Thanks for this article. I’ve heard of people throwing around this word like a gotcha to discredit anything related to veganism. Finally, I know what it actually means.
Man, meat-eaters turning into culinary experts and dietitians whenever veganism is brought up is such a joke. Even if Beyond meat were unhealthy, who cares. Most vegans that eat these only rarely do because there are so many other things to eat that are more delicious, more nutritious, and cheaper. Even if they were as unhealthy as meat, meat-eaters would be affected by its unhealthiness a lot more given daily consumption.
I feel like meat substitutes are, most of the time, targeted towards “adventurous” meat-eaters who feel like brave trailblazers whenever they try something vegan. Not that I don’t like them from time to time, but I just can’t afford them on the regular.
Frankly im fairly convinced if you simply replaced meat in your diet 1:1 with impossible meat you would overall be healthier for the majority of the population, especially if you compensated for the two areas that impossible is nutritionally inferior to beef (slightly higher carbohydrate content with 9g vs 0 and significantly higher sodium content with 370mg vs 65mg)
Otherwise the key benefits of meat impossible is comparable to 80/20 ground beef (2g decrease in protein per serving), most other aspects are comparable with slight benefits to impossible, and in some cases impossible is notably superior (5g of fiber vs 0, 0mg of cholesterol vs 60mg, significantly more nutrient rich)
And this is for the traditional impossible, the lite version cuts the calories, fat, sodium significantly while bumping the protein up 2mg to the same level as the 80/20 ground (although imo this is not as flavorful and has a less pleasant texture)
Beyond is less healthy but not terribly so
And with both reading articles on them is such a pain because often the articles are written from years ago. Beyond and impossible both have refined the formulation of their recipes, impossible several times, and the nutritional values have improved notably in that time frame. But the articles about “how does impossible compare to the whopper” or “how does beyond stack up to ground beef nutritionally” all are from the original formulations
Whether it’s safe to eat them constantly long term is up for some debate, maybe, but realistically you’re probably fine. There’s nothing terrifying in there and the only thing somewhat novel in it is the soy leghemoglobin, although to be fair there may be some concerns there. Also depending on how strict of a vegan you are you shouldn’t eat impossible because their development of soy leghemoglobin (which they call “heme”) utilized rat feeding studies to fast track the safety part so technically it is not entirely cruelty free
Thanks for this article. I’ve heard of people throwing around this word like a gotcha to discredit anything related to veganism. Finally, I know what it actually means.
Man, meat-eaters turning into culinary experts and dietitians whenever veganism is brought up is such a joke. Even if Beyond meat were unhealthy, who cares. Most vegans that eat these only rarely do because there are so many other things to eat that are more delicious, more nutritious, and cheaper. Even if they were as unhealthy as meat, meat-eaters would be affected by its unhealthiness a lot more given daily consumption.
I feel like meat substitutes are, most of the time, targeted towards “adventurous” meat-eaters who feel like brave trailblazers whenever they try something vegan. Not that I don’t like them from time to time, but I just can’t afford them on the regular.
Frankly im fairly convinced if you simply replaced meat in your diet 1:1 with impossible meat you would overall be healthier for the majority of the population, especially if you compensated for the two areas that impossible is nutritionally inferior to beef (slightly higher carbohydrate content with 9g vs 0 and significantly higher sodium content with 370mg vs 65mg)
Otherwise the key benefits of meat impossible is comparable to 80/20 ground beef (2g decrease in protein per serving), most other aspects are comparable with slight benefits to impossible, and in some cases impossible is notably superior (5g of fiber vs 0, 0mg of cholesterol vs 60mg, significantly more nutrient rich)
And this is for the traditional impossible, the lite version cuts the calories, fat, sodium significantly while bumping the protein up 2mg to the same level as the 80/20 ground (although imo this is not as flavorful and has a less pleasant texture)
Beyond is less healthy but not terribly so
And with both reading articles on them is such a pain because often the articles are written from years ago. Beyond and impossible both have refined the formulation of their recipes, impossible several times, and the nutritional values have improved notably in that time frame. But the articles about “how does impossible compare to the whopper” or “how does beyond stack up to ground beef nutritionally” all are from the original formulations
Whether it’s safe to eat them constantly long term is up for some debate, maybe, but realistically you’re probably fine. There’s nothing terrifying in there and the only thing somewhat novel in it is the soy leghemoglobin, although to be fair there may be some concerns there. Also depending on how strict of a vegan you are you shouldn’t eat impossible because their development of soy leghemoglobin (which they call “heme”) utilized rat feeding studies to fast track the safety part so technically it is not entirely cruelty free
Yeah they’re a treat, it’s not an every day meal