Is Beyond actually “healthier” than meat?

[SwampNut]

The short answer is that in a controlled study, people who switched had a significant reduction in markers that correlate with heart and kidney disease.  This is a short term study that doesn’t include actual incidences of the diseases, since that would take many years.

 

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/are-beyond-meat-plant-based-meat-alternatives-healthy/?subscriber=true

 

It's certainly not as good as real whole plants, but it's a good step.

 

[Zero Knievel]

The process to make the fake meat simply isn’t worth it.  Real meat isn’t a problem.  Overconsumption is the usual culprit.

[SwampNut]

7 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

The process to make the fake meat simply isn’t worth it.

 

LOL, worth what...?

 

7 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

Real meat isn’t a problem.

 

Peer reviewed studies say otherwise.

 

[Zero Knievel]

6 hours ago, SwampNut said:

LOL, worth what...?

 

Peer reviewed studies say otherwise.

1.  It is well established that we get things from meat we can’t get elsewhere.  We’re omnivores for a reason.  There’s a reason you can’t survive on a pure vegan diet.

 

2.  The process to make fake meat is energy intensive, uses a whole host of chemicals to mimic the end product, and it is also well established that our bodies DO NOT do well with processed foods.  We are designed to eat simple, natural foods.

[IcePrick]

1 hour ago, Zero Knievel said:

1.  It is well established that we get things from meat we can’t get elsewhere.  We’re omnivores for a reason.  There’s a reason you can’t survive on a pure vegan diet.

 

2.  The process to make fake meat is energy intensive, uses a whole host of chemicals to mimic the end product, and it is also well established that our bodies DO NOT do well with processed foods.  We are designed to eat simple, natural foods.

 

Please name the things we get from meat that we can't get "elsewhere".  I can line up a half-dozen highly athletic vegans that will disprove your theory.

 

Have you done the math on what it takes to make real meat?  I bet the Diesel fuel to grow and transport all that corn adds up.  Dow Chemical for the weeds, anyone?  

 

Any idea how much water goes into feeding a meat animal, and how much clean water they foul over their lifecycle?  How about the "packaging" process?  What kind of chemicals are used for cleaning those facilities?  Do vegan burgers release the same amount of greenhouse gasses that a steer does in its lifecycle?

 

Yes, we are designed to eat simple, natural foods.  But we're talking about people who eat a serving of beef twice daily.  Substituting the Beyond burger had measurable benefits over beef in this regard.

 

 

[Zero Knievel]

8 hours ago, IcePrick said:

Please name the things we get from meat that we can't get "elsewhere".  I can line up a half-dozen highly athletic vegans that will disprove your theory.

 

I would be more appropriate that we obtain better quality from meat than elsewhere.  B vitamins, for example, come in a readily absorbable form from meat than from other sources.  It’s the same deal with colloidal mineral supplements.  The body processes less than 10% of straight mineral supplementation.  Up to 50% if it is in chelated form.  Colloidal is around 90%.  Plants grown in mineral rich soil convey the most effective amount of mineral supplementation.  You’d have to take double or even 10 times the desired dosage in lesser forms.  The meat from animals works the same way.  Being an “athletic vegan” means nothing.  It’s an uphill battle to remain pure vegan before it’s just easier and healthier to start reincorporating real meat into the diet.

 

8 hours ago, IcePrick said:

Have you done the math on what it takes to make real meat?  I bet the Diesel fuel to grow and transport all that corn adds up.  Dow Chemical for the weeds, anyone?

 

There is zero evidence that fake meat is more environmentally sound.  The costs of making and transporting the chemicals they need, the costs to grow and transport the plant crops needed to make it, the power required to synthesize the end product, etc.  Unless they’ve produced numbers subject to scrutiny and peer review, I know of very few synthetic processes that use less energy than the natural process.

 

8 hours ago, IcePrick said:

Any idea how much water goes into feeding a meat animal, and how much clean water they foul over their lifecycle?  How about the "packaging" process?  What kind of chemicals are used for cleaning those facilities?  Do vegan burgers release the same amount of greenhouse gasses that a steer does in its lifecycle?

 

Any idea of the water crops require?  I know of blood feuds in Wyoming over water rights because farmers want the water for crops and the Indian tribe (who has superior legal right to the water) lives in a desert because all the water was diverted away from the reservation for the farmers.

 

Cattle are naturally harmonious with the environment.  Indeed, they help sequester more carbon back into the environment than they are accused of releasing.  Pretty much every criticism you can cite is focuses on industrial ranching operations…just like raising chickens.  Poor land management.  Etc.  I see idiots complain how land used for cattle could be used to grow crops….WRONG!  Maybe if an operation is located where there is rich soil with lots of rain and long growing seasons, but you can raise food animals most anywhere…your “heads per acre” depends on the natural food available for grazing.  That’s why you see cattle, horses, etc. shipped en masse north and south with the changing seasons…trying to maximize use of available grazing land.

 

8 hours ago, IcePrick said:

Yes, we are designed to eat simple, natural foods.  But we're talking about people who eat a serving of beef twice daily.  Substituting the Beyond burger had measurable benefits over beef in this regard.

So, perhaps we should rethink how much meat we consume regularly.  What the WEF wants is to essentially ban meat consumption for the commoners (why else do you think Bill Gates has been buying up farmland and bankrolling “fake meat” research).  Every “synthetic” replacement for a natural product has produced health problems that did not preexist the release of the product.  Artificial sweeteners, margarine, fat substitutes, etc.  Presuming you don’t have certain health issues, eating red meat, butter, whole milk, natural cheeses, etc. (in moderation, of course) is a healthier choice than trying to eat the synthetic substitutes only to suffer the long term consequences of their impact on the human body.

 

Remember, high cholesterol is not a disease…it is a symptom of a larger issue, but how many doctors and pharmaceutical companies focus on forcibly lowering the cholesterol numbers with drugs?  How often do they consider that some people have naturally high cholesterol in spite of healthy diet and exercise practices?

Edited July 20, 2023 by Zero Knievel

[blackhawkxx]

Well there is always Soylent Green.

[tomek]

13 hours ago, IcePrick said:

 

Please name the things we get from meat that we can't get "elsewhere".  I can line up a half-dozen highly athletic vegans that will disprove your theory.

 

 

 

List of athletic vegans please. 

 

 

Also, can you actually eat grass and it's derivatives like hay like cows do? Well, I can't. I prefer cows to convert it into something eatable like a meat, cheese, Greek yogurt, and plain old good fashion milk. Do you feed babies with milk or grass in liquid form?

 

 BTW, people on vegan diet produce way more greenhouses gases vs. meat eaters. Probably more vs. all those cows

Have you included that in your calculations? How much energy is being used to produce all that additional toilet paper? And other things of that nature? You shit way more on vegan diet, etc. 

 

 I think fake meat concept is retarded from nutritional point of view, kind of like turning 🥩 into charcoal. 

Edited July 20, 2023 by tomek

[Zero Knievel]

Run for the bunkers!  Tomek and I agree on something!  The apocalypse is upon us!

[IcePrick]

5 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

 

I would be more appropriate that we obtain better quality from meat than elsewhere.  B vitamins, for example, come in a readily absorbable form from meat than from other sources.  It’s the same deal with colloidal mineral supplements.  The body processes less than 10% of straight mineral supplementation.  Up to 50% if it is in chelated form.  Colloidal is around 90%.  Plants grown in mineral rich soil convey the most effective amount of mineral supplementation.  You’d have to take double or even 10 times the desired dosage in lesser forms.  The meat from animals works the same way.  Being an “athletic vegan” means nothing.  It’s an uphill battle to remain pure vegan before it’s just easier and healthier to start reincorporating real meat into the diet.

 

 

There is zero evidence that fake meat is more environmentally sound.  The costs of making and transporting the chemicals they need, the costs to grow and transport the plant crops needed to make it, the power required to synthesize the end product, etc.  Unless they’ve produced numbers subject to scrutiny and peer review, I know of very few synthetic processes that use less energy than the natural process.

 

 

Any idea of the water crops require?  I know of blood feuds in Wyoming over water rights because farmers want the water for crops and the Indian tribe (who has superior legal right to the water) lives in a desert because all the water was diverted away from the reservation for the farmers.

 

Cattle are naturally harmonious with the environment.  Indeed, they help sequester more carbon back into the environment than they are accused of releasing.  Pretty much every criticism you can cite is focuses on industrial ranching operations…just like raising chickens.  Poor land management.  Etc.  I see idiots complain how land used for cattle could be used to grow crops….WRONG!  Maybe if an operation is located where there is rich soil with lots of rain and long growing seasons, but you can raise food animals most anywhere…your “heads per acre” depends on the natural food available for grazing.  That’s why you see cattle, horses, etc. shipped en masse north and south with the changing seasons…trying to maximize use of available grazing land.

 

So, perhaps we should rethink how much meat we consume regularly.  What the WEF wants is to essentially ban meat consumption for the commoners (why else do you think Bill Gates has been buying up farmland and bankrolling “fake meat” research).  Every “synthetic” replacement for a natural product has produced health problems that did not preexist the release of the product.  Artificial sweeteners, margarine, fat substitutes, etc.  Presuming you don’t have certain health issues, eating red meat, butter, whole milk, natural cheeses, etc. (in moderation, of course) is a healthier choice than trying to eat the synthetic substitutes only to suffer the long term consequences of their impact on the human body.

 

Remember, high cholesterol is not a disease…it is a symptom of a larger issue, but how many doctors and pharmaceutical companies focus on forcibly lowering the cholesterol numbers with drugs?  How often do they consider that some people have naturally high cholesterol in spite of healthy diet and exercise practices?

 

So you agree, Beyond products would be healthier than 99% of the meat available to the public today.  Perfect.

[SwampNut]

15 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

There’s a reason you can’t survive on a pure vegan diet.

 

Since you certainly can, what's the reason?  (Unless you mean without a B12 supplement.)

15 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

our bodies DO NOT do well with processed foods

 

Meat is food that's been processed by an animal to make less efficient and nutritious meat, along with a whole host of chemicals to make it make more of it.  Meat is the original processed food.  It's very inefficient but you could take excess plant matter and basically store energy in a cow (losing most of it), for consumption later.

 

6 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

Any idea of the water crops require?

 

You mean the crops you feed to the animals, and then extract far less than half of it back as useful human energy?

 

[Zero Knievel]

1 hour ago, SwampNut said:

You mean the crops you feed to the animals, and then extract far less than half of it back as useful human energy?

 

Sigh....  Research "grazing."

[SwampNut]

Research "reality."

 

[tomek]

19 minutes ago, Zero Knievel said:

 

Sigh....  Research "grazing."

Well, true vegans graze as well. 

[SwampNut]

20 hours ago, Zero Knievel said:

 

Sigh....  Research "grazing."

 

I just realized that you're the same person who until a week ago didn't know that cows have horns.  But you're a factory wild beef farming expert this week.  LOL

 

For anyone who is interested, Beyond has two main varieties, and the "classic cookout" is the better one, if you can find it.  Hoping to today.