Current Events > Is plant based food really healthier than than beef based?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Change beef to meat based.

This is coming from mostly ignorance so dont assume Im saying that question as a statement. Since Im so ignorant on the subject, I looked up the Whopper vs the Impossible Whopper.

Whopper has 677 calories
Impossible Whopper has 629 calories

That isnt much of a difference. Is there a bigger health difference than I know under the surface? If not, then if you dont care about plant vs meat then is it really even with switching if the health benefits arent good enough? Especially if plant base doesnt taste as good as meat based?

---

Beyond Meat is vastly superior to Impossible.

Cleaner ingredients and better macros.

If you want protein, no.

If you don't care much about protein, yes.

ZannoL posted...

Beyond Meat is vastly superior to Impossible.

Cleaner ingredients and better macros.

I never heard of Beyond Meat. I guess that is a company that makes it. Is Impossible a company that makes plant based meat too or is it just a name BK uses?

---

No, at least not that imitation stuff. Its just a bunch of salty processed goop.

Obviously vegetables and fruits are great for you but the beyond/impossible meat is not healthy.

---

Is over processed food better than food?

---

DepreceV2 posted...

I never heard of Beyond Meat. I guess that is a company that makes it. Is Impossible a company that makes plant based meat too or is it just a name BK uses?

Beyond Meat is a company that makes plant meat using mung beans, peas, and other ingredients like that.

Impossible is a company that makes plant meat using a lot of questionable ingredients. Burger King sells their burgers. They are fine to eat time to time. Just not an everyday thing.

I don't think there's any definite science on if one is better, assuming both people are eating clean diets.

But just to note, a plant based diet extends far outside of just fake meat
---

I think most plant based meats have quite a bit more sodium.

---

Don't know, don't care. Cow tastes better

---

Were_Wyrm posted...

I think most plant based meats have quite a bit more sodium.

This is true.

They also have zero cholesterol though.

Heavily processed food is always better than genetically engineered found in nature food.

It's not really healthier but the idea is that its significantly more environmentally friendly.

---

Will_Vill posted...

It's not really healthier but the idea is that its significantly more environmentally friendly.

I thought I read somewhere that it is just as unhealthy for the environment but that was long ago I think I read that

---

DepreceV2 posted...

I thought I read somewhere that it is just as unhealthy for the environment but that was long ago I think I read that

Well the plants still require heavy machinery to be grown and cultivated

And then processed in giant factories to become plant burgers

Then shipped on planes, boats to get across the country or offshore places

Then delivered on an 18 wheeler lol

---

Oh man impossible whopper may have less calories, less fat, same protein, no cholesterol, no trans fat compared to the regular whopper

but

ooooommmmmmggggggg the sodium bomb incredible mind explosions mushroom cloud

impossible has 1080mg sodium.... regular whopper has 980mg sodium. Oh. They're both similarly high sodium hits.

---

R1masher posted...

Is over processed food better than food?

Bad news: Cows don't come pre-ground, sorted and shaped. That hamburger meat you thought just grew out of the ground? Processed.

---

Beyond Meat is gross

---

impossible isn't automatically healthy because it isn't meat. Especially if its fast food. Probably more processing, carbs, and sodium despite it being vegetables.


---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Bad news: Cows don't come pre-ground, sorted and shaped. That hamburger meat you thought just grew out of the ground? Processed.

There are plenty cuts of cow that arent processed like hamburger though

---

SSJPurple posted...

There are plenty cuts of cow that arent processed like hamburger though

True but we were talking about burgers

---

The problem is you are comparing a Whopper to an Impossible burger (both ultra processed monstrosities) when you should be comparing a Whopper to something more like this:

https://youtu.be/SXc64GOgPqw

---

Xenozoa425 posted...

The problem is you are comparing a Whopper to an Impossible burger (both ultra processed monstrosities) when you should be comparing a Whopper to something more like this:

https://youtu.be/SXc64GOgPqw

Red meat is bad for you processed or not

---

Xenozoa425 posted...

The problem is you are comparing a Whopper to an Impossible burger (both ultra processed monstrosities) when you should be comparing a Whopper to something more like this:

https://youtu.be/SXc64GOgPqw

As someone who doesn't like mushrooms, that looks pretty good tbh


---

Irony posted...

Red meat is bad for you processed or not

Ironically, I don't eat red meat but if it's raised properly, it can be very healthy and nutritious. Fun fact, mutton can have as much omega 3 fatty acids as salmon.

---

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

As someone who doesn't like mushrooms, that looks pretty good tbh

I concur...but what does it taste like?

---

I don't think the word healthy really plays a roll when we are talking about a BK Whopper. Regardless of plant based or not. Both are processed trash and at the end of the day, no animal needed to die for the normal Whopper but you are still supporting a company that is responsible for mass animal deaths.

---

Calories are a measure of energy and don't take into account nutritional quality. So it's a very top level take on health, and assumes your health issues are around weight.

