Fortunately for you, if you don’t want to remain ignorant and emotionally manipulated, virtually every major university in the USA has an ag extension program where you can learn how producing food actually works.
That's a myth. We can easily produce food for 20-30 billions of people using our current farming methods (and that includes meat production). The reason people are starving in Africa is because they do not have enough money to buy food (for various political reasons), not our inability to produce enough of it.
Sometimes you just need a burger-like product to take to the company BBQ so that Todd from accounting will shut the fuck up for once about how vegetarian food is all "rabbit food".
Sometimes you want to make one of the many dishes you grew up with, but you want to live consistently with your ethics, so you want a simple replacement.
Sometimes you want something that freezes easily so that when you've had a long and stressful day you have something quick and easy to reach for.
Most meat-eaters don't make hamburgers a "major part of their diet" -- and most vegetarians/vegans don't make veggie burgers a "major part" of theirs either. But as an occasional thing, it's very useful to have these meat substitutes, for a variety of reasons. You don't have to eat them for every meal in order to find them useful.
> Sometimes you just need a burger-like product to take to the company BBQ so that Todd from accounting will shut the fuck up for once about how vegetarian food is all "rabbit food".
I've always preferred "thats not food, that's what food eats." I don't see how fake meat is going to solve a gap in senses of humor though.
> Sometimes you want to make one of the many dishes you grew up with, but you want to live consistently with your ethics, so you want a simple replacement.
I would be quite interested in hearing a consistent and rigorous herbivore ethical system. All of the herbivores I've personally encountered mistake their emotional revulsion for an ethos. But, in all charity, I can at least imagine the existence of a consistent ethos one might hold with respect abstention. In fact, there's one that's part of my faith tradition, but it's considered an exceptional penance and not a moral obligation. Somehow I don't think that's your motivation though. If it is a penitential act though, then you have my sincere admiration. That said, eating highly processed food science experiments that we have no actual data on the long term effects of consumption of is inconsistent with my ethics. Naturally, that is orthogonal to eating a complete diet that's as consistent as possible given practical constraints with what H. Sapiens evolved to eat. Incidentally that's the basis of my ethos with regard to food: I want to eat what my body is best able to use.
> Sometimes you want something that freezes easily so that when you've had a long and stressful day you have something quick and easy to reach for.
I don't understand this, I've never had trouble freezing the vegetarian dishes that I've made.
> Most meat-eaters don't make hamburgers a "major part of their diet" -- and most vegetarians/vegans don't make veggie burgers a "major part" of theirs either. But as an occasional thing, it's very useful to have these meat substitutes, for a variety of reasons. You don't have to eat them for every meal in order to find them useful.
I certainly agree that even eating supermarket meats it's hard to eat a complete diet. Organ meat is basically impossible to find in your average supermarket, but it's of vital importance for getting nutritionally available dietary micronutrients. I'm sure that you know, as an educated herbivore, that it's considerably more difficult to get bioavailable micronutrients from plants due to our digestive system not being evolved to process phytates. Fortunately thanks to human ingenuity there are some workarounds, like fermentation and other forms of processing that neutralize the natural defensive poisons that plants produce. Because, believe it or not, just like animals plants also prefer not to be eaten!
Just wondering if vegans are more or less likely to be murderers compared to non-vegans, because perhaps vegans are more ideological and less flexible, maybe there's a correlation
> I really don’t understand eating vegetarian, presumably for well-being, and then making fake “meat” food science experiments a major part of your diet.
People eat vegetarian diets for many different reasons. Sometimes religious, cultural, health, environmental, and sometimes as a protest to animal suffering. I think a majority of Americans consume processed foods on a daily basis. If you are eating deli meats, hot dogs, burgers, etc. the food is pretty processed. A chicken, pork, and beef filler hot dog is not natural by any means. The way animals are raised before slaughter is not natural and the feed they are given are not what animals consume in nature. Everything you eat is really a food science experiment.
I strongly agree that more of my diet than I'd like is a food science experiment. That doesn't mean I want to add more food science experiments. Otherwise, I do what I can to get both meats and fruits and vegetables, including processed meats like sausages, from sources that are personally known to me and that use traditional natural methods and ingredients. I'd say over half of the meat I eat is from animals that I personally saw when they were alive and I know they were both raised and slaughtered humanely. I'd like to get that number considerably closer to 100%. It's a lot harder to do with vegetables since I've not yet gotten good at preservation besides freezing, and there's only so much space, so in the off season I'm mostly stuck with supermarket produce.
> then making fake “meat” food science experiments a major part of your diet.
Vegetarian meat-like alternatives exist but their existence doesn’t mean that some large number of vegetarians subsist in large part on them any more than meat eaters subsist primarily on hamburgers. This seems like an argument against some straw man vegetarian that doesn’t often exist. I’ve been vegan for 25 years and consume commercially prepared meat alternatives maybe twice a month at most. Most vegans I know have similar dietary habits.
This is just a weird data point but my kids are vegan (long story). My youngest has no idea what meat tastes like but she loves the taste of vegan sausages and chick'n nuggets. She doesn't care if it tastes like actual chicken or actual pork sausage, she just knows she likes the taste.
And yeah I couldn't get her to eat chickpea masala to save her life.
Now why would anyone choose to eat something? What reason could there possibly be? Oh, maybe to some it tastes good? Not really en enigma... But why do so many meat eaters really worry about this? And why do you presume well being? Could it not be one of say some combination of taste, climate, economy, well being, ethics, religion?
> I really don’t understand eating vegetarian, presumably for well-being, and then making fake “meat” food science experiments a major part of your diet.
Okay, thanks for the data point. Have you done anything to try to understand it? Talked to people who do this and ask them about it, for example?
Your bafflement is baffling about the wrong question. People who eat vegetarian may on occasion want to eat a meat replacement product for the flavor of it. They would not make it a major component of their diet.
On the other hand, these products can displace meat consumption in diets that consume unnecessary volumes of meat, which will also be generally beneficial due to less resource use.
No I don't have any idea. I just didn't know what I was supposed to do with that information so I was trying to keep the conversation going. Looks like you got some good comments though, hopefully that's cleared up your lack of understanding.
Scurvy isn't necessarily a problem in an all-meat diet, as evidenced by historic cultures with extremely low plant food consumption (e.g. historic Coastal Inuit and Masai); however, those diets aren't like "western meat eating" e.g. cooked prime muscle, but include uncooked blood, organ meats, etc.
The US RDI for vitamin C was produced not by studying hard what is necessary for the human body but by estimating the amount of vitamin C a small sample of people (N < 200) were getting from self-reported eating activities. They then took two standard deviations higher, rounded the result, and estimated people should be getting 60mg per day. Then in 1998, after lobbying from the orange juice industry and based on no new studies and zero additional information they decided to raise the recommendation 50% to 90mg. However, this is far in excess of the amount actually needed by the human body to ward off disease, which is around 10mg per day. [0]. In fact, eating fresh meat was a well-known cure for scurvy aboard sailing vessels until the early part of the 20th century since fresh meats do contain enough vitamin C to exceed this amount. The forms of vitamin C in meats are furthermore more bioavailable than vegetable sources of vitamin C and there's one more factor to consider: Although vitamin C plays a variety of roles in the human body, the majority of it is used for two purposes: the synthesis of collagen and the synthesis of l-carnitine. Which should strike an astute reader immediately as both being abundant in a carnivorous diet and therefore a person eating meat in abundance would have a much lower biological need for vitamin C to begin with. Furthermore, vitamin C is transported via the GLUT-4 transporter which implies it competes with glucose for absorption. A person on a ketogenic diet such as the lion diet will not have nearly as much glucose in their blood stream and may therefore absorb vitamin C more readily than someone on an omnivorous diet. All that said: no, carnivores do not experience scurvy.
They've done this experiment! I wrote a summary years ago back when I was doing a 52papers challenge (that I failed, writing 52 academic paper reports in 52 weeks is grueling).
That doesn't give her any kind of credibility. Actually given that Jordan Peterson medical license is hanging by a thread, any claim of credibility by association to him gives her even less credency.
I think the expérimental benzodiazepine withdrawal technique was problematic. Nobody should fuck around and experiment when it comes down to benzo or alcohol withdrawal.
> A diet largely made up of plant-based foods such as root vegetables, pulses, fruit and vegetables generally has a low climate impact and is also associated with health benefits such as a reduced risk of age-related diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as has been shown in several large studies.
Now write it a hundred times and maybe we can stop this circular discussion.