Beyond Meat Burger and Impossible Burger 2.0

[folivier]

Look for Raising Cane's for good fried chicken. https://www.raisingcanes.com/locations
Not spicy like Popeye's, although Popeye's does have a mild version that is good.

 

[brewer12345]

Have you ever watched real meat processing? Is that less of an abomination?

I process all my own game, thus far up to deer and wild boar. I fail to see anything abominable about it. The meat processing industry is another issue.
Now if they come up with Beyond Squirrel or Beyond Jackrabbit, I suppose I will have to try it.

 

[HFWR]

Have tried a black bean “burger” from Costco, and some other brand veggie burger. Don’t recall either brand name offhand. Definitely not ground beef, but decent enough, I suppose.

No plans to give up being an omnivore...

 

[EastWest Gal]

No need to get defensive. Processed ingredients that substitutes for the real thing over time is not good for the body. The items of concern of beyond meat burger

Expelled pressed canola oil
Refined coconut oil
Yeast extract ( aka MSG)
Maltodextrin, Succinic Acid, Acetic Acid

Everything we do to food is “processed”.

-Acetic acid+water = vinegar
-Succinic acid is in the Kreb’s cycle-part of our body’s chemistry already. Nothing bad about it at all.
-Maltodextrin is partially hydrolyzed starch, something our stomach acid does already.
-Yeast extract is not MSG. Checked multiple resources on this.
-Expelled pressed canola oil-just means that there was no heat in the process. That is a very good thing in my book. Heat processing of fats can create all sorts of problematic molecules.
-refined coconut oil is the only ingredient you listed that troubles me. Heat treatment of delicate fats can be a problem.

Just because a label has chemical words doesn’t mean it’s bad stuff.

Some processed ingredients are the real thing. Cooking and combining ingredients = processing.

My undergrad degree was in biochemistry. Back then I didn’t know I would also be a foodie. Good discussion. Pros and cons allows for all of us to learn from one another.

 

[Chuckanut]

What is an acceptable level of processing for food is something I have struggled with. The closest I have come to defining and acceptable level of processing is that the food is close to how it came out of the ground or off the animal. Define close? That is really up to the individual.

What I know is that by eating more whole and nearly whole foods and reducing processed foods (mostly highly processed carbs and sugar) I lost weight and stopped the evil yearly weight gain that I could not otherwise stop.

 

[Clone]

Seems like meat burgers should be far more expensive considering the vast amounts of water (12,000 gallons) and grains (15-20 pounds) needed to produce one pound of beef. Is the cost difference due to subsidies the beef industry gets that veggie burger makers don't get?

Considering that the average homeowner's lawn consumes 160,000 gallons of water per year, I don't think that the vast amount of water for a cheeseburger is out of line. Beef is a pretty efficient way of converting rain and sunshine into protein that is palatable to most humans.

 

[gayl]

That makes sense to me. I never understood why so many vegetarians want food that duplicates the taste and texture of meat. It seems odd to me. Especially, when there are so many yummy vegetarian recipes to choose from.

Too true in my case! My tastebuds actually prefer non-processed foods. But to each their own

FWIW: I only have a 'lawn' during rainy seadon

 

[gayl]

Too true in my case! My tastebuds actually prefer non-processed foods. But to each their own

FWIW: I only have a 'lawn' during rainy seadon

Won't let me edit & should've read entire thread 1st

Yes I 'process' food. But I'm doing it with ingredients I can (1) pronounce (2) know what they are (3) lower price point generally (4) fresh

 

[Huston55]

Considering that the average homeowner's lawn consumes 160,000 gallons of water per year, I don't think that the vast amount of water for a cheeseburger is out of line. Beef is a pretty efficient way of converting rain and sunshine into protein that is palatable to most humans.

Not accurate.

Not judging; one may choose ‘beef’ for other legitimate reasons but, efficiency of protein production is not one of them. Not that I want to eat ‘crickets’ as a steady diet (or maybe ever) but, I’m all in for lots of fish protein, which is significantly more efficient to produce and typically healthier.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio

 

[Dawg52]

I looked for the BMB burgers at the local Walmart Neighborhood Market but they didn't have them. All they had was Boca....a soy burger. I took a chance and got a pack and I must say it tasted better than I thought it would. Certainly not as good as a juicy beef burger but not bad for a quick meal. I loaded onions on top, added cheese and it came out pretty decent. I'm not turning down a good backyard burger tho as my neighbor usually offers a couple to me when she cooks out. I tried a different veggie brand many years ago and I couldn't eat half of it. Thought I was going to puke.