Even outside of the micronutrient aspect, you have different thermic effects of different macronutrient types. Protein "runs hotter" than fats do, so 1000 calories of protein will raise your body temperature more than 1000 calories of fats will. And then there's insulin spiking, hormones, etc. Two foods can have the same amount of calories but do wildly different things to the amount of energy you can use or burn or store.

Basically, Calories in = calories out is always going to be true, but that doesn't mean all foods will make your body perform exactly the same. Your body is not a perfect energy retainer/transmitter. It's an engine that runs better on quality fuel.

---

pinky0926 posted...

Basically, Calories in = calories out is always going to be true, but that doesn't mean all foods will make your body perform exactly the same. Your body is not a perfect energy retainer/transmitter. It's an engine that runs better on quality fuel.

Actually, this isn't always true--not only is your body not a perfect energy retainer/transmitter but people's bodies work and process things very differently...even quality fuel can have drastically different affects on different people

---

indica posted...

Actually, this isn't always true--not only is your body not a perfect energy retainer/transmitter but people's bodies work and process things very differently...even quality fuel can have drastically different affects on different people

That's literally what I just said, lol. "Two foods can have the same amount of calories but do wildly different things to the amount of energy you can use or burn or store."

Calories in has to always equal calories out, but the key point is that the "calories out" side of the equation is not static (or predictable) and people make the mistake of assuming that it is.

---

pinky0926 posted...

That's literally what I just said, lol. "Two foods can have the same amount of calories but do wildly different things to the amount of energy you can use or burn or store."

Calories in has to always equal calories out, but the key point is that the "calories out" side of the equation is not static (or predictable) and people make the mistake of assuming that it is.

I hear you, but the statement Calories in = calories out is always going to be true is a fallacy that's used to attack obese people, some of whom have much healthier diets than their more svelt counterparts. I'm not saying that that was your intention obviously, I just don't want people to get confused by a concept that's been used to attack a specific group

---

indica posted...

I hear you, but the statement Calories in = calories out is always going to be true is a fallacy that's used to attack obese people, some of whom have much healthier diets than their more svelt counterparts. I'm not saying that that was your intention obviously, I just don't want people to get confused by a concept that's been used to attack a specific group

It's not a fallacy because it's absolutely true, the issue is that people misunderstand what it means. Calories in absolutely must equal calories out because that is a fundamental law of the universe, but this isn't to say you can eat 2000 calories a day of chicken and broccoli in week 1 and then 2000 calories a day of McDonalds cheeseburgers and fries in week 2 and expect the same result, nor does it mean that two people can eat exactly the same foods at the same quantities and expect the same results.

I know it sounds like I'm being nitpicky but while broscientists use the CICO thing to attack fat people you also see a lot of frustrate people arrive at the wrong conclusion that somehow the fundamental law of energy conservation is not true because they got fat on their mcdonalds diet, lol.

---

pinky0926 posted...

It's not a fallacy because it's absolutely true, the issue is that people misunderstand what it means. Calories in absolutely must equal calories out because that is a fundamental law of the universe, but this isn't to say you can eat 2000 calories a day of chicken and broccoli in week 1 and then 2000 calories a day of McDonalds cheeseburgers and fries in week 2 and expect the same result, nor does it mean that two people can eat exactly the same foods at the same quantities and expect the same results.

I know it sounds like I'm being nitpicky but while broscientists use the CICO thing to attack fat people you also see a lot of frustrate people arrive at the wrong conclusion that somehow the fundamental law of energy conservation is not true because they got fat on their mcdonalds diet, lol.

It's a fallacy of oversimplification. Even the concept and understanding of calories and how energy is stored is constantly changing. And when you say calories in, calories out, it doesn't take into account all the physiological and environmental conditions involved, such as when and where and in what form the energy is stored, and when and how and in what form it will be released. I agree with most everything in your post, but that over simplification does nothing to educate people and only leads to confusion and misinformation, hence it's a fallacy of oversimplification.

---

indica posted...

It's a fallacy of oversimplification. Even the concept and understanding of calories and how energy is stored is constantly changing. And when you say calories in, calories out, it doesn't take into account all the physiological and environmental conditions involved, such as when and where and in what form the energy is stored, and when and how and in what form it will be released. I agree with most everything in your post, but that over simplification does nothing to educate people and only leads to confusion and misinformation, hence it's a fallacy of oversimplification.

When the formula states CI=CO it assumes all the physiological and environmental conditions within, however I'll concede that it doesn't give any helpful way to actually measure any of those things.

For most people though, you can estimate, and adjust over time based on that principle. It's just that some people don't have it so easy.

---

pinky0926 posted...

When the formula states CI=CO it assumes all the physiological and environmental conditions within, however I'll concede that it doesn't give any helpful way to actually measure any of those things.

For most people though, you can estimate, and adjust over time based on that principle. It's just that some people don't have it so easy.

Yeah, some people don't have it easy at all in that department. Also, CI=CO "assumes" those conditions but that obviously means that those assumptions are often going to be slightly off if not plain wrong.

---

no

---