Looks like meat's back on the menu boys and girls

I did have some Beyond Sausage bratwurst at a friend's house last year and must admit I probably wouldn't have known it wasn't real meat if he didn't tell me.
 
I had read another article in the same vein. They said consumers were turned off by the product partially because of the long list of ingredients. Seemed like a good point. Hard to convince people to trade in “beef” or “chicken” for something with a long list of ingredients that you aren’t sure what they are.
 
In a similar light, research is coming out that unprocessed ( <--- important) meat is not as terrible as once believed. This article has a little bit of sensation sprinkled in, but the research done by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation is solid.

 
I had read another article in the same vein. They said consumers were turned off by the product partially because of the long list of ingredients. Seemed like a good point. Hard to convince people to trade in “beef” or “chicken” for something with a long list of ingredients that you aren’t sure what they are.
I agree. With all of the talk that we hear about how bad processed food is for us, I don’t know how fake meat could be healthy.
 
“I love the taste of meat, I just don’t want to eat meat, so I’ll eat fake meat”


Stupidest thing in the world. Like calling it “turkey bacon”. I have no issue calling it pressed fryable turkey, BUT ITS NOT F’ing BACON!

Quit calling things stuff they aren’t! There’s no turkey burger, there’s no pork burger.


“I’m so health conscious I wanna eat meat from a lab.”


What is this world coming to! B76C59CD-8409-4A9E-B63C-19FCD7215C3A.gif
 
In a similar light, research is coming out that unprocessed ( <--- important) meat is not as terrible as once believed. This article has a little bit of sensation sprinkled in, but the research done by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation is solid.

Good read. Seems set to one view though they're focused with a new metric. Key portion that appears to get to the core of the article:

And so, the researchers came up with the burden of proof risk function, a novel statistical method to quantitatively “evaluate and summarize evidence of risk across different risk-outcome pairs.” Using the function, any researcher can evaluate published data for a certain health risk, then, using the function, compute a single number that translates to a one- through five-star rating system.


“A one-star rating indicates that there may be no true association between the behavior or condition and the health outcome. Two stars indicates the behavior or condition is at least associated with a 0-15% change in the likelihood of a health outcome, while three stars indicates at least a 15-50% change, four stars indicates at least a 50-85% change, and five stars indicates a more than 85% change.”

When the IHME utilized this function on red meat consumption and its potential links to various adverse health outcomes, they found that none warranted greater than a two-star rating.

“The evidence for a direct vascular or heath risk from eating meat regularly is very low, to the point that there is probably no risk,” commented Dr. Steven Novella, a Yale neurologist and president of the New England Skeptical Society. “There is, however, more evidence for a health risk from eating too few vegetables. That is really the risk of a high-meat diet, those meat calories are displacing vegetable calories.”
 
Yea I don't get the woke correlation, but maybe people are realizing that it tastes like shit and has zero nutritional value. And, as far as I know it isn't any cheaper than real meat.
 
Back
Top