I'm going to look a little further for the BMB ones at Winn Dixie.....my only other option. Also going to try making a black bean burger sometime just for the hell of it.

 

[Clone]

efficiency of protein production is not one of them. Not that I want to eat ‘crickets’ as a steady diet (or maybe ever) but, I’m all in for lots of fish protein, which is significantly more efficient to produce and typically healthier.

Yup, efficiency is not the correct term.



Folks want to charge all of the inputs (including rain, sunshine, fresh air) against things that they wish to suppress (using fossil fuels, animal products, chemicals, things that create noise).



I don't get the concept of 'eat this, it tastes just like chicken!' I can get chicken at the grocery store. I think a lot of the focus on creating meat substitutes that 'taste like meat' comes form folks that want to eliminate meat from other people's diets.



Some folks may want a patty of food that looks like and/or tastes like a burger. I am OK with a beef burger. And if I want something that has great vegetable taste- I can eat vegetables!


Why don't we see 'it looks like a vegetable, but it is actually made from red meat!' in the stores? Because we actually have vegetables!

 

[Midpack]

Considering that the average homeowner's lawn consumes 160,000 gallons of water per year, I don't think that the vast amount of water for a cheeseburger is out of line. Beef is a pretty efficient way of converting rain and sunshine into protein that is palatable to most humans.

Where are you getting that number? I looked at several sources and none were anywhere near that high on average - for total household use let alone watering lawns. Here's just one set of numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_water_use_in_the_U.S._and_Canada :

In the United States, a nationwide compilation of these metered quantities by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows average domestic water deliveries (for both indoor and outdoor purposes) by public water suppliers to single-family and multifamily dwellings were about 89 gallons (337 liters) per person per day in 2010 and 83 gallons (314 liters) in 2015. [That works out to 32,485 gal per person per year or 86,000 gal per househould per year for all usage in 2010 - indoors and outdoors. And 30,295 gppy or 80,300 gphy in 2015]

Indoor water use includes water flows through fixtures and appliances inside the house. The average daily indoor water use per household (averaging 2.65 people in the North American sample) ranged from zero to 644 gphd (gallons per household per day) and averaged 138 gphd, with standard deviation of about 80 gphd (or 521 liters per day and standard deviation of 300 liters). The equivalent average use per person is 52.1 gpcd (gallons per capita per day) or 197 liters per capita per day. Because the distribution of indoor use in the sample of homes is positively skewed, a more appropriate measure of central tendency is the median, which is about 125 gphd (or 472 lphd).

The outdoor residential water use includes landscape irrigation, filling and back washing swimming pools, water used through outdoor faucets (hose bibs) for washing pavement and cars, and other outdoor uses. Annual outdoor use in North American cities differs by climatic region and ranged from 13,000 gallons in Waterloo, Canada to 120,400 gallons in Scottsdale, Arizona. The average outdoor use across 9 sampled cities in the Water Research Foundation study was 50,500 gallons per household per year or 138 gallons per day (524 liters per day). Nearly 17 percent of homes irrigate their landscapes in excess of theoretical irrigation requirement. If excess irrigation could be eliminated, the average outdoor use would drop by 8,200 gallons per house, or by 16 percent.

And it's pretty well documented beef is a far less efficient way to produce protein vs pork, chicken or fish for example. Here are just two graphics, of hundreds of studies.

 

[Clone]

Where are you getting that number? I looked at several sources and none were anywhere near that high on average - for total household use let alone watering lawns.

It is simple math-

Average residential lot size- something over 8300 ft2
Average US rainfall- something over 30.5 inches

Using similar logic, why are we upset about the water used to produce beef, when most home owners are wasting so much water on their lawns? The reality- a lot of the water is rainfall. A lot of the pasture land is not good for growing tomatoes, it is open range land. Yet, the comparison always gets made that we should be using land for growing vegetables, and we should eat grasshoppers. I have seen energy comparisons done where they included the amount of sunshine that falls on the land as an 'input cost'.

It is interesting how inefficient the system is, yet our food (including beef, chicken, fish, as well as produce) is so very affordable. Sometimes- when we see negative comments about eating meat, the root cause is because we have some folks who are anti-meat, or anti-commercial agriculture. It is not because they are concerned about how inefficient animals are at converting grass to protein. Also- when it is demanded that they close range land, who should we charge all that wasted rainfall and sunshine against?

 

[braumeister]

I process all my own game, thus far up to deer and wild boar. I fail to see anything abominable about it. The meat processing industry is another issue.
Now if they come up with Beyond Squirrel or Beyond Jackrabbit, I suppose I will have to try it.

