They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don’t know what a “health food” would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what “Impossible” etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn’t processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I’d probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what “processed” food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one’s health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one’s health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely “processed” versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn’t a worthwhile comparison.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of “ultra-processed foods” as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Modern plant-sourced diets may incorporate a range of ultra-processed foods (UPF), such as sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery, but also the ‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers that are produced with ingredients originating from plants and marketed as meat and dairy substitutes.
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Greater numbers of people are choosing plant-based meat substitutes for various reasons, including perceived health benefits.
While leaner cuts of beef can still have a place in a heart-healthy meal plan, consumers may be more willing to overeat plant-based meat substitutes, but their high sodium and saturated fat content may pose health risks.
As an alternative to over-processed vegan foods, clinicians may advise patients to consider leaner cuts of meat and incorporate wholesome vegetarian superfoods, such as nuts, greens, and vegetables, into their diets.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
However, the Impossible Burger has almost five times the sodium content as a beef patty (327 mg vs beef’s 66 mg). Pair an Impossible Burger with a bun and condiments, and consumers will be on the fast track to a high-sodium meal.
That’s fine, just remember they’re junk food and not the health food people seem to think they are.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don’t know what a “health food” would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what “Impossible” etc. are.
Health food is anything that isn’t processed to hell and back.
Impossible is just alternative junk food. Like vapes are for cigarettes. Healthier still means crap. I’d probably just use mushrooms or tofu as a patty if I wanted an alternative to beef.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what “processed” food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one’s health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one’s health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely “processed” versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn’t a worthwhile comparison.
Impossible belongs to the ultra-processed food category.
No, it does not.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.
The Nova classification is the most widely used definition.
And?
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Who literally thinks they’re a health food? I’ve never met someone in real life that’s told me that.
You’ve never heard people say they’re made from plants so they are healthy?
It’s usually the same people who talk about their nerds or potato chips being gluten free or their Oreos vegan.
They’re not really a junk food. They’re not as healthy as eating straight-up vegetables, but they’re definitely not junk food.
They’re nearly as salty as potato chips and loaded with saturated fat.
Impossible has more salt than beef, but less saturated fat.
You sure?
https://www.cnet.com/health/nutrition/is-the-impossible-burger-healthier-than-beef/
Yep!
https://www.mdlinx.com/article/is-the-impossible-burger-really-healthier-than-beef/2t0XAvk0YsRsEaLbSfdZKc
Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed.