23
   

If you are a low/no meat eater, how do you feel about meat imitations?

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 11:59 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Seitan on the other hand---that's cooked wheat gluten---has worked just wonderful for me.


be cautious about using gluten-based products if you're trying to manage your diabetes by diet
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 07:46 pm
@chai2,
chai2 wrote:
Seitan?

I'd never heard of it.

That's probably because in the current phase of the food-fad cycle, Seitan has gotten on the wrong side. The cycle currently is heavily into gluten-free diets, and Seitan mostly consists of wheat gluten. Never mind. Unless you have a gluten intolerance, Seitan is just another source of protein. (You know you have a gluten intolerance if eating bread gives you diarrhea.)

chai2 wrote:
I'll have to check that out.

Good! You basically have three options:
  1. make it from vital wheat gluten.
  2. make it from scratch, starting with whole wheat flower, and
  3. buy it ready-made from your favorite health food store.
I personally prefer option #1. It's less tedious than option #2 and more versatile than option #3, which usually comes in a generic, vaguely soy-saucy flavor that I find a little boring (it'll work in a pinch, though).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 08:02 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
be cautious about using gluten-based products if you're trying to manage your diabetes by diet

Why? Unlike real meat, Seitan has no cholesterol and no fats, both of which likely are major contributors to my cells' insulin resistance. And although wheat gluten does contain some carbs, its protein-to-carb ratio is 4:1. This ratio is comparable to that of tofu, and several times higher than that of beans, lentils, and the like. With that in mind, what's in gluten that a type-2 diabetic needs to be cautious about, and that is not in its most plausible alternatives?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Sep, 2010 08:33 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
I'm very interested in the results coming out of the zero waste farming movement research.

I Googled the term, and I agree it looks interesting.

ehBeth wrote:
I did my vegetarian time, am fascinated by the studies by the high environmental costs of the 100 mile diet, and think it's now time to take the zero waste group seriously.

Do you remember how those studies measured these "high environmental costs"? The idea strikes me as plausible if people switch to a 100-mile diet and change nothing else about their diets. Home-grown pineapples, for example, must impose a heavy environmental burden if your home is Ontario. This artifact could easily explain the appearance of "high environmental costs" in a linear-regression analysis.

But that's unrealistic behavior to expect from the actual kind of people who would get serious about a 100-mile diet. Realistically, they would also be into eating crops that are easy to grow locally, and into eating them when they're in season. Once you account for that, I no longer see why there would be a large environmental burden from 100-mile diets.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 12:10 am
bookmark. BRB.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 12:58 am
How do I feel about imitation products? I don't feel anything. I don't see any moral or psychological dilemma here.

It's not as if plant products are the nicotine gum for people quitting meat. When I eat a smartdog, I'm not secretly wishing it was a kosher beef frank. Additionally, it is not as if these products enter into every meal of mine. They are actually quite rare in my diet, despite enjoying many of them. Most days, I would prefer just eating greens. Fresh veggies just make me feel good.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 01:04 am
@Pemerson,
Pemerson wrote:

I'm a still-trying-to-be no meat eater. But we give in and eat those Elevation Hamburgers now and then. Can't say I've ever found a meat substitute that I'd rush to eat again. So, we eat mostly chicken and fish in any variety imaginable. Love veggie dishes.

Elevation burger is great. They have two veg burgers, and the second is vegan. I really like it. I always loved the description of them.

Veggie burger no 1 - "tastes kinda like meat."
Veggie burger no 2 - "tastes very much like vegetables."

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 01:31 am
@farmerman,
You make valid points about farming here FM. It is not only the livestock and poultry farms that need to be reformed environmentally. You are correct that sanctioning many of the needed things to achieve sustainability would increase the costs of all foodstuffs. I say, so be it. If people wish to eat beef, let them pay the actual price. Done.

When comparing land usage and food yield, plant crops are more efficient. Unit mass of food produced to water required for plants is far superior. The resources it takes to produce one steak could produce 8 times as much in a plant based diet. I just don't need to eat meat. If I did, I would.

You're correct about your first point, and it can't be understated: Our lifestyle is what drives our agriculture methods. I'm not presenting a vegan diet as a magic bullet, it is simply my choice for myself. I certainly have moral issues that factor into this decision, but they are not the only reasons for such a choice. My change in diet is only one part of the ways I am trying to improve my lifestyle. Sustainability is not achieved by individuals, and I'm not tooting my own whistle or claiming that I'm better than any other person.

I'm a little offended by your post. Not because you eat meat, but because you have projected how I must feel because I do not. I don't foster ill will to anyone. I don't think you are a "murderer." I do not care for such things. I get annoyed with some in the veg community myself, but I think launching into a tirade is a bit preemptive.

A
R
T


failures art
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 01:35 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Tofu eaters are about the biggest hypocrites among the ranks of the "virtuous vegans."

What is with the unprovoked hostility?

A
R
T
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 01:51 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
If people aren't eating meat, I don't see the point of having pretend meat. Really. It just seems stupid and pointless.


What about people eating imitation crab (made of fish), and people eating turkey-dogs?

What if people just enjoy these products? Many people who eat animal products equally like plant based products.

I get these southwest black bean burgers at my local grocery. The patties don't even attempt to taste like anything made of meat. They have their own unique taste and texture and are delicious. I'm more than satisfied, and I'm not pretending about anything.

As for pointless, these products shape and resemble meat products for a very real social reason. Food and dining are integral to all cultures. We exchange a lot in meal exchanges. Why not process things into familiar shapes like patties or sausage shapes? The fact that veggie dogs exist let me bring something to the BBQ on Superbowl Sunday that can be put in a bun. It lets me stand around the grill and chat.

Why is this stupid?

A
R
T
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 04:00 am
@failures art,
Quote:
What about people eating imitation crab (made of fish), and people eating turkey-dogs?
But those are meat imitating meat (as flavor substitutes). Tofurkey and some of the other tofu based erzats products are actually molded to look like turkey legs or wings.
If you are trying to recreate some flavor and texture reminiscent of meat, why not just say that you are trying to recapture the devine flavor of meat while still appearing overly virtuous .

Ya cant make tofu bacon, its a shitty mess made of molded strings of dyed tofu that has been shot through with artificial flavorings and texture additives.
Instead of faking meat, you are eating some badass batch of chemicals, most of which were previously used as wood fillers and additives to dog foods.
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 04:26 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
What about people eating imitation crab (made of fish), and people eating turkey-dogs?
But those are meat imitating meat (as flavor substitutes). Tofurkey and some of the other tofu based erzats products are actually molded to look like turkey legs or wings.
If you are trying to recreate some flavor and texture reminiscent of meat, why not just say that you are trying to recapture the devine flavor of meat while still appearing overly virtuous.

What is the difference in one animal product imitating another animal product vice a plant product imitating an animal product?

A better parallel than a tofurkey is smartdogs and vermicelli based veggie shrimp to the two examples I used previously. Why not say you're trying to recapture flavor texture etc? I think some products do exactly that. However many products simply resemble familiar foodstuffs and aim to produce unique flavors and textures. The black bean patties I buy don't seek to imitate anything about a hamburger other than it's shape.

What does "overly virtuous" mean here? Oreos are vegan, you don't see packaging on Oreos that moralizes people eating Chips Ahoy.

farmerman wrote:

Ya cant make tofu bacon, its a shitty mess made of molded strings of dyed tofu that has been shot through with artificial flavorings and texture additives.

I was never a fan of bacon, and I'm not a fan of "facon" either.

farmerman wrote:

Instead of faking meat, you are eating some badass batch of chemicals, most of which were previously used as wood fillers and additives to dog foods.

Given what chemicals and hormones are in the real meat, people can hedge their bets. Wink

Like I said, I don't eat these products very often. I mostly like fresh produce. Slice up a tomato, add a little salt and pepper. Yum. Cooked Lentils or black beans. Yum. Diced avacados on stone ground bread. Yum. I'm not trying to recreate an omnivore facsimile diet. I'm no less satisfied with my meals either.

Forget virtue, I simply enjoy this diet more.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:30 am
I do not eat a lot of meat any more because of the hormones and chemicals that are used to produce it.
We do NOT need meat / animal protein 3 times a day like the beef industry loves to suggest.
Yes, animal protein does have mandatory vitamins and minerals in it that we can not find any where else. YES our bodies need it. I am not a 'no meat ' snob.