Never underestimate the creativity of the food industry:

 

[Midpack]

It is interesting how inefficient the system is, yet our food (including beef, chicken, fish, as well as produce) is so very affordable. Sometimes- when we see negative comments about eating meat, the root cause is because we have some folks who are anti-meat, or anti-commercial agriculture. It is not because they are concerned about how inefficient animals are at converting grass to protein.

That’s a broad general brush - we agree to disagree and that’s fine. From post #1 this thread wasn’t intended to debate eating beef vs not, you’re welcome to start one if you’d like. It’s only a thread about non meat alternatives for anyone who’s interested. That’s all.

 

[Clone]

From post #1 this thread wasn’t intended to debate eating beef vs not, you’re welcome to start one if you’d like. It’s only a thread about non meat alternatives for anyone who’s interested. That’s all.

And yet, a few folks decided that we needed to take a swing at how much water it takes to produce a pound of beef. I have raised beef. I know how much water we pumped to water the cattle. Most of the water that the animals drank was from rainfall (or contained as moisture in the grass they ate). There are a lot of 'studies' that use some really strange assumptions to promote a religious or political cause.

I am glad that there are good tasting food products out there for folks that are not meat eaters. I think most of the folks in this thread agree with that.

 

[brewer12345]

Never underestimate the creativity of the food industry:

View attachment 30864

.

 

[MichaelB]

Never underestimate the creativity of the food industry:

View attachment 30864

.

No offense to Braumeister, but I’d rather eat with Brewer. (I’ll drink with either one, though )

 

[Retch The Grate]

Serious meat eater here (since getting married I do it a lot less, but for years my sunday cooking was grill 5+lbs of steak and steam/grill veggies to make my lunches and dinners for the week).

The Impossible Burger 1.0 is fantastic from a taste and mouthfeel perspective. I've had it at The Counter and it is completely enjoyable and is satisfyingly meaty in those regards. Where it didn't measure up yet was texture, it's looser than a real burger. Overall really good, and I'd eat it if it were served to me, but I wouldn't pay the premium extra that The Counter charges for it.

Supposedly the Impossible Burger 2.0 addresses the texture. If they can nail burger texture and hit price parity, I see no reason I'd need to have a real burger given how good the taste is already.

None of this replaces a chateaubriand or New York strip.

 

[explanade]

Apparently it's not cheaper but has the potential to be so if they can scale up production.

But some people may prefer the nutty taste and texture of garden burgers too, which don't even try to mimic meat that closely.

I'd just be happy if there were convenient chains which offered grass-fed and organic as choices.

 

[homestead]

Tried the Beyond Burger at Carl Jr. today.
Was twice the price of beef burger.
Patty was the consistency of rare ground beef.
Didn't taste much like beef to me. I prefer Turkey burgers.

 

[Mdlerth]

And they're just as good the second day!

Please move these posts to the Extreme Budget Cuts thread.

Never underestimate the creativity of the food industry

 

[joeea]

Popeyes or if you can find one, Bojangles. Finger licking good fried chicken.

Never heard of Bojangles.

But Popeyes is the best restaurant fried chicken I've ever tasted. I wish their sides were good.

 

[joeea]

Using similar logic, why are we upset about the water used to produce beef, when most home owners are wasting so much water on their lawns?

We could be upset about both.

Using your logic, we should never be upset about any waste of water, since we waste a lot of water on lawns?

It is interesting how inefficient the system is, yet our food (including beef, chicken, fish, as well as produce) is so very affordable.

Modern food production is a marvel of efficiency.

The reason cities and suburbs exist is because we have become so good at producing food cheaply. We no longer need to be an agrarian society.

That doesn't change the fact that beef meat production takes a lot more resources than most other foods, and that with the world increasing its beef consumption, we should be looking for viable alternatives.

Sometimes- when we see negative comments about eating meat, the root cause is because we have some folks who are anti-meat, or anti-commercial agriculture. It is not because they are concerned about how inefficient animals are at converting grass to protein.

Sometimes. Not always.

I found this podcast very interesting: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/meat/

 

[Rianne]

I think it's interesting the way they package Beyond Meat. Morningstar Farms is like fake meat in a box. Beyond Meat looks like real hamburger. Psychological marketing works. It's probably a great product if you're looking to satisfy eating a hamburger craving without eating a hamburger. Beans and rice work just fine for me. Getting the protein is what's important.


Once in a great while, I'll splurge on a small prime cut filet mignon. I'm not attracted to beef other than that, no matter what form or disguise it comes in.