To me the issue is that we have been fed this eat meat daily fodder for so long that no one questions it anymore, just eats it. This puts a big boost in the beef industries pocket and they keep selling the same message.

We can get by, be very healthy , reduce cholesterol problems, reduce digestion issues, actually absorb the nutrients from the food and remove the extreme demand for factory farming by reducing our intake. Once a week is plenty.
Eat fish instead of red meat. Change up your source of animal proteins.

The beef industry has sold us on " a healthy meal is part animal protein 3 times a day" and thats just nonsense. We are not tigers, or lions who require protein and can only absorb what they NEED from protein.
We are omnivores, who do not get the super wide range of things we need because we have shut off our brains and turned on our tv and do what we are told.

We do not require a balanced DAY of vitamins, we require a constant intake of a VARIETY of vitamins.

I used to think that a no meat, high meat substitute diet was good. That was until i started examining the chemical intake of such diet, and the hormonal imbalance it causes.
We need to eat basic simple foods and LOTS of them. We are a free range eater. Fruits veggies, beans, grasses, animals.. we should eat it all but with out the factory chemicals and refining that is added to it like salts, preservatives, sweetners, flavorings, colors etc. Its those chemicals that are causing our bodies to have all of these horrible reactions and diseases.

Those are found in mass produced meats as well.

I fully believe that we NEED to limit our meat intake based on what the beef industry is pushing us to eat. They are doing nothing but ensuring the padding of their wallet not promoting good health, good heart health or any care for how they produce meat.

Should one remove any and all animal protein? Well, sadly you can.. thanks to those little balls called supplements. An unnatural version of the vitamins you NEED from animal protein. Sure. You can do it. But you will gain a lot more health wise by just eating a small slab of fish or a fist size piece of red meat once every couple of weeks than you will downing that pill.

Even with out supplements, we can do and live with out animal protein. But why completely remove something you know your body needs? Seriously.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 05:37 am
@shewolfnm,
I pretty much agree with this. When on occasion I have gone on a vegetarian diet - never to last over a few months - I still had eggs and occasioinal small amounts of milk. I also believe in as wide a variety of foods as possible and to try to not eat any more chemicals than necessary.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:02 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:
Yes, animal protein does have mandatory vitamins and minerals in it that we can not find any where else.

I'm going to request a citation on this. It needs to name a vitamin that we need, how we know we need it, and that it is only found in meats.

I ask, because I had blood work done before and after switching, and not a single mineral was deficient as a vegan.

Meats have lots of things that you can't find in plants like heme-iron. The thing is our intestines don't even have receptors for heme-iron. Examining the evolution of the human diet, I'm not so sure our bodies agree that we are best suited for an omnivore diet.

Terms like omnivore, carnivore, and vegetarian aren't things that we are per se. A deer by all means is vegetarian, but we find evidence that in paleolithic times where grasses and plants were scarce, deer would eat mice. It's kind of a weird image to think of, really. A common thing that people reference to support that humans are well adapted for an omnivore diet is our dental configuration. The presence of canines certainly aides in the ability to eat meat, but by no means indicates that we must eat meat. Animals evolve, and they find fit, we are not designed. We should not read into what things like canines "mean" for our diet. Consider the gorilla. It's canines make ours look puny. If we were to examine it's mouth, using the same criteria, we'd probably come to the conclusion that gorillas were "meant" to eat meat. they don't. Gorillas eat fruit. Their bodies like ours are adapted enough that they can partially process meat, but gorillas don't hunt prey. If they kill something, they don't eat it.

Why we eat what we eat is the product of socialization and culture, not nature. Access to meat, eggs, and dairy is relatively a new thing in human history. such items were considered a luxury, not a staple of life.

A
R
T
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:09 am
@failures art,
What is with your assumption that, a) this is directed at you, and, b) that it's unprovoked? I've had vegans get in my face so frequently that at one point i stopped partonizing my neighborhood coffee shop because of their hostility, after i had ridiculed their bullshit objections to meat eating--so i don't consider my hosility to vegans to be unprovoked, for however you might see it. You may be reasonable (and of course, i have no way of knowing if that is true or not), but there are legions of militant, loud-mouthed vegans out there.

Stone-ground bread? Please, vegans get suckered so easily. There are no standards for the labeling of most foods with regard to the currently popular claims about food--they can grind a handful of barley with stones, distribute it among thousands of batches of bread, and call it stone ground. And what you get is bread made by traditional, commercial methods, using grains grown by traditional, commercial methods, and probably using vegetable shortening made from vegetable residues of commercial processes, and which vegetables were grown by traditional, commercial methods.

So when i have to deal with militant, in-your-face vegans (and there is never a lack of members of that crowd), i am disgusted as well as hilariously amused by their arrogance in view of their ignorance of where their food actually comes from, and what commercial agriculture does to the environment.

If that's not you, fine--but don't tell me it's unprovoked just because you're a simon-pure vegan of a charitable character . . . or claim to be.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:11 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:
I say, so be it. If people wish to eat beef, let them pay the actual price. Done.


And let the vegans pay the price of eating non-meat foods which have been produced in an environmentally responsible manner--for a change. This kind of thinking--seeing one side but not the other--is another irritating characteristic of vegans.
chai2
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:27 am
@shewolfnm,
shewolfnm wrote:

We do NOT need meat / animal protein 3 times a day like the beef industry loves to suggest.


Just throwing this in as a random fact.

Excess protein is a HUGE stressor on the kidneys.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:29 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

What is with your assumption that, a) this is directed at you

I make no such assumption. I just thought it was odd that you made this statement given that I had not read anything in the thread that had provoked such adversarial language.

Setanta wrote:

b) that it's unprovoked?

Because it wasn't provoked. People were discussing products they liked and didn't like.

Setanta wrote:

I've had vegans get in my face so frequently that at one point i stopped partonizing my neighborhood coffee shop because of their hostility, after i had ridiculed their bullshit objections to meat eating--so i don't consider my hosility to vegans to be unprovoked, for however you might see it. You may be reasonable (and of course, i have no way of knowing if that is true or not), but there are legions of militant, loud-mouthed vegans out there.

I believe you. I know plenty of vegans who will get in peoples faces and be real assholes. If someone had ran into here and started calling people "murderers" etc, I wouldn't blame you for taking this tone. I think however that because of your experience, you've normalize any discussion involving veg diets to be moralizing or accusatory.

Setanta wrote:

Stone-ground bread? Please, vegans get suckered so easily. There are no standards for the labeling of most foods with regard to the currently popular claims about food--they can grind a handful of barley with stones, distribute it among thousands of batches of bread, and call it stone ground. And what you get is bread made by traditional, commercial methods, using grains grown by traditional, commercial methods, and probably using vegetable shortening made from vegetable residues of commercial processes, and which vegetables were grown by traditional, commercial methods.

Don't read too much into this. I simply like stone ground bread, I'm not advertising that because it is stone ground that this means it's more nutritious. It just happens to be the bread I buy from the local bakery. This particular case it is not commercially produced, although many bread products I do eat are. You're too eager to make this into some bitter argument. I almost typed pumpernickel, but then I decided it was a runner-up. I was writing things I like to eat. Chill out.

Setanta wrote:

So when i have to deal with militant, in-your-face vegans (and there is never a lack of members of that crowd), i am disgusted as well as hilariously amused by their arrogance in view of their ignorance of where their food actually comes from, and what commercial agriculture does to the environment.

I'm sorry you've had people be rude to you Set. It's no excuse, but imagine how they are often treated, and examine your haste to make conflict here. What chance is there that you anticipate conflict so much that you provoke it?

Setanta wrote:

If that's not you, fine--but don't tell me it's unprovoked just because you're a simon-pure vegan of a charitable character . . . or claim to be.

I'm just saying, chill out. Unless your goal is to provoke. Should I take offense to you calling me stupid? Should I consider this a transgression from an "in-your-face" omnivore? Perhaps I should, but I won't. I'm not looking for an excuse to get riled up.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Sep, 2010 06:32 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

failures art wrote:
I say, so be it. If people wish to eat beef, let them pay the actual price. Done.


And let the vegans pay the price of eating non-meat foods which have been produced in an environmentally responsible manner--for a change. This kind of thinking--seeing one side but not the other--is another irritating characteristic of vegans.

Please show some restraint with the generalizations. I'm fine paying the actual cost of things, and most of the vegans I know advocate fair trade. I try to buy local and in season. I don't need to buy an apple from New Zealand off season.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/03/2020 at 08:28:11