The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: superdave on July 05, 2019, 03:00:45 PM

Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on July 05, 2019, 03:00:45 PM
Tried it and it was meh.   Compared to the impossible burger it had a better texture and mouthfeel but a worse flavor.  I could definitely taste the peas (a sentence you have to say carefully)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on July 05, 2019, 03:07:32 PM
I'm looking for fake pasta made from meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on July 05, 2019, 03:10:27 PM
Tried it and it was meh.   Compared to the impossible burger it had a better texture and mouthfeel but a worse flavor.  I could definitely taste the peas (a sentence you have to say carefully)
So it had that pea-ness flavor? I’ll pass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 05, 2019, 03:27:26 PM
I sell the Beyond sausage bratwurst. I think they taste great. I have fooled several friends by not telling them its not meat and they are rarely able to guess. I do not taste peas, I didn't think the burgers tasted like peas either but I don't like them as much.

I like mine with sauerkraut. Some of my customers order them with bacon and one tops hers with pulled pork  >:D


Edit, I also tried the taco meat and thought it sucked, It has an artificial texture.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on July 05, 2019, 03:29:11 PM
I have tried the sausage too, I think it's better.  It wouldn't fool me in a taste test but it might fool me in the absence of somethign to compare it to.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 05, 2019, 03:49:25 PM
I had a Beyond Meat burger from Carl's Jr. and it was like an average medium-rare burger patty.  If we price in environmental externalities, make beef expensive, I can see this type of veggie burger becoming a standard ersatz good. 

And I'm not the only one:
(https://i.imgur.com/2pvvUbC.png)

As I understand it, there's a lot of money betting that Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods will be the Coke and Pepsi of meat-free meat.

Looking forward to trying an Impossible Burger one of these days.

As an aside, there's a bunch of different kinds of veggie burgers out there and some of them delicious.

Best I've ever had:
(https://i.imgur.com/wYzoTzPm.jpg)

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on July 05, 2019, 06:57:49 PM
Where do I get that.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on July 05, 2019, 07:45:16 PM
When I lived in Mexico I went to a vegetarian restaurant on a few occasions. Their fake meat tasted way too much like meat. It was horrid because it did taste like meat. However, I often cooked beans, mashed them up in a blender, added some flour and corn masa to hold it all together, then cooked it like burgers. Absolutely nothing at all like meat except that you could eat it in a hamburger bun. It was delicious because it was beans and it tasted like beans. (I made my beans medium spicy: Lots of flavorings and a moderate amount of chili pepper.)

No fake meat for me. (Obviously, no actual meat either. Or lab-grown meat.) But I do love beans with home-made 100% whole-grain bread. (Nothing against store bread, except that it has too much sodium for my blood pressure and it doesn't taste as good.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 06, 2019, 05:20:27 AM
The EU has decided that fake meat cannot be labeled as "burger", "sausage", "bacon", etc.  The discussion continues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028z2z0/episodes/downloads

It will become evident before long that pretend meats are not environmentally as sustainable as well raised livestock and that these products are not as nutritious as actual flesh and organs.  If it tastes "just like bacon", then it is bacon.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on July 06, 2019, 06:11:19 PM
Woah.  Somebody has got a message to flog.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on July 06, 2019, 10:25:32 PM
As you can surmise, lonely moa has a "sacred cow" regarding carno diet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 07, 2019, 05:29:21 AM
The nutrients in actual meat are myriad and human metabolism makes the best of them.  Artificial "meat", even with added micronutrients will not come to the party for fuelling the human body.  Just an also ran, IMHO.  Why choose second best?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on July 07, 2019, 01:11:47 PM
https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018939274-What-are-the-nutrition-facts-

(https://i.imgur.com/uysk0PI.jpg)

Quote
In 2019, we debuted a new Impossible Burger -- and it’s tastier, juicier, and better than ever.  Here’s the ingredient list:

Water, Soy Protein Concentrate, Coconut Oil, Sunflower Oil, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Potato Protein, Methylcellulose, Yeast Extract, Cultured Dextrose, Food Starch Modified, Soy Leghemoglobin, Salt, Soy Protein Isolate, Mixed Tocopherols (Vitamin E), Zinc Gluconate, Thiamine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Sodium Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Niacin, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on July 07, 2019, 01:14:41 PM
I like tofu and pretty much any kind of soy product, so I would probably like one of these.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 10, 2019, 05:49:42 PM
I tried their hot italian sausage and hot damn, this is exactly like an average italian sausage.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 10, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/4KF2iNw.jpg)

Crickey, they tasted just like lamb chops!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 10, 2019, 07:19:58 PM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 10, 2019, 09:18:36 PM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!

Lamb is currently NZ$8 /kg on the hook... makes those chops about $5, US$3.50.  If a bag of chops like that rises to US$500, I'll be growing more of them.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Ah.hell on July 11, 2019, 09:39:39 AM
I've had the fast food version, its at least as good as a regular burger from  Carls Jr/Hardy's.  The Del Taco next to my work advertises impossible tacos, I'm going to have to give that a try. 

Sausage seems a natural for the fake meat industry.  Ground up, spiced up, encased, and cooked well done.  It should be much easier to match in flavor and texture than even burgers.  Soyrizo fried with eggs is basically indistinguishable from the real thing already. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 11, 2019, 10:35:21 AM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!

Lamb is currently NZ$8 /kg on the hook... makes those chops about $5, US$3.50.  If a bag of chops like that rises to US$500, I'll be growing more of them.

Lamb chops are more like $12-16 per pound in the US

Please grow more!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 12, 2019, 03:19:22 AM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!

Lamb is currently NZ$8 /kg on the hook... makes those chops about $5, US$3.50.  If a bag of chops like that rises to US$500, I'll be growing more of them.

Lamb chops are more like $12-16 per pound in the US

Please grow more!

Tell your bloody president to lift the import restrictions on beef and lamb, please.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 12, 2019, 10:21:33 AM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!

Lamb is currently NZ$8 /kg on the hook... makes those chops about $5, US$3.50.  If a bag of chops like that rises to US$500, I'll be growing more of them.

Lamb chops are more like $12-16 per pound in the US

Please grow more!

Tell your bloody president to lift the import restrictions on beef and lamb, please.

I would but I doubt its a priority, We would grow more of them ourselves but Americans don't like lamb that much and its too bad. Probably because most people cant cook them properly. I think we have the Beef industry covered though. We have a caterer on set who makes the best grilled lambchops, They always have so many extra because people are too afraid to eat them. I get to take a bunch home

 Its my understanding that your lambs are smaller and more "lamby" tasting.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 12, 2019, 05:03:47 PM
And in 20 years, that'll cost $500!

Lamb is currently NZ$8 /kg on the hook... makes those chops about $5, US$3.50.  If a bag of chops like that rises to US$500, I'll be growing more of them.

Lamb chops are more like $12-16 per pound in the US

Please grow more!

Tell your bloody president to lift the import restrictions on beef and lamb, please.

I would but I doubt its a priority, We would grow more of them ourselves but Americans don't like lamb that much and its too bad. Probably because most people cant cook them properly. I think we have the Beef industry covered though. We have a caterer on set who makes the best grilled lambchops, They always have so many extra because people are too afraid to eat them. I get to take a bunch home

 Its my understanding that your lambs are smaller and more "lamby" tasting.

Quote
Annually, 213,402 tonnes (product weight) of New Zealand beef and veal can be exported to the United States – most at a tariff rate of US4.4c/kg./quote]

We fill that quota annually.

Lambs are generally 18-20 kg on the hook here.  The US is our largest export market, something like 16,000 tonnes last year.

My lambs actually tastes exactly like yummy lamb.  Since we only grow a few for our own consumption (unlike cattle), they are pretty easy to raise.  We buy in mismothered  stock, feed them for a few weeks on cow's milk we get from an AK dairy neighbour and after that they just take care of themselves.  There aren't any ovis parasites so they are "chemical free".
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on July 15, 2019, 02:29:28 PM
I tried the white castle incarnation of the impossible burger and it was pretty similar to my first encounter at a much more expensive fancy resturaunt.

It tastes like a really weird cheap hamburger.  I would never ever confuse it for real hamburgers in a side by side comparison.  If you told me it was real meat though, I would wonder WTF did you to this while you were cooking it, but I might believe that it was real meat.

At the end of the day, I prefer the morningstar burgers that have been on the market for years to the overhyped silicon valley ones.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 15, 2019, 02:52:29 PM
Yeah, the one I had from Carl's Jr. left a middling impression.

But I just cooked a couple myself and they were substantially better than the fast food one I got

Didn't have buns so it was justCooked up in a skillet.  Ate it like an open-faced sandwich with a knife and fork.  It was genuinely good.  I'm hoping it takes off and we get some Economies of Scale going here.  The hot italian sausage was $8 for 4 and the patties were, iirc, ~$6.50 for 2.  If the price comes down enough, I could finally go vegetarian.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 15, 2019, 05:35:25 PM
yea that price is high, The brats are the highest solo item my menu, I cant find them any cheaper than the grocery store.  Publix has them for $8 but are usually sold out, Whole foods has them in quantity but they are around $9- $9.50.

The food service location I purchase from just started selling the burgers but the buyer claims Beyond has trouble with distribution and they are not consistent.  He said he will try to locate the brats for me but is not sure if its viable yet or not.

A few local restaurants are selling them, I might try asking those kitchen managers if they have a decent distributor.

I'm curious if the burgers taste bad at Carl's and WC because they are over cooking them like they do the beef burgers (and babyfood pattys at WC).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on July 15, 2019, 08:00:18 PM
Saving money on refrigeration .  Min you, we do front up for a few cents a month to power the electric fences.

(https://i.imgur.com/M31Lma8.jpg)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on July 15, 2019, 09:25:11 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on July 15, 2019, 09:35:54 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.

that's what he meant.   Why do you think we need vegan brats?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: st3class on July 15, 2019, 09:39:38 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.

Bratwurst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratwurst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratwurst)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on July 15, 2019, 10:06:49 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.

Bratwurst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratwurst (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratwurst)

So... sausages. Okay. Thanks.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on July 15, 2019, 10:12:20 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.

that's what he meant.   Why do you think we need vegan brats?


Like they say: if you can't eat vegan, eat a vegan.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on July 15, 2019, 10:50:25 PM
Pardon my ignorance but what are "brats"? It's not a term I've encountered before in the context of food. Only in the context of my neighbour's children.
Think bangers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 15, 2019, 11:01:29 PM
Gonna have to try the brats with sauerkraut and coarse ground mustard.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 15, 2019, 11:06:23 PM
We only use vegan brat children in our vegan bratwurst

Its traditionally a German sausage usually made with pork and garlic, sometimes beer.

It looks like a banger but I think bangers taste closer to our breakfast sausage.

I sell the vegan product because its the only meat substitute I have ever tasted that I would be willing to eat on a regular basis. Its not a huge seller and a pain in the ass to purchase but I like to have options for those customers who dont like meat.

(https://www.beyondmeat.com/wp-content/uploads/homepage-product-beyondsausage-brat-desktop-1.png)

If they only eat chicken they can eat the vegan or go somewhere else.  >:D

I should add that we smoke ours with applewood which adds another layer of flavor.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 15, 2019, 11:31:04 PM
Be careful when flame grilling, they are very greasy and start leaking coconut oil the second they heat up. Flame ups occur and they will stick to the grill.

Because of this oil I only give them 10-15 minutes in the coolest smoke I can manage at around 200 degrees F (I do my dogs for 45 minutes) then they go directly into a vacuum sealed bag and chilled in an ice bath for storage. I sous vide them at 160 degrees before serving then quickly char grill them over wood charcoal for a nice caramelized, flame broiled texture. You could completely skip the sous vide step and go right to a hot grill, Its just easier for me to keep them ready to eat that way. Just make sure they cook all the way through.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 16, 2019, 12:00:03 AM
As toppings go I personally eat them like FORTRAN with mustard and sauerkraut. I like that way the best however for my menu I wanted something different and southern so I serve it with a green tomato chow chow. 

Southern chow chow is a sweat, yellow, vinegary relish mostly made with cabbage, green tomato, and a small amount of green bell peppers. I eliminate the cabbage and don't add as much turmeric so it keeps its green color.

I think its a great complement to the brat which balances out the oily flavor.

But then again so does sauerkraut, i'm sorry I forced you into that dilemma, you can always order two  >:D
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on July 16, 2019, 12:29:48 AM
Oh, I though some of you would get a kick out of this. I use a rubber-made film cart for a condiment station which happens to have this bumper sticker on the customer facing side. Seeing it up close in the picture makes me want to find a new one.

Please note that the cart is sitting in my living room and not set up properly with all the condiments. I should post a pic when I am open for business along with the Beyond Bratwurst.

(https://i.imgur.com/rik9ZBC.jpg)

Sorry if I am monopolizing the thread, I'm pretty proud of my work and I think its on theme.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on July 16, 2019, 12:30:31 AM
Ha, nice!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 13, 2019, 02:10:00 PM
Cheeky opinion piece talking up low-emissions, meatless meat's future. Mix of zingers and data points.

I'm optimistic, myself.  The Impossible Whopper's better than a regular whopper.  Beyond Meat's good, too, but don't get it at Carl's Jr.  The one I had at Carl's Jr was red, wet and slick (which is why I skipped the IPOOOoooo :cry:).  If prices come down, I could easily go vegetarian.  And while I might not get healthier, the planet would.

Article: This Is the Beginning of the End of the Beef Industry (https://www.outsideonline.com/2399736/impossible-foods-beyond-meat-alt-meat)
From: Outside Online
Date: 2019 JUL 31

Quote
...

I tracked down a White Castle shortly after the Impossible Slider arrived in the spring of 2018. I’d never been to a White Castle, so I ordered an Impossible Slider and a regular slider. The Impossible was...fine. About what you’d expect. White Castle steams all its meat, which is hard to get past, but with plenty of cheese, it went down easy.

The regular slider, on the other hand, was horrific. I peeled back the pasty bun and stared at the fetid shingle inside. It was appallingly thin and grimy. It made the Impossible Slider look lush and juicy. The bar for fast-food burgers is even lower than I thought. Nobody will miss these shitty little brown things when they’re gone.

...

And then there’s Burger King. The second-largest fast-food chain in the world rattled big beef’s cage by testing an Impossible Whopper in St. Louis in April. Resulting foot traffic was so strong that Burger King decided to serve the Impossible Whopper in all 7,200 restaurants, marking the moment when alt meat stopped being alt.

...

This year is shaping up to be the inflection point when this becomes obvious to everybody else. Beyond Meat’s products are in 15,000 grocery stores in the U.S., and its sales have more than doubled each year. On May 2, it held its IPO, offering stock at $25, which turned out to be a wild underestimation of what investors thought the company was worth. It immediately leaped to $46 and closed the day at $65.75. That one-day pop of 163 percent was one of the best in decades, putting to shame such 2019 IPOs as Lyft (21 percent) and Pinterest (25 percent), to say nothing of Uber (negative 3 percent). In the following days, it kept ripping, climbing above $150, where it has stayed. The market currently estimates Beyond Meat’s worth at close to $10 billion.

Not to be outdone, that same month, Impossible Foods raised an additional $300 million dollars from private investors (for a running total of $740 million and a valuation of $2 billion) and announced it would be joining Beyond Meat in America’s grocery stores later this year. These companies are no longer little mammals scurrying around the feet of the big-beef dinosaurs. And they are gearing up for an epic head-to-head battle.

...

But the core of each formula is very different. Beyond uses pea protein, while Impossible uses soy. Beyond gets its bloody color from beet juice; Impossible uses heme—the same molecule that makes our blood red—to achieve its meaty color and flavor. This is its killer app. Beef gets its beefiness from heme. When you cook heme, it produces the distinctive savory, metallic flavor of meat. Since heme is normally found in blood, no veggie concoction has ever used it. Soy plants do make microscopic amounts of it, but not enough to ever use. Impossible Foods’ breakthrough was to genetically engineer yeast to produce soy heme in a tank, like beer. This GMO process is a deal breaker for some people, but it makes all the difference. The Impossible Burger is incredible, the Beyond Burger merely passable.

...

But the playing field is leveling fast. Last week, Dunkin’ announced a new Beyond Sausage breakfast sandwich that will be just 14 cents more than the meat version. But more than anything Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods has accomplished, the true death knell for the cattlemen is how the mainstream food industry has embraced alt meat. Whole Foods just announced it will start selling burgers from the UK-based startup the Meatless Farm in all of its stores. Nestlé is launching its Awesome Burger this fall. Tyson Foods, America’s largest meat producer, just debuted its own plant-based nuggets, with more products to come. Tyson CEO Noel White said he expects Tyson “to be a market leader in alternative protein, which is experiencing double-digit growth and could someday be a billion-dollar business for our company.”

If that quote isn’t enough to send chills down the spine of any meat producer, try this one from Perdue Farms chairman Jim Perdue: “Our vision is to be the most trusted name in premium protein. It doesn’t say premium meat protein, just premium protein. That’s where consumers are going.”

And that’s where these companies will go. Beef is a headache. It comes with a lot of baggage to worry about: antibiotic resistance, E. coli outbreaks, animal welfare, climate change. It’s the kind of icky biological variable that corporate America would love to leave behind—and as soon as beef becomes less profitable, it will.

Recent projections suggest that 60 percent of the meat eaten in 2040 will be alt, a figure I think may actually be too conservative. An estimated 95 percent of the people buying alt burgers are meat-eaters. This is not about making vegetarians happy. It’s not even about climate change. This is a battle for America’s flame-broiled soul. Meat is about to break free from its animal past. As traditional meat companies embrace alt meat with the fervor of the just converted, making it cheap and ubiquitious, it’s unclear if Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods can survive the feeding frenzy (though Impossible’s patents on its core IP may help), but at least they’ll be able to comfort themselves with a modern take on Gandhi’s wisdom:

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they sue you.
Then they try to buy you.
Then they copy you.
Then they steal your shelf space.
Then they put you out of business.
Then you’ve won.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on August 13, 2019, 02:37:56 PM
friends tell me that making your own burger from the ground beyond meat crumbles is better than the prefab burger.  Cheaper too.  This is good news if true. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on August 13, 2019, 08:08:00 PM
I'm still waiting for the Impossible Whopper to be released in Australia. It will absolutely replace my standard order.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on August 13, 2019, 10:31:23 PM
Impossible Steaks in 5-10 years?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: D'oh! on August 14, 2019, 02:11:14 AM
Had Beyond Burgers last night for dinner. Not bad, but I don't think I'd be fooled in a blind taste test. One product that would fool me is Veggie Grill's "chicken" sandwich. Sucker tastes just like the real thing!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on August 14, 2019, 02:16:51 AM
I guess the imitation chicken tastes like chicken.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: D'oh! on August 14, 2019, 02:21:32 AM
Exactly!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on August 14, 2019, 07:30:39 AM
"If prices come down, I could easily go vegetarian."

I am not trying to be a dick asking this. Why wouldn't you go vegetarian in advance of such a low cost burger? Are you a heavy burger eater now?  Just curious.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on August 14, 2019, 07:51:55 AM
The wife and I ordered a Double Impossible Whopper over this past weekend and split it.


I found it a touch dry.  It didn't taste like a whopper patty, but it was good.  It didn't taste like a vegetable burger (I've tried several varieties), but it wasn't exactly beef either.  It was close enough.  If we had ordered singles instead of splitting a double, I probably would have liked it better.  Lettuce/tomato/mayo to meat ratio would have worked out the lowered amount of grease.


That all being said, it's more expensive and honestly not really much healthier than a normal whopper.  Unless you are watching your cholesterol.  That was the one number that really dropped going to the Impossible.  I want to support it to help drive down the price; for the planet if nothing else, but I honestly can't afford the calories.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: 2397 on August 14, 2019, 09:41:12 AM
Been looking at vegetarian meat substitutes, but some of them are ridiculously expensive. As an example, a 10-pack of turkey and chicken meat hotdog sausages is 33 NOK, and then there's 4-pack of vegetarian ones for 40 NOK. No 10-packs.

The cheapest non-meat was another type of burger, which they've now sold out of since I bought two packs in the previous two weeks, so I guess they haven't been selling a lot of them. 55 NOK for 4 burgers, vs. the "Beyond Burger" 2 burgers for 80 NOK. More than three times as expensive by weight, vs. both the other veggie burgers and beef burgers.

I hope the market picks up and the prices drop along with an increasing range of products.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: superdave on August 14, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
We eat a lot of fake meat products and the gardien brand stuff is really good.  I would definitely be fooled by some in a totally blind test, though probably not a side by side taste.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on August 14, 2019, 12:47:24 PM
It looks like these things are being targeted by the anti GMO crowd now, especially the impossible burger. This bullshit popped up in my facebook feed from another film worker today.

https://livingmaxwell.com/gmo-impossible-burger-glyphosate?fbclid=IwAR3hDm4R-sUDgRVfe3oC7GCU2WSMuCR7tpkvAk1YytkDHXSW7zm0vGCZcnw

Quote
According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion (ppb).

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Fuck California! I predict these will be banned on set soon and will no longer be considered as legitimate vegetarian options at meal time or snacks.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on August 14, 2019, 03:59:48 PM
Why wouldn't you go vegetarian in advance of such a low cost burger? Are you a heavy burger eater now? Just curious.

Pretty much.  Ideologically, I should be a vegetarian. Behaviorally, I'm too in love with salty/savory. 

I'm not quite staring into half eaten burgers muttering, "I wish I knew how to quit you," but cheap (high quality) meatless burgers and sausages would outright eliminate most meat from my diet. From there, ovo-vegetarian's a short jump.

edit:

That all being said, it's more expensive and honestly not really much healthier than a normal whopper.  Unless you are watching your cholesterol.  That was the one number that really dropped going to the Impossible.  I want to support it to help drive down the price; for the planet if nothing else, but I honestly can't afford the calories.

Reminders me of a one-liner I saw.  Something like, "I went vegetarian and only the planet got healthier."
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 19, 2019, 03:34:01 PM
I  got curious about this after the recent South Park episode so I just tried the Beyond Burger from tesco.

It may be because I had just run 10k and then driven for an hour but I LOVED it!!
I will be making them a once a week treat! €7 for two burgers is a lil bit pricey for me.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 19, 2019, 04:33:53 PM
Been looking at vegetarian meat substitutes, but some of them are ridiculously expensive. As an example, a 10-pack of turkey and chicken meat hotdog sausages is 33 NOK, and then there's 4-pack of vegetarian ones for 40 NOK. No 10-packs.

The cheapest non-meat was another type of burger, which they've now sold out of since I bought two packs in the previous two weeks, so I guess they haven't been selling a lot of them. 55 NOK for 4 burgers, vs. the "Beyond Burger" 2 burgers for 80 NOK. More than three times as expensive by weight, vs. both the other veggie burgers and beef burgers.

I hope the market picks up and the prices drop along with an increasing range of products.

I've said this before, but I really believe the road to vegetarianism is not through fake meat. It's through normal vegetable foods. Instead of fake-meat burgers, try meatless chili beans with 100% whole-grain bread. My mouth is watering just thinking about it! I get it that some folks like the taste of meat. When I was 19 I didn't think I could live without meat. Five years later it was hard to believe I'd ever liked the stuff.

My point isn't that you shouldn't eat meat.

My point is that if you feel, for whatever reasons, that you shouldn't eat meat, you'll be much more satisfied in the long run if you wean yourself off of it and develop the taste for plant-based proteins. I get just as much pleasure out of eating properly-prepared and properly seasoned beans and tofu as I ever got from eating meat. Taste is purely a matter of habit. You can change your taste and then you won't have to go through life always knowing that you're not getting the real thing.

Instead of waiting for corporations to produce a fake meat that tastes like real meat at an affordable price, learn to enjoy plant-based proteins that are already affordable, and much less expensive than meat or fake meat will ever be.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 19, 2019, 04:34:06 PM
It looks like these things are being targeted by the anti GMO crowd now, especially the impossible burger. This bullshit popped up in my facebook feed from another film worker today.

https://livingmaxwell.com/gmo-impossible-burger-glyphosate?fbclid=IwAR3hDm4R-sUDgRVfe3oC7GCU2WSMuCR7tpkvAk1YytkDHXSW7zm0vGCZcnw

Quote
According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion (ppb).

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Fuck California! I predict these will be banned on set soon and will no longer be considered as legitimate vegetarian options at meal time or snacks.
So the fad will fade fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 19, 2019, 09:36:23 PM
It looks like these things are being targeted by the anti GMO crowd now, especially the impossible burger. This bullshit popped up in my facebook feed from another film worker today.

https://livingmaxwell.com/gmo-impossible-burger-glyphosate?fbclid=IwAR3hDm4R-sUDgRVfe3oC7GCU2WSMuCR7tpkvAk1YytkDHXSW7zm0vGCZcnw

Quote
According to Moms Across America, who had the product tested at Health Research Institute Laboratories, the levels of glyphosate were 11x that of the Beyond Meat burger and the total result (glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA) came in at 11.3 parts per billion (ppb).

Why should consumers care about glyphosate?

Because glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer and the World Health Organization says it is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” — which means that it “probably causes cancer to humans.” Glyphosate also happens to be the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, and approximately 250 million pounds of this weed killer are sprayed each year in the U.S.

Fuck California! I predict these will be banned on set soon and will no longer be considered as legitimate vegetarian options at meal time or snacks.
So the fad will fade fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its possible you are right. It sure is expanding fast. When was the last time a new food item appeared on so many restaurant menus and grocery stores this quickly?  I'm amazed at how fast it has spread and others are creating competing products that may or may not be better.  A whole industry seems to be forming.

The GMO thing seems to have slipped under the covers, I haven't seen much else about it but I haven't been looking either.

Of course we have only been eating them for a few years, who knows what these things mite be doing to us.  We mite need another 50 years or so to know for sure.
Some say it helps them to stop eating meat but others have doubts this is an effective method, it could lead to more meat eating becoming a "gateway meat"
Teens across america are starting to eat them in large numbers.
They also come in attractive flavors and packaging which invite people to eat more of them. I cant get enough of that bratwurst flavor!

 >:D  >:D  >:D
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 20, 2019, 03:30:38 PM
I just scouted out the cheaper supermarket by my house, they have a similar product for half the price and a pack of sausages!
I will be trying them on payday.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on October 21, 2019, 01:18:45 PM

So the fad will fade fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Veganism; 50/3,000,000 years.  Surely a fad.  Reminds me of hoola hoops.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 21, 2019, 01:35:30 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 01:46:46 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got it
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on October 21, 2019, 02:09:43 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 21, 2019, 02:20:29 PM
But we are not discussing diet...we are discussing one specific food item.

But no. I dont think you are insecure.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 07:12:22 PM
Well it’s a category of food items (meat substitutes made from plants) and I’d say food items are much more likely to be faddish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 07:13:36 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
They’ve been dismissing it as a fad since the 1970s.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 21, 2019, 07:59:41 PM
Well it’s a category of food items (meat substitutes made from plants) and I’d say food items are much more likely to be faddish.


That category of food has existed since at least the 1970s.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on October 21, 2019, 08:05:50 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
They’ve been dismissing it as a fad since the 1970s.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again, you move the goalposts.  You start out accusing the people here, then switch to a nebulous they instead.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 21, 2019, 09:19:56 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
They’ve been dismissing it as a fad since the 1970s.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s a definition of ‘fad:’

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fad

Low carbohydrate diets are a fad.


Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on October 21, 2019, 10:25:35 PM


Low carbohydrate diets are a fad.

The definition falls over for large groups of humans that have been eating very low carb diets for millennia, and avoiding chronic diseases that afflict members of the affluent society we live in.

I'd suspect the Atkins diet has survived long enough to not be a "fad".

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 21, 2019, 10:45:07 PM


Low carbohydrate diets are a fad.

The definition falls over for large groups of humans that have been eating very low carb diets for millennia, and avoiding chronic diseases that afflict members of the affluent society we live in.

I'd suspect the Atkins diet has survived long enough to not be a "fad".

‘A practice or interest followed for a time with excessive zeal : CRAZE

Describes you and CarbShark perfectly.

But anyway.  We’re definitely off topic.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 10:50:43 PM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
They’ve been dismissing it as a fad since the 1970s.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again, you move the goalposts.  You start out accusing the people here, then switch to a nebulous they instead.
OK, I’ve been posting here for about 8 years and it’s been dismissed as a fad since day one.

That’s probably the silliest moving the goalposts argument I’ve ever heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 10:51:46 PM


Low carbohydrate diets are a fad.

The definition falls over for large groups of humans that have been eating very low carb diets for millennia, and avoiding chronic diseases that afflict members of the affluent society we live in.

I'd suspect the Atkins diet has survived long enough to not be a "fad".

‘A practice or interest followed for a time with excessive zeal : CRAZE

Describes you and CarbShark perfectly.

But anyway.  We’re definitely off topic.
That definition perfectly fits beyond burger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 21, 2019, 11:00:13 PM


Low carbohydrate diets are a fad.

The definition falls over for large groups of humans that have been eating very low carb diets for millennia, and avoiding chronic diseases that afflict members of the affluent society we live in.

I'd suspect the Atkins diet has survived long enough to not be a "fad".

‘A practice or interest followed for a time with excessive zeal : CRAZE

Describes you and CarbShark perfectly.

But anyway.  We’re definitely off topic.
That definition perfectly fits beyond burger.


No, it doesn't.  "For a time" in the definition means for a limited time (ie, fads come and go, by definition).  Whether Beyond Burger's "go" remains to be seen.  There are veggie burger brands that have been around for decades.  Besides, I don't think there ever was a Beyond Burger "craze."

And is the question really about just this one brand of meatless burger?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 21, 2019, 11:21:22 PM
That’s the point. I’m saying this new round of pricy fake burgers is a fad that has come and will go.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 12:02:45 AM
Who said anything about veganism? We are just discussing a specific type of food product.
I think most of us still eat meat too?
Maybe chocolate and smartphones are both fads too?

How insecure does someone have to be to pop into such a benign discussion to tout the doom of....veggie burgers?
Or maybe its just that when narcissism and arrogance go far enough, they just push right through to something that resembles insecure behaviour?


So when you guys dismiss LCHF Keto and Paleo diets as fads, that's perfectly fine, but when I suggest that the sudden popularity of a new product is a fad and then it's narcissism, arrogance and insecurity.

Got i

Yeah, that's  not why most people dismiss low carb, but whatever you need to rationalize it.
They’ve been dismissing it as a fad since the 1970s.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once again, you move the goalposts.  You start out accusing the people here, then switch to a nebulous they instead.
OK, I’ve been posting here for about 8 years and it’s been dismissed as a fad since day one.

That’s probably the silliest moving the goalposts argument I’ve ever heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you’ve been posting for around 5 years at least about low carbohydrate diets:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,43282.0.html

You’re obsessed with your fad diet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 12:22:10 AM
Eight years here. Ten years altogether


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 12:27:17 AM
Eight years here. Ten years altogether


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eight years posting here generally (the earliest posts I found of you were regarding GMO food), or proselytising for low carbohydrate diets?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 01:08:18 AM
That’s the point. I’m saying this new round of pricy fake burgers is a fad that has come and will go.

I think they're here to stay, at least until lab-grown meat becomes common.  Right now demand exceeds supply, so the price is high.  But the price should come down once production scales up to meet demand.

There seems to be a consensus that current levels of meat production are not sustainable, and people are becoming evermore eco-conscious.  Moreover, plant-based meat substitutes are becoming better and better formulated for taste and texture.  So, increases in available alternatives to farmed meats are, I think, inevitable.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 22, 2019, 01:58:54 AM
Yeah, I think this is different for two reasons:P.S.  If you want to try these, don't go to Carl's Jr.  They undercook the patty so as to get a 'medium-rare' effect.  It's slick and gross. 

P.P.S It's why I skipped BYND's IPO.

They IPO'ed at $25.

(https://i.imgur.com/gWe531m.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/lI25rvb.gif)

One expensive fucking hamburger.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 02:08:41 AM
So I’m saying a year from now their popularity will have dropped significantly.

You’re saying they will be even more popular.

I’m also saying keto diet will be just as popular if not more so.

These are things we can test and get a result. Let’s discuss this again, shall we say 10/20/2020?

Care to make it interesting?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 02:25:49 AM
So I’m saying a year from now their popularity will have dropped significantly.

You’re saying they will be even more popular.

I’m also saying keto diet will be just as popular if not more so.

These are things we can test and get a result. Let’s discuss this again, shall we say 10/20/2020?

Care to make it interesting?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the popularity of Beyond Meat can be quantified by the sales figures.  The popularity of Keto diets can’t be quantified.  All we’ve got to go on is the very loud  proselytising of diet faddists such as you.  There’s no data showing the number of people who are on a keto diet currently.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 02:29:23 AM
So I’m saying a year from now their popularity will have dropped significantly.

You’re saying they will be even more popular.


Assuming you're replying to me (quoting would have been good)...

Quote
I’m also saying keto diet will be just as popular if not more so.

These are things we can test and get a result. Let’s discuss this again, shall we say 10/20/2020?

Care to make it interesting?

I predicted that consumption of plant-based meat burgers would increase, in opposition to your claim that it would be a passing fad. I was also thinking more long-term than 1 year.  I haven't given any thought to what might happen in a 1-year time frame to plant-based meat burger consumption much less to keto diets.  Nonetheless, if you can think of an accurate and reliable way to measure "popularity," I might be interested in a friendly wager.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 03:00:01 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 03:05:50 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?

I'm not familiar with Google trends.  Also, I have no opinion on Beyond Burger per se; rather, I have an opinion about the product category plant-based meat substitutes (as an aside, I think that Impossible Burger will ultimately prove to be the more successful brand). 

ETA: I take it that Google trends tracks Google searches.  An interesting idea.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 03:56:24 AM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto

Right now Keto is winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 04:14:28 AM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto)

Right now Keto is winning.



ORLY? (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Ketogenic%20diet)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 04:38:27 AM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto)

Right now Keto is winning.



ORLY? (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Ketogenic%20diet)
Really.


https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto,Beyond%20burger,%2Fm%2F03cg86


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 05:02:25 AM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto)

Right now Keto is winning.



ORLY? (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Ketogenic%20diet)
Really.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto,Beyond%20burger,%2Fm%2F03cg86 (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto,Beyond%20burger,%2Fm%2F03cg86)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is all cute, but not relevant to what I predicted.  The current popularity, judged by Google searches, of ketogenic diets vs Impossible Burgers is not the relevant question.  What I predicted was that consumption of plant-based meat alternatives will continue to increase in the long-term.  I said nothing about Impossible Burgers per se, nothing about consumption trends up till now, and nothing about current or past popularity of the two compared with each other.

That said, to the extent that data from the past one year can predict the future, and Impossible Burgers are representative of plant-based meat substitutes, the trend in search interest in these subjects can be seen more clearly by plotting them separately.  To wit, search interest in "keto" over the past year has increased from an index of 44 to an index of 47, or 6%.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=keto (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=keto)

In contrast, search interest in Impossible Burger has increased from an index of 8 to an index of 30, or 275%. 

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=impossible%20burger (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=impossible%20burger)

Search interest in "keto" has been basically flat over the past year, whereas search interest in Impossible Burger nearly tripled.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 10:31:14 AM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.

As for diet the word “keto” has fairly recently become a popular replacement for “Atkins”, “LCHF, “ketogenic” or “low carb”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 22, 2019, 10:42:14 AM
... What I predicted was that consumption of plant-based meat alternatives will continue to increase in the long-term. 

While this could well be true for America, if we look at the world as a whole, plant-based meat alternatives (i.e. beans) are so popular that there's hardly room for an increase. Unfortunately, when people's income rises, they tend to eat more meat, and the incomes of people in the world's most populous nations are rising, so meat consumption is likely to increase world-wide. This is unfortunate for the health of the environment, but probably inevitable.

The extent to which people turn to plant-based fake meat rather than real meat as their income rises will be difficult to quantify without a baseline. Some number of Americans will inevitably turn to the new alternatives, and most will remain with the old-style dead-animal meat just out of inertia. Costs will play a role, as will taste and resistance to change. Never underestimate stubbornness as an impediment to progress.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 11:56:56 AM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.


WTF!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 22, 2019, 01:28:52 PM

P.S.  If you want to try these, don't go to Carl's Jr.  They undercook the patty so as to get a 'medium-rare' effect.  It's slick and gross. 


Remind me to go to Carls Jr, we don't have them here! I wonder if Hardies (same franchise) cooks them that way too. They are supposed to be rare to medium rare.

Burger king over cooks them just like their burgers so you may enjoy those better.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 22, 2019, 01:34:37 PM
Remind me to go to Carls Jr, we don't have them here! I wonder if Hardies (same franchise) cooks them that way too. They are supposed to be rare to medium rare.

Ha, probably.

Quote
Burger king over cooks them just like their burgers so you may enjoy those better.

I do!  They're pretty good.  If the price comes down a couple bucks, they'd soak up most of my fast food spending.

(I'm the inconsistent guy ordering his with bacon)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 02:29:19 PM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.


WTF!

What part of “high tech manufactured veggie burgers” do you not understand?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 22, 2019, 02:46:12 PM
Remind me to go to Carls Jr, we don't have them here! I wonder if Hardies (same franchise) cooks them that way too. They are supposed to be rare to medium rare.

Ha, probably.

Quote
Burger king over cooks them just like their burgers so you may enjoy those better.

I do!  They're pretty good.  If the price comes down a couple bucks, they'd soak up most of my fast food spending.

(I'm the inconsistent guy ordering his with bacon)

Yea, I have people who order my beyond brat with pulled pork on top or pimento cheese and candied bacon.

That's what makes me think this is not a fad, some people like the taste of them who could care less about the vegan qualities.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 04:25:00 PM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.


WTF!

What part of “high tech manufactured veggie burgers” do you not understand?

What part of "you're just bullshitting" do you not understand?  You suggested Google searches as the metric of popularity.  You claimed (1) that "keto" is more popular than Impossible Burgers, because keto had more searches than Impossible Burgers.  Yet you claim (2) that if popularity of Impossible Burger were increasing, then the searches for them would be lower at the end of the depicted 12-month period than at the beginning.  Searches are a metric of either higher popularity or lower popularity depending on which is necessary to support your foregone conclusion.

Your claim (1) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the greater the difference in their popularity; while your claim (2) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the less the difference in their popularity.  Your claims are contradictory.  If somehow you don't see this, take it to its logical conclusion.  Say that the increase in searches for Impossible Burger (which appears to be exponential) continues, and say beginning in January 1, 2022 are higher than for "keto."  This implies, according to your argument, that prior to 2022 greater popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by greater searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers, but beginning in 2022 popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by fewer searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 22, 2019, 04:27:28 PM
I just stopped at BK to grab one on my way home from grocery shopping, It dawned on my that its an "impossible" Burger not a "Beyond"  I have not tried cooking an impossible on my own yet, I have not seen any available at a grocery store.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 22, 2019, 05:14:32 PM
I feel like its all more or less the same thing with very slight variations.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 05:18:58 PM
I just stopped at BK to grab one on my way home from grocery shopping, It dawned on my that its an "impossible" Burger not a "Beyond"  I have not tried cooking an impossible on my own yet, I have not seen any available at a grocery store.


Around here, it is only carried by a single, upscale grocery chain.  We tried cooking it last night for the first time, with moderate success.  We ended up using too much oil and making the patties too thin.  It will take some experimentation to be able to prepare them as well as they do at when served by restaurants where I've had them.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 05:25:23 PM
I feel like its all more or less the same thing with very slight variations.


Their formulations and philosophies are quite different.  IB is (proudly) made from GMO soy protein and flavored with GMO leghemoglobin.  BB (proudly) contains no soy or GMO ingredients.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 05:26:03 PM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.

WTF!

What part of “high tech manufactured veggie burgers” do you not understand?

What part of "you're just bullshitting" do you not understand?  (the part where you didn't say that?) You suggested Google searches as the metric of popularity. 

You claimed (1) that "keto" is more popular than Impossible Burgers, because keto had more searches than Impossible Burgers.


Quote
Yet you claim (2) that if popularity of Impossible Burger were increasing, then the searches for them would be lower at the end of the depicted 12-month period than at the beginning.
 

I don't think that's what I said.

I'm simply suggesting that they are popular now, and had been getting popular, but, if they are indeed a fad, their popularity will drop.

Quote

Searches are a metric of either higher popularity or lower popularity depending on which is necessary to support your foregone conclusion.
 

I don't know where that's coming from.

Higher popularity followed by lower popularity is the definition of a fad. That's what I'm predicting, that these manufactured foods will follow that pattern.

If their popularity never increased, then it wouldn't be a fad, so they meet the first minimum criteria.

If, as with LCHF, Keto, diets, their popularity never drops that much, then it also wouldn't be a fad. 

Is that clear now?

Quote

Your claim (1) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the greater the difference in their popularity; while your claim (2) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the less the difference in their popularity.  Your claims are contradictory. 
 

Those are not my claims. That's not what I'm implying and I don't know where you're reading that into what I'm posting.

Quote


If somehow you don't see this, take it to its logical conclusion.  Say that the increase in searchers searches for Impossible Burger (which appears to be exponential) continues, and say beginning in January 1, 2022 are higher than for "keto."  This implies, according to your argument, that prior to 2022 greater popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by greater searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers, but beginning in 2022 popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by fewer searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers.

No, that would simply mean that I am mistaken and that the impossible/beyond burgers are not a fad. 

If we do make a bet, I would have to pay up.

If, on the other hand, the popularity of the ketogenic diets remains relatively stable, and the popularity of the beyond/impossible burgers falls steeply, then they are a fad, and I am correct, and, if we make a bet, then you're on the hook.

That is the logical conclusion.

If their popularity increases significantly, that could be evidence that it's a fad, but it could also be evidence that it is something more.

Without a subsequent drop in popularity, it's not a fad.

Maybe the LCHF Keto diets comparison is confusing the issue. Because I'm also arguing that they will prove to be less fad-live using this metric.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 05:27:19 PM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.

WTF!

What part of “high tech manufactured veggie burgers” do you not understand?

What part of "you're just bullshitting" do you not understand?  (the part where you didn't say that?) You suggested Google searches as the metric of popularity. 

You claimed (1) that "keto" is more popular than Impossible Burgers, because keto had more searches than Impossible Burgers.


Quote
Yet you claim (2) that if popularity of Impossible Burger were increasing, then the searches for them would be lower at the end of the depicted 12-month period than at the beginning.
 

I don't think that's what I said.

I'm simply suggesting that they are popular now, and had been getting popular, but, if they are indeed a fad, their popularity will drop.

Quote

Searches are a metric of either higher popularity or lower popularity depending on which is necessary to support your foregone conclusion.
 

I don't know where that's coming from.

Higher popularity followed by lower popularity is the definition of a fad. That's what I'm predicting, that these manufactured foods will follow that pattern.

If their popularity never increased, then it wouldn't be a fad, so they meet the first minimum criteria.

If, as with LCHF, Keto, diets, their popularity never drops that much, then it also wouldn't be a fad. 

Is that clear now?

Quote

Your claim (1) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the greater the difference in their popularity; while your claim (2) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the less the difference in their popularity.  Your claims are contradictory. 
 

Those are not my claims. That's not what I'm implying and I don't know where you're reading that into what I'm posting.

Quote


If somehow you don't see this, take it to its logical conclusion.  Say that the increase in searchers searches for Impossible Burger (which appears to be exponential) continues, and say beginning in January 1, 2022 are higher than for "keto."  This implies, according to your argument, that prior to 2022 greater popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by greater searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers, but beginning in 2022 popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by fewer searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers.

No, that would simply mean that I am mistaken and that the impossible/beyond burgers are not a fad. 

If we do make a bet, I would have to pay up.

If, on the other hand, the popularity of the ketogenic diets remains relatively stable, and the popularity of the beyond/impossible burgers falls steeply, then they are a fad, and I am correct, and, if we make a bet, then you're on the hook.

That is the logical conclusion.

If their popularity increases significantly, that could be evidence that it's a fad, but it could also be evidence that it is something more.

Without a subsequent drop in popularity, it's not a fad.

Maybe the LCHF Keto diets comparison is confusing the issue. Because I'm also arguing that they will prove to be less fad-live using this metric.


Denies mathematical implication of fallacious argument.  Gish gallop.  tl;dr.  Bye.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 05:28:59 PM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto

Right now Keto is winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can sort of see that if there are 10 searches for Beyond Burgers today, and 20 searches in 12 months time, Beyond Burgers might be twice as popular.  The same for keto diets.  But it says nothing about the relative popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets.  You’re comparing apples with oranges.

So, I thought I’d compare apples with oranges, and do a Google Trends on them:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_

Apples clearly ‘win’ easily.

But looking at the actual consumption, and hence popularity:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=85485

apples again ‘win,’ but only narrowly.

The consumption and popularity of Beyond Burgers can be easily quantified by its sale figures, and some relationship to its Google searches can be derived.  The number of people on keto diets is completely unknown.  The relationship between the number of Google searches and the popularity of keto diets is therefore unknown too.

It could be that 10 Google searches for Beyond Burgers are 10 people doing 1 search each to find where they can buy the product, and subsequently happily buying it.  And the 10 Google searches for keto diets could be one person doing 10 searches trying to decide whether to try the diet.  And eventually deciding not to.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 05:32:35 PM
I just stopped at BK to grab one on my way home from grocery shopping, It dawned on my that its an "impossible" Burger not a "Beyond"  I have not tried cooking an impossible on my own yet, I have not seen any available at a grocery store.


Around here, it is only carried by a single, upscale grocery chain.  We tried cooking it last night for the first time, with moderate success.  We ended up using too much oil and making the patties too thin.  It will take some experimentation to be able to prepare them as well as they do at when served by restaurants where I've had them.

We had a barbecue in August and some of our guests were Vegan/Vegetarians. (The vegans were quite strict). Some had never had Beyond Burgers before. 

We had two packs of 6 to prepare and plenty of grills space.  After seasoning I prepared half on a small cast iron skillet on the grill, using coconut oil. The rest just directly on the grill with indirect heat.  (Cleaned the grill and the skillet first to eliminate any trace of animal products before preparing).  I took them off at 140f and they all seemed just fine. Our guests enjoyed them.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 05:43:00 PM
Yup. So if these new high tech manufactured veggie burgers are a trend then one sign would be a drop off in google searches.

WTF!

What part of “high tech manufactured veggie burgers” do you not understand?

What part of "you're just bullshitting" do you not understand?  (the part where you didn't say that?) You suggested Google searches as the metric of popularity. 

You claimed (1) that "keto" is more popular than Impossible Burgers, because keto had more searches than Impossible Burgers.


Quote
Yet you claim (2) that if popularity of Impossible Burger were increasing, then the searches for them would be lower at the end of the depicted 12-month period than at the beginning.
 

I don't think that's what I said.

I'm simply suggesting that they are popular now, and had been getting popular, but, if they are indeed a fad, their popularity will drop.

Quote

Searches are a metric of either higher popularity or lower popularity depending on which is necessary to support your foregone conclusion.
 

I don't know where that's coming from.

Higher popularity followed by lower popularity is the definition of a fad. That's what I'm predicting, that these manufactured foods will follow that pattern.

If their popularity never increased, then it wouldn't be a fad, so they meet the first minimum criteria.

If, as with LCHF, Keto, diets, their popularity never drops that much, then it also wouldn't be a fad. 

Is that clear now?

Quote

Your claim (1) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the greater the difference in their popularity; while your claim (2) implies that the greater the difference between searches for keto and Impossible Burgers, the less the difference in their popularity.  Your claims are contradictory. 
 

Those are not my claims. That's not what I'm implying and I don't know where you're reading that into what I'm posting.

Quote


If somehow you don't see this, take it to its logical conclusion.  Say that the increase in searchers searches for Impossible Burger (which appears to be exponential) continues, and say beginning in January 1, 2022 are higher than for "keto."  This implies, according to your argument, that prior to 2022 greater popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by greater searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers, but beginning in 2022 popularity for keto over Impossible Burgers is indicated by fewer searches for keto than for Impossible Burgers.

No, that would simply mean that I am mistaken and that the impossible/beyond burgers are not a fad. 

If we do make a bet, I would have to pay up.

If, on the other hand, the popularity of the ketogenic diets remains relatively stable, and the popularity of the beyond/impossible burgers falls steeply, then they are a fad, and I am correct, and, if we make a bet, then you're on the hook.

That is the logical conclusion.

If their popularity increases significantly, that could be evidence that it's a fad, but it could also be evidence that it is something more.

Without a subsequent drop in popularity, it's not a fad.

Maybe the LCHF Keto diets comparison is confusing the issue. Because I'm also arguing that they will prove to be less fad-live using this metric.


Denies mathematical implication of fallacious argument.  Gish gallop.  tl;dr.  Bye.

Bull shit. You are reading way more into what I'm saying, or you're clueless. 

Nowhere did I imply what you're saying and none of my responses are fallacious or misleading.

I do note that mistakenly used the word "trend" rather than "fad" at one point, but they are nearly synonyms. But if that's what's confusing you that's my goof.

You do understand that for something to be a fad it's popularity must first increase.

That's exactly what we're seeing and we agree we're seeing that.

The question is, in the longer term, will those searches continue to indicate increased popularity; level off; or rapidly decline.

If it's a rapid decline then it's a fad. 

The fact that you're thinking longer term just means that if the fad lasts longer than one year, but tapers off before the second year I lose whatever bet is made, even if it proves to be a 2 or 3 year fad.

The fact that it's a category of product rather than a single product is easy enough to get past, we just do searches for similar products and look at the collective results.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 05:46:43 PM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto

Right now Keto is winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can sort of see that if there are 10 searches for Beyond Burgers today, and 20 searches in 12 months time, Beyond Burgers might be twice as popular.  The same for keto diets.  But it says nothing about the relative popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets.  You’re comparing apples with oranges.

So, I thought I’d compare apples with oranges, and do a Google Trends on them:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_

Apples clearly ‘win’ easily.

But looking at the actual consumption, and hence popularity:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=85485

apples again ‘win,’ but only narrowly.

The consumption and popularity of Beyond Burgers can be easily quantified by its sale figures, and some relationship to its Google searches can be derived.  The number of people on keto diets is completely unknown.  The relationship between the number of Google searches and the popularity of keto diets is therefore unknown too.

It could be that 10 Google searches for Beyond Burgers are 10 people doing 1 search each to find where they can buy the product, and subsequently happily buying it.  And the 10 Google searches for keto diets could be one person doing 10 searches trying to decide whether to try the diet.  And eventually deciding not to.

All that tool tells you is how many people searched for that exact phrase on a particular date. That's all. It's not about consumption. It's not even about likability. (I'm sure vaping spiked when people started dying). 

But I would say it is an objective way to determine if something is a fad or not.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2019, 06:55:34 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 07:01:11 PM
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=Impossible%20burger,Keto

Right now Keto is winning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can sort of see that if there are 10 searches for Beyond Burgers today, and 20 searches in 12 months time, Beyond Burgers might be twice as popular.  The same for keto diets.  But it says nothing about the relative popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets.  You’re comparing apples with oranges.

So, I thought I’d compare apples with oranges, and do a Google Trends on them:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_

Apples clearly ‘win’ easily.

But looking at the actual consumption, and hence popularity:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=85485

apples again ‘win,’ but only narrowly.

The consumption and popularity of Beyond Burgers can be easily quantified by its sale figures, and some relationship to its Google searches can be derived.  The number of people on keto diets is completely unknown.  The relationship between the number of Google searches and the popularity of keto diets is therefore unknown too.

It could be that 10 Google searches for Beyond Burgers are 10 people doing 1 search each to find where they can buy the product, and subsequently happily buying it.  And the 10 Google searches for keto diets could be one person doing 10 searches trying to decide whether to try the diet.  And eventually deciding not to.

All that tool tells you is how many people searched for that exact phrase on a particular date. That's all. It's not about consumption. It's not even about likability. (I'm sure vaping spiked when people started dying). 

But I would say it is an objective way to determine if something is a fad or not.

But you were claiming that you could use Google Trends as a measure of something’s popularity, not whether it’s a fad or not.  And the dictionary definition of ‘fad:’

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fad

Refers to a practice or interest followed for a time with excessive zealFor a time doesn’t specify how long the time has to be.  There are very short term fads of weeks or months.  There are also very long term fads such as Christianity which has lasted almost two thousand years.  Fads can last decades or even centuries before declining and disappearing.

We can’t even say whether the number of Google searches over time is a measure of whether there’s increasing or decreasing interest in something.  Daniel Goldhagen in ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ noted this, giving the example of America - when things are going well, no one mentions ‘democracy,’ when things are going badly ‘democracy’ is talked about often.  But democracy is still in everyone’s interest regardless over time.

It could be that in 12 months, Beyond Burgers could be just an accepted food item, and the number of Google searches for it will decline, but not be a fad (as an example, I read about sauerkraut in one of Michael Pollan’s books, so I decided to try it.  I googled it several times to find out where I could buy it, it turned out in the supermarket I use, and when I found it, I stopped Googling it and continued buying it). 

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 22, 2019, 07:11:36 PM
I feel like its all more or less the same thing with very slight variations.


Their formulations and philosophies are quite different.  IB is (proudly) made from GMO soy protein and flavored with GMO leghemoglobin.  BB (proudly) contains no soy or GMO ingredients.
Philosophically Im sure they have big differences.
Realstically, to me, there is very little difference. Maybe there are slight taste or texture differences that are important to some people but those hadnt really occured to me.
To me it seems like discussing how we feel about cola vs how we feel about coke.
I now realise that there may be some who enjoy a beyond burger but not other variations and some who may like pepsi but not other colas.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 07:14:46 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

And Google Trends isn’t a very good measure of something’s popularity over time and hence whether it’s a fad (with declining popularity) or not.

Doing a Google Trends for Christianity versus Islam in America from 2004:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F01lp8,%2Fm%2F0flw86

Google searches for Christianity is generally declining over that period, whereas the searches for Islam is relatively constant, and about half that of Christianity.  But you can’t say that the adherence to Christianity is declining in America.  Or that there are half as many adherents to Islam as there are to Christianity.  Or that Christianity is a fad, and Islam isn’t.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 08:48:57 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2019, 08:55:05 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 08:57:34 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 22, 2019, 09:07:37 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2019, 09:08:27 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

I admit to having skim read parts of the thread. Did you decide what you'd get if you won?
It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.

I admit to having skim read some of the thread. Did you decide what you'd get if you win?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 09:20:25 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?

Well, no.  CarbShark was predicting that Beyond Burger would be less popular in a year’s time, and keto diets would be more popular.  He proposed Google Trends as a means of measuring the popularity of both, which it isn’t.

He’s just shifting the goalposts.

The popularity of Beyond Burger can easily be measured by the sales figures.  The popularity of keto diets can’t be measured unless someone does a survey and asks people whether they’re on a keto diet or not.  Anything to do with the Internet involves self selection.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 09:40:16 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?
Lower



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 09:42:18 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?

Well, no.  CarbShark was predicting that Beyond Burger would be less popular in a year’s time, and keto diets would be more popular.  He proposed Google Trends as a means of measuring the popularity of both, which it isn’t.

He’s just shifting the goalposts.

The popularity of Beyond Burger can easily be measured by the sales figures.  The popularity of keto diets can’t be measured unless someone does a survey and asks people whether they’re on a keto diet or not.  Anything to do with the Internet involves self selection.

No I’m not predicting keto will be more popular but that it will remain stable.

I you don’t like google trends as a tool to measure the outcome then don’t take the bet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 22, 2019, 09:45:14 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

I admit to having skim read parts of the thread. Did you decide what you'd get if you won?
It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.

I admit to having skim read some of the thread. Did you decide what you'd get if you win?
How about this, if you take the bet and you lose then for the next 7 days when you post to the forums you have to use the signature I write for you. (Within the policies and guidelines of the forum).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 22, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
How about this, if you take the bet and you lose then for the next 7 days when you post to the forums you have to use the signature I write for you. (Within the policies and guidelines of the forum).

I don't bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 22, 2019, 11:09:08 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?

Well, no.  CarbShark was predicting that Beyond Burger would be less popular in a year’s time, and keto diets would be more popular.  He proposed Google Trends as a means of measuring the popularity of both, which it isn’t.

He’s just shifting the goalposts.

The popularity of Beyond Burger can easily be measured by the sales figures.  The popularity of keto diets can’t be measured unless someone does a survey and asks people whether they’re on a keto diet or not.  Anything to do with the Internet involves self selection.

No I’m not predicting keto will be more popular but that it will remain stable.

I you don’t like google trends as a tool to measure the outcome then don’t take the bet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, why use Google Trends to measure the popularity of Beyond Burgers?  Their sales figures are all that’s necessary.  And much more accurate and relevant.  The problem is measuring the popularity of keto diets.  You’d need population surveys for that.  Google Trends won’t do it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 23, 2019, 12:52:17 AM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?
Lower

Yeah, I might be interested in taking the other side of such a bet.  We'd have to hammer out the details, of course.  What sort of stakes did you have in mind?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 01:50:17 AM
So I’m saying a year from now their popularity will have dropped significantly.

You’re saying they will be even more popular.

I’m also saying keto diet will be just as popular if not more so.

These are things we can test and get a result. Let’s discuss this again, shall we say 10/20/2020?

Care to make it interesting?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what CarbShark was predicting.  That Beyond Burgers will be less popular, and significantly less popular (whatever that means), in 12 months time, and keto diets will be as popular or even more popular in 12 months time.

He’s changed the goal posts to there being fewer Google searches for Beyond Burgers alone, instead of its popularity.  Its popularity can be more accurately measured by its sale figures.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 23, 2019, 02:00:56 AM
So I’m saying a year from now their popularity will have dropped significantly.

You’re saying they will be even more popular.

I’m also saying keto diet will be just as popular if not more so.

These are things we can test and get a result. Let’s discuss this again, shall we say 10/20/2020?

Care to make it interesting?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what CarbShark was predicting.  That Beyond Burgers will be less popular, and significantly less popular (whatever that means), in 12 months time, and keto diets will be as popular or even more popular in 12 months time.

He’s changed the goal posts to there being fewer Google searches for Beyond Burgers alone, instead of its popularity.  Its popularity can be more accurately measured by its sale figures.


Actually, I think I'm the one who changed those "goalposts," because I wanted a simple proposition that we can bet on.  The simplified proposition focuses only on Impossible Burgers and substitutes Google searches for popularity.  The latter simplification obviates the need for CS and I to agree on what the relationship between searches and popularity actually is.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 02:26:09 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 23, 2019, 02:32:29 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.


Well, from my perspective going forward, all I care about, if we decide to bet, is that we agree precisely on the parameters of the bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 23, 2019, 10:27:59 AM
I don't bet. But here's what I think will happen with fake meat: It's sales will increase until a significant percentage of vegetarians who still like the taste of meat have adopted it. After that, its rise or fall in total sales will depend on how its taste is perceived to compare with meat, its price compared to meat, and to a lesser extent the perception of the relative health benefits or drawbacks of fake meat vs. meat.

Fake meat has been around long enough that it's not going away. There is a base of users who have consistently preferred it. Twenty years ago, when I lived in Mexico, there was a thriving sector of vegetarian restaurants whose stock in trade was fake meat. It tasted enough like meat that I did not like it. But these restaurants were always busy. (I speculated at the time that their success was due to a general belief that eating a meatless meal once a month was beneficial to health.) So the advent of fake meat that tastes more like the real thing can only result in an increase in sales, and if the price of fake meat goes below the price of meat, and the taste is equal in most people's estimation, then its popularity will skyrocket.

Boca has been around for forty years, and has been quite successful. It's rather hard to justify something as a fad when it's been around for four decades and has only grown in popularity as its perceived quality has improved. Even back then its taste resembled that of meat enough that I did not like it.

For the matter of that, there was fake meat in 1967 when I quit eating meat. I distinctly remember considering it and deciding not to eat it as I felt I'd be happier weaning myself off of the taste of meat than if I ate fake meat and always knew that I was missing out on "the real thing."

Beyond Meat and Impossible Burger will succeed or fail on the market forces, competition, prices, and quality, but if either or both fail it won't be because fake meat is a fad. It will be because another fake meat company captured the market with a more popular product, or because they lost market share or got into financial trouble due to poor management.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 23, 2019, 11:26:27 AM
Use industry sales.

There's potential for new entrants into the industry. Ersatz meat's sales could rise while BYND's sales decline. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 23, 2019, 11:49:05 AM
Use industry sales.

There's potential for new entrants into the industry. Ersatz meat's sales could rise while BYND's sales decline.
Seems like the most obvious way right?

https://trends.google.ie/trends/explore?q=Baked%20beans

Baked beans do appear to have been a fad also since their search popularity has plummeted.
Many people seem to be asking if they are keto.
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 12:03:57 PM
Use industry sales.

There's potential for new entrants into the industry. Ersatz meat's sales could rise while BYND's sales decline.
Seems like the most obvious way right?

https://trends.google.ie/trends/explore?q=Baked%20beans

Baked beans do appear to have been a fad also since their search popularity has plummeted.
Many people seem to be asking if they are keto.
This what I get from that link:

Quote
We're sorry, but you have sent too many requests to us recently. Please try again later. That’s all we know.

But, Beans are not keto
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 12:09:29 PM
Use industry sales.

There's potential for new entrants into the industry. Ersatz meat's sales could rise while BYND's sales decline.
No industry sales for keto.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on October 23, 2019, 12:11:38 PM
Use industry sales.

There's potential for new entrants into the industry. Ersatz meat's sales could rise while BYND's sales decline.
Seems like the most obvious way right?

https://trends.google.ie/trends/explore?q=Baked%20beans (https://trends.google.ie/trends/explore?q=Baked%20beans)

Baked beans do appear to have been a fad also since their search popularity has plummeted.
Many people seem to be asking if they are keto.
Roll that beautiful bean footage....
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 12:14:47 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 12:24:59 PM
I see that some people are pulling out their crystal balls and making predictions about the future.

A "fad" increases in popularity, then decreases. You can't say that something is a fad if it hasn't decreased in popularity. You can only say that it was a fad after that happens. At best you can say it will have been a fad, and that's predicting the future. Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable.

It's called a prediction. I'm predicting that the sudden enthusiastic popularity of manufacture high tech meatless burgers is a fad that will peter out rather quickly. Others are saying it won't.

Which as we all should know, isn't very reliable. The only way you'll know if you were right or not is if it happens. If it doesn't happen, when do you stop making your prediction? Next year? The year after that? Or do you just quietly forget that you had made the prediction at all? This is exactly what astrologers do.

"Ah, but arthwollipot! Economists make predictions too!"

Yes they do. But they make predictions by extrapolating from past trends, of which high tech meatless burgers has none. You have no data to make a prediction with, only your gut feeling.
You got that I was offering a wager, right? If it fades from popularity after a year I win if it doesn’t I lose. Of course it’s unreliable, which is why it works as a bet.


So, do you predict that, according to Google trends, searches for Incredible Burgers a year from now will be higher or lower than they are now?
Lower

Yeah, I might be interested in taking the other side of such a bet.  We'd have to hammer out the details, of course.  What sort of stakes did you have in mind?

This is what I suggested earlier, but I’m open to any other fun suggestions

How about this, if you take the bet and you lose then for the next 7 days when you post to the forums you have to use the signature I write for you. (Within the policies and guidelines of the forum).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 23, 2019, 03:33:29 PM
Beans are not keto

Excellent. I can keep eating them! ;D They're jam-packed with carbs and protein and a little bit of healthy fat. They're healthy and delicious. Who needs fake meat when you've got beans?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 23, 2019, 04:31:32 PM
Beans are not keto

Excellent. I can keep eating them! ;D They're jam-packed with carbs and protein and a little bit of healthy fat. They're healthy and delicious. Who needs fake meat when you've got beans?
And if you want, you can make fake meat from them!

I just tried the cheaper version from the nearest supermarket, made with pea protein. They were fine, but a bit more dry and not really mistakeable for meat. Id definitely get them again but want to try a few other brands.
The sausages werent super great but again, were fine. They reminded me of the beef sausages Ive had at breakfast buffets in the middle east.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 04:36:44 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on October 23, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
One does not have to compare the product to anything in order to see if its a fad in which interest drops off or not. You just look at the agreed upon measure of interest over time.

Im doubtful it will ever be 'more popular' than low carb diets because it in itself is just a product and not a diet or a lifestyle, both of which attract fervant followers and defenders and interest seems to to stay fairly consistent with them.
We will never have a non troll beyondburgershark posting here for the same reason we will never have a non troll samsungphoneshark posting here.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 06:34:03 PM
One does not have to compare the product to anything in order to see if its a fad in which interest drops off or not. You just look at the agreed upon measure of interest over time.

Im doubtful it will ever be 'more popular' than low carb diets because it in itself is just a product and not a diet or a lifestyle, both of which attract fervant followers and defenders and interest seems to to stay fairly consistent with them.
We will never have a non troll beyondburgershark posting here for the same reason we will never have a non troll samsungphoneshark posting here.

I don't think it matters if kept is more popular than fake meat. The questions are which of those is more faddish. And the way to tell is by a sharp increase in interest then, after a time, a drop off. One way to measure that is google trends.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 06:34:43 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 06:52:50 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 23, 2019, 08:08:37 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.

Is this going to be for both Beyond and Impossible meats? Just burgers or will sausages and taco crumbles also be included? Does fast food count? Those versions are different than the patties sold at home and at fast casuals. Is it world wide sales? McDonalds just started testing a Beyond product in Canada. At what point would a drop in sales make them a "fad" you can still buy pet rocks, are they still a fad?

Beans are not keto

Excellent. I can keep eating them! ;D They're jam-packed with carbs and protein and a little bit of healthy fat. They're healthy and delicious. Who needs fake meat when you've got beans?
And if you want, you can make fake meat from them!

I just tried the cheaper version from the nearest supermarket, made with pea protein. They were fine, but a bit more dry and not really mistakeable for meat. Id definitely get them again but want to try a few other brands.
The sausages werent super great but again, were fine. They reminded me of the beef sausages Ive had at breakfast buffets in the middle east.

Im wondering if what you are eating is actually like the Beyond or Impossible, do they contain heme? According to this they are not available over there yet but they are seeking approval. Perhaps Ireland is different? https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/impossible-foods-seeks-european-approval-of-its-plant-based-burgers.html

Quote
Impossible Foods filed an application in the European Union that hints it is looking to make inroads in that market and expand outside the U.S. and Asia.

The maker of plant-based burgers, known for its Impossible Burger, filed a request to gain authorization for the use of soy leghemoglobin in the EU, according to public documents obtained by CNBC from the European Food Safety Authority. Soy leghemoglobin, produced from genetically modified yeast and also referred to as heme, is what Impossible Foods uses to make its fake meat actually taste like meat. The application was filed on Sept. 30 with the Netherlands.

They don't taste like any fake meat presented to me before.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 23, 2019, 08:44:04 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.


I'm starting to have qualms about using Google trends, too, especially since one year from now will be close to the US election, and internet search behavior may be atypical.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 23, 2019, 08:52:17 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.


I'm starting to have qualms about using Google trends, too, especially since one year from now will be close to the US election, and internet search behavior may be atypical.

Not to mention there are probably tons of people eating them that do not search google or even use a smart phone. There was a little old lady ordering one in front of me at BK that day.  Even if they do search google why would you need too when the product is available at so many restaurants and grocery stores?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 23, 2019, 08:57:22 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.


I'm starting to have qualms about using Google trends, too, especially since one year from now will be close to the US election, and internet search behavior may be atypical.

Not to mention there are probably tons of people eating them that do not search google or even use a smart phone. There was a little old lady ordering one in front of me at BK that day.  Even if they do search google why would you need too when the product is available at so many restaurants and grocery stores?


My logic is that I think that interest in the product will higher a year from now than today, and that that would be reflected in Google searches.  It isn't necessary for everyone to search for them on Google or to have a smart phone (?) for that to happen.  But, like I said, I'm worried that Google searches around election time will be atypical.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 09:44:57 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 10:15:55 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 23, 2019, 11:26:16 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 23, 2019, 11:45:28 PM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.  I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

You’ve got a funny idea of ‘agreement.’  ‘Agree with me, or no bet.’

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 24, 2019, 12:34:48 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 01:19:08 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

Well, keto reached its peak at 100 to the right of August, 12 2018.  There’s been a decline to around 50 since then, with a very slight uptick currently (which is later and less, much less, than that for apples).  Google Trends showed an increase in searches for keto from virtually nothing, reached a peak, and now appears to be declining.

Whether that means that its popularity is declining or not is a moot point.  I don’t think it can be used as such.

I mentioned ‘apples’ because of the shape of the curve.  It’s got P, R and Q waves from an ECG (EKG) in reverse order.  There’ll be some explanation for the shape I suppose.  I was wondering why there’s 3 spikes every year regularly.  Not just one.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 24, 2019, 01:42:23 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.  I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

You’ve got a funny idea of ‘agreement.’  ‘Agree with me, or no bet.’
Right   If we don’t agree on the terms or how we pick the winner then no bet.

Hilarious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 24, 2019, 01:43:01 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.
Back to school


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: st3class on October 24, 2019, 01:49:07 AM

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

One in October, when apples come into season. One around Thanksgiving in the US, when people are making apple pie, and another around Christmas, when other people are making apple pie.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 24, 2019, 02:08:57 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

Well, keto reached its peak at 100 to the right of August, 12 2018.  There’s been a decline to around 50 since then, with a very slight uptick currently (which is later and less, much less, than that for apples).  Google Trends showed an increase in searches for keto from virtually nothing, reached a peak, and now appears to be declining.


You are ignoring nearly 90% of the data, and thus grossly misinterpreting what's going on.  The data show a series of peaks and troughs.  Each time there is a peak, it is higher than the previous peak.  Each time there is a trough, it is higher than the previous trough.  Whether you trace the peaks, the troughs, or the average value over time, the data clearly show an increasing trend. 

Interestingly, there is an annual peak around the first of the year, when presumably, people are exploring weight-loss options either due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 02:09:10 AM

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

One in October, when apples come into season. One around Thanksgiving in the US, when people are making apple pie, and another around Christmas, when other people are making apple pie.

Yes, that sounds about right.  Good thought.  I should do it for Australia.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=AU&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F03cg86
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 02:30:19 AM
I was thinking google trends?  But I haven’t compared them. It won’t let me enter beyond burger. Maybe because it’s a brand?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jt,

This is the first mention of how the popularity of Beyond Burgers and keto diets would be measured was proposed.

CarbShark, and not you, changed the goalposts.
No body changed the fucking goal Posts

 There are no goal posts, we are discussing the terms of a wager, not trying to win a logical argument. There will be flexibility on both sides until we nail down the terms.

Why are you even in this conversation? You’re not going to take the bet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d be interested in taking part in the bet, if meaningful conditions can be agreed upon.  Using Google Trends as the measure is just silly.

Propose a workable alternative.

Sales figures.
For keto?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’d thought keto had been dropped from the bet.  But unless someone somewhere does a survey as to how many people are on keto diets now, and repeats it in 12 months time, it’s unknowable.

Google trends is good enough for me, so you and I won't be betting.

It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

Well, keto reached its peak at 100 to the right of August, 12 2018.  There’s been a decline to around 50 since then, with a very slight uptick currently (which is later and less, much less, than that for apples).  Google Trends showed an increase in searches for keto from virtually nothing, reached a peak, and now appears to be declining.


You are ignoring nearly 90% of the data, and thus grossly misinterpreting what's going on.  The data show a series of peaks and troughs.  Each time there is a peak, it is higher than the previous peak.  Each time there is a trough, it is higher than the previous trough.  Whether you trace the peaks, the troughs, or the average value over time, the data clearly show an increasing trend. 

Interestingly, there is an annual peak around the first of the year, when presumably, people are exploring weight-loss options either due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.

I’m not ignoring almost 90% of the data.  I’m ignoring around 10%.

There’s three peaks and troughs.  That’s insufficient data to predict that there’s going to be another (higher) peak and trough.  You remind me of the share market chartists.

I’m not certain as to the explanation for the peaks.  You think it’s people exploring weight-loss options due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.  Or it could be that people have more time to Google.  In Australia, the peak time for thinking about losing weight is before summer, when people are likely to be wearing bath suits.

Another explanation for the second last peak was that it was due to sceptics googling ketogenic diets, and deciding it’s not worth it.  And the last peak due to people interested in going on the diet, with the interest subsequently declining.

The peaks need not necessarily have the same cause.

The Google Trends for Australia seems to me to be suggestive that interest (in googling) ketogenic diets is continuing to increase:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=AU&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F03cg86
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 24, 2019, 03:47:28 AM
It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

Well, keto reached its peak at 100 to the right of August, 12 2018.  There’s been a decline to around 50 since then, with a very slight uptick currently (which is later and less, much less, than that for apples).  Google Trends showed an increase in searches for keto from virtually nothing, reached a peak, and now appears to be declining.


You are ignoring nearly 90% of the data, and thus grossly misinterpreting what's going on.  The data show a series of peaks and troughs.  Each time there is a peak, it is higher than the previous peak.  Each time there is a trough, it is higher than the previous trough.  Whether you trace the peaks, the troughs, or the average value over time, the data clearly show an increasing trend. 

Interestingly, there is an annual peak around the first of the year, when presumably, people are exploring weight-loss options either due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.

I’m not ignoring almost 90% of the data.  I’m ignoring around 10%.

There’s three peaks and troughs.  That’s insufficient data to predict that there’s going to be another (higher) peak and trough.  You remind me of the share market chartists.

I’m not certain as to the explanation for the peaks.  You think it’s people exploring weight-loss options due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.  Or it could be that people have more time to Google.  In Australia, the peak time for thinking about losing weight is before summer, when people are likely to be wearing bath suits.

Another explanation for the second last peak was that it was due to sceptics googling ketogenic diets, and deciding it’s not worth it.  And the last peak due to people interested in going on the diet, with the interest subsequently declining.

The peaks need not necessarily have the same cause.


Here is the Google Trends ketogenic diet data (U.S.) with a trend line plotted.


(http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/bach.keto.png)


Still think that searches have peaked?  It's possible, but I doubt it. In fact, if you are interested, I will bet you USD100 that U.S. searches will be greater in the Google search week that includes January 2, 2020 than they are during the current week, Oct. 20–26, 2019, as shown when the full week's data are posted.  We will measure Google searches for the week that includes January 2, 2020 on or after January 10, 2020 to ensure that the full week's data are included.


"Feel lucky, punk?"   ;D
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 08:29:43 AM
It looks as though keto has already lost:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_ (https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F0cyhj_)

Its peak in Google Trends was some time ago, and it’s on a decline now.

Are you being serious or just pointing out the pitfalls of using short-term decline in Google searches to indicate a fad?  Because "keto" shows a clear upward trend.

Quote
I put in ‘apples’ and ‘oranges’ too.  The one for ‘apples’ is striking, looking like an ECG (or EKG) recorded from right to left.

"Apple" spikes every fall, for some reason.

Well, keto reached its peak at 100 to the right of August, 12 2018.  There’s been a decline to around 50 since then, with a very slight uptick currently (which is later and less, much less, than that for apples).  Google Trends showed an increase in searches for keto from virtually nothing, reached a peak, and now appears to be declining.


You are ignoring nearly 90% of the data, and thus grossly misinterpreting what's going on.  The data show a series of peaks and troughs.  Each time there is a peak, it is higher than the previous peak.  Each time there is a trough, it is higher than the previous trough.  Whether you trace the peaks, the troughs, or the average value over time, the data clearly show an increasing trend. 

Interestingly, there is an annual peak around the first of the year, when presumably, people are exploring weight-loss options either due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.

I’m not ignoring almost 90% of the data.  I’m ignoring around 10%.

There’s three peaks and troughs.  That’s insufficient data to predict that there’s going to be another (higher) peak and trough.  You remind me of the share market chartists.

I’m not certain as to the explanation for the peaks.  You think it’s people exploring weight-loss options due to New Years resolutions or recovering from holiday feasting.  Or it could be that people have more time to Google.  In Australia, the peak time for thinking about losing weight is before summer, when people are likely to be wearing bath suits.

Another explanation for the second last peak was that it was due to sceptics googling ketogenic diets, and deciding it’s not worth it.  And the last peak due to people interested in going on the diet, with the interest subsequently declining.

The peaks need not necessarily have the same cause.


Here is the Google Trends ketogenic diet data (U.S.) with a trend line plotted.


(http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/bach.keto.png)


Still think that searches have peaked?  It's possible, but I doubt it. In fact, if you are interested, I will bet you USD100 that U.S. searches will be greater in the Google search week that includes January 2, 2020 than they are during the current week, Oct. 20–26, 2019, as shown when the full week's data are posted.  We will measure Google searches for the week that includes January 2, 2020 on or after January 10, 2020 to ensure that the full week's data are included.


"Feel lucky, punk?"   ;D

It’s a sucker bet.  Google searches for ketogenic diets could do hardly anything in the weeks from now to that including January 2, 2020, and still be higher than the current level.  But nowhere near where your trend line ‘suggests.’  Now, if you’d made a prediction as what the number of searches are going to be based on your trend line, I’d be interested.

Looking at the trends, it should be 80+, instead of the current 50.

I’m not interested in placing a bet where a difference of +1 or +2 is a win for you and a loss for me.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 24, 2019, 09:41:37 AM
Google trends provides interesting information, but does not show how many people are using a given diet or eating a particular kind of food. Someone might search a term out of curiosity about an item, with no intention of using that item. They might search a term to find a source, and having found it never search the term again; they might continue to use the item long-term, use it once and never use it again, or decide it does not suit them and never use it at all.

Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

And are you betting on the popularity of one or two brands, or on the popularity of a category? Because it's entirely possible that Beyond or Impossible goes out of business for any one of a hundred reasons while the category soars in popularity. I have noted that there's been a steady market for fake meat for at least 50+ years. And how do you define a "fad"? If there's a steady market for a product from a long-term user base, and a new brand enters the market causing a brief rise in sales followed by a return to the base level, does that constitute a fad?

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 05:27:27 PM
Google trends provides interesting information, but does not show how many people are using a given diet or eating a particular kind of food. Someone might search a term out of curiosity about an item, with no intention of using that item. They might search a term to find a source, and having found it never search the term again; they might continue to use the item long-term, use it once and never use it again, or decide it does not suit them and never use it at all.

Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

And are you betting on the popularity of one or two brands, or on the popularity of a category? Because it's entirely possible that Beyond or Impossible goes out of business for any one of a hundred reasons while the category soars in popularity. I have noted that there's been a steady market for fake meat for at least 50+ years. And how do you define a "fad"? If there's a steady market for a product from a long-term user base, and a new brand enters the market causing a brief rise in sales followed by a return to the base level, does that constitute a fad?

I’ve provided a definition of ‘fad’ previously; a practice or interest followed for a time with excessive zeal: A CRAZE

‘A time’ isn’t defined.  It could be a very short time.  It could be a very long time, such as with Christianity.  It’s the ‘excessive zeal’ that’s important. 

CDs were once very popular when they were introduced in the ‘80s.  They’re going out of fashion as other ways of listening to music are becoming available, and their sales are collapsing, and CD shops are disappearing.  But CDs weren’t a fad.  No one collected CDs for the CDs alone. 

Ketogenic diets are a fad, as shown by the excessive zeal people such as CarbShark Display when they proselytise for their diet.

Meat free alternatives would be a fad if people were proselytising for them in the same degree as CarbShark proselytises for keto diets.  I don’t see it happening.  I tried vegan sausages and burgers years ago, and I didn’t like them, and I’m unlikely to try them again.  I googled Beyond Burger several times, and yes, they’re available in fast food restaurants and supermarkets in Perth, but no, I’m not going to try them.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 24, 2019, 06:55:54 PM
Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

That's the problem with this whole wager. Manufactured burgers are a product, keto is not. You don't use the same metrics to measure them. Sales figures are fine to measure the popularity of a product, but keto isn't one of those and doesn't have sales figures. so you can't compare them using that metric. You must find some other metric that is common to both.

Personally, though I don't have any interest in taking part in the wager, I think that google searches are a reasonable metric. It's certainly not a perfect one - I don't think there is a perfect metric to compare these two... um, things, but it's a reasonable one. If you can come up with a better one, fine, but if anyone actually wants to take this bet, google searches are probably going to be the best way to do it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 24, 2019, 07:03:11 PM
Searches measures attention, good or bad.  That's my hang up.  What if negative PR drives abandonment?  Or there's a spike in, "what the hell is keto," followed by zero adoption?  You'd get a false positive.

Are there any keto apps, podcasts or social media?  Could whip up an index.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 24, 2019, 07:05:12 PM
Searches measures attention, good or bad.  That's my hang up.  What if negative PR drives abandonment?  Or there's a spike in, "what the hell is keto," followed by zero adoption?  You'd get a false positive.

That is, indeed, one of the downsides of that metric.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 07:10:02 PM
Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

That's the problem with this whole wager. Manufactured burgers are a product, keto is not. You don't use the same metrics to measure them. Sales figures are fine to measure the popularity of a product, but keto isn't one of those and doesn't have sales figures. so you can't compare them using that metric. You must find some other metric that is common to both.

Personally, though I don't have any interest in taking part in the wager, I think that google searches are a reasonable metric. It's certainly not a perfect one - I don't think there is a perfect metric to compare these two... um, things, but it's a reasonable one. If you can come up with a better one, fine, but if anyone actually wants to take this bet, google searches are probably going to be the best way to do it.

You could, theoretically, use the same metric to measure them.  You could do a survey and ask a random sample of, say, 2000 people whether they’re on a keto diet, or whether they’ve tried manufactured meat-free burgers, and repeat the survey again in 12 months.

But it hasn’t and won’t be done.  The popularity of Beyond Burgers can be measured by the sale figures.  All we have for the popularity of keto diets is the loudness and fervor of advocates for them, such as CarbShark, on the Internet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 24, 2019, 07:24:31 PM
Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

That's the problem with this whole wager. Manufactured burgers are a product, keto is not. You don't use the same metrics to measure them. Sales figures are fine to measure the popularity of a product, but keto isn't one of those and doesn't have sales figures. so you can't compare them using that metric. You must find some other metric that is common to both.

Personally, though I don't have any interest in taking part in the wager, I think that google searches are a reasonable metric. It's certainly not a perfect one - I don't think there is a perfect metric to compare these two... um, things, but it's a reasonable one. If you can come up with a better one, fine, but if anyone actually wants to take this bet, google searches are probably going to be the best way to do it.


Right. There is no perfect metric.

The thing to note about google trends is they reflect the behavior of hundreds of millions of people ( everyone who does a google search) *so noise like people not knowing what it is or not actually interested will fade pretty quickly.

A bigger danger would be if fake meat or keto diets were suddenly in the news for killing people, then they would spike even though interest in using them would drop off.

*No, I’m not saying hundreds of millions are searching for keto, but the full sample size is that big and google trends is showing us how many searches make up that fraction of the total.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 24, 2019, 07:32:38 PM
I was working on an AppleScript once where the idea was the user would enter a search term, the script would look for a particular string in the URLs in the results, even pages deep, and open that url for the user.

As one does when working on a script I ran it repeatedly, conducting the same search multiple times and opening the same page. After about a dozen searches in a row a different google page page opened with a question along the lines of”Are you trying to manipulate google search results?” That was followed by a lengthy terms of service that apparently  I agreed to whenever I used their service. 

What I was doing was perfectly fine, but their bot thought I was up to something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on October 24, 2019, 07:36:25 PM
Yes, that's one of those potentially suspicious behaviours that Google should be on the lookout for. In this case, it wasn't, but people do try to manipulate search results with scripts.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 08:04:39 PM
Sales figures are the only reliable way to judge the popularity of a product, but even then you don't know if a lot of people are using it once in a while, or a few people are using it a lot. What is "popularity"? Is it a few dedicated users, or widespread occasional use.

That's the problem with this whole wager. Manufactured burgers are a product, keto is not. You don't use the same metrics to measure them. Sales figures are fine to measure the popularity of a product, but keto isn't one of those and doesn't have sales figures. so you can't compare them using that metric. You must find some other metric that is common to both.

Personally, though I don't have any interest in taking part in the wager, I think that google searches are a reasonable metric. It's certainly not a perfect one - I don't think there is a perfect metric to compare these two... um, things, but it's a reasonable one. If you can come up with a better one, fine, but if anyone actually wants to take this bet, google searches are probably going to be the best way to do it.


Right. There is no perfect metric.

The thing to note about google trends is they reflect the behavior of hundreds of millions of people ( everyone who does a google search) *so noise like people not knowing what it is or not actually interested will fade pretty quickly.

A bigger danger would be if fake meat or keto diets were suddenly in the news for killing people, then they would spike even though interest in using them would drop off.

*No, I’m not saying hundreds of millions are searching for keto, but the full sample size is that big and google trends is showing us how many searches make up that fraction of the total.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But hundreds of millions of people (or at least a very large number of people) aren’t going to be searching the Internet for information about something they don’t know anything about at much the same time.  People’s awareness of a lack of knowledge about something occurs over an extended period, so Google Trends should be smoothed out to an average.

The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.

Google Trends is an interesting ‘toy,’ and occasionally can be useful.  Google Trends might suggest an epidemic of, say, scarlet fever weeks before it can be detected by formal notification of cases.  Or it could indicate that someone famous happened to have scarlet fever.  The same with ketogenic diets.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 24, 2019, 08:34:29 PM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 24, 2019, 10:09:06 PM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.

That’s one of the reasons I wasn’t interested in your bet.  You’d already mentioned that Google searches increase in the first week of January for various reasons. 

It can’t be the whole reason though.  I can’t see a spike for the previous 3 years similar to an obvious spike for the last year.  ‘Something’ must have happened (or it’s an artifact of the search parameters you’ve employed).  What settings did you use?  I’m interested in doing a similar one for Australia.  Perhaps if you copy the link and paste it?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2019, 12:41:59 AM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.

That’s one of the reasons I wasn’t interested in your bet.  You’d already mentioned that Google searches increase in the first week of January for various reasons. 

It can’t be the whole reason though.  I can’t see a spike for the previous 3 years similar to an obvious spike for the last year.  ‘Something’ must have happened (or it’s an artifact of the search parameters you’ve employed).  What settings did you use?  I’m interested in doing a similar one for Australia.  Perhaps if you copy the link and paste it?


I took the data from your post: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635440.html#msg9635440)

Here's what happens the first week of January every year: New Years Day, and people make New Years resolutions to lose weight.

The data show that there is a spike the first week of every year.  Furthermore, every year the spike is higher than the previous year, and the increase has been exponential (literally).  You seem to think that the data show that this trend has reversed.  I see why you say that, but the evidence is weak.  My guess is that there will again be a spike, and it will, as usual, be higher than the last one.  Want to bet on that?  It's no "sucker bet"; I actually could lose!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 01:36:04 AM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.

That’s one of the reasons I wasn’t interested in your bet.  You’d already mentioned that Google searches increase in the first week of January for various reasons. 

It can’t be the whole reason though.  I can’t see a spike for the previous 3 years similar to an obvious spike for the last year.  ‘Something’ must have happened (or it’s an artifact of the search parameters you’ve employed).  What settings did you use?  I’m interested in doing a similar one for Australia.  Perhaps if you copy the link and paste it?


I took the data from your post: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635440.html#msg9635440)

Here's what happens the first week of January every year: New Years Day, and people make New Years resolutions to lose weight.

The data show that there is a spike the first week of every year.  Furthermore, every year the spike is higher than the previous year, and the increase has been exponential (literally).  You seem to think that the data show that this trend has reversed.  I see why you say that, but the evidence is weak.  My guess is that there will again be a spike, and it will, as usual, be higher than the last one.  Want to bet on that?  It's no "sucker bet"; I actually could lose!

The last increase (I’ll take your word for it that it was the first week in January, 2019) looks different to the previous increases in that it’s much more obviously spike-like.  It goes upwards very abruptly, and then it declines.  It doesn’t look anything like anything in the preceding years.  There are no other spikes.  Increases perhaps, but no spikes.

Why?  What caused it?  I suspect that something must have happened.  Perhaps someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) happened to go on a keto diet at the right time (around the end of the end of the year) for more people to have the time and inclination to do a Google search on keto diets.

And it may not be repeated next year in January.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2019, 01:46:36 AM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.

That’s one of the reasons I wasn’t interested in your bet.  You’d already mentioned that Google searches increase in the first week of January for various reasons. 

It can’t be the whole reason though.  I can’t see a spike for the previous 3 years similar to an obvious spike for the last year.  ‘Something’ must have happened (or it’s an artifact of the search parameters you’ve employed).  What settings did you use?  I’m interested in doing a similar one for Australia.  Perhaps if you copy the link and paste it?


I took the data from your post: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635440.html#msg9635440)

Here's what happens the first week of January every year: New Years Day, and people make New Years resolutions to lose weight.

The data show that there is a spike the first week of every year.  Furthermore, every year the spike is higher than the previous year, and the increase has been exponential (literally).  You seem to think that the data show that this trend has reversed.  I see why you say that, but the evidence is weak.  My guess is that there will again be a spike, and it will, as usual, be higher than the last one.  Want to bet on that?  It's no "sucker bet"; I actually could lose!

The last increase (I’ll take your word for it that it was the first week in January, 2019) looks different to the previous increases in that it’s much more obviously spike-like.  It goes upwards very abruptly, and then it declines.  It doesn’t look anything like anything in the preceding years.  There are no other spikes.  Increases perhaps, but no spikes.

You're wrong.  There is a spike the first week in January every year.  The anomaly is that there was a peak between the most recent two January spikes.  Ignore that and look at the spike that has occurred every 52 weeks.  The magnitude of the spike has approximately doubled every year.

Quote
Why?  What caused it?

I've already told you why (I think) it happens, but who cares?  It happens every year.

Quote
I suspect that something must have happened.  Perhaps someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) happened to go on a keto diet at the right time (around the end of the end of the year) for more people to have the time and inclination to do a Google search on keto diets.

And it may not be repeated next year in January.

Of course it might not. On the other hand, it might.  If you believe it won't, put your money where your mouth is and take the bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 02:02:04 AM
jt,

All I’m saying is that the shape of the increase each January is different for the last one.  It’s more obviously abrupt and spike-like.

I’ve been playing around with the time periods and countries.  Here’s on for the United (at the moment) Kingdom:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2016-12-18%202019-10-25&geo=GB&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86

There’s an even bigger and more abrupt increase after January 2019, I would estimate around April (perhaps around the end of the British financial year?)

What is the bet you’re proposing?  That the number of searches in January 2020 will be higher than in January 2019?  Or that the increase will be proportionately larger?  Or what?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2019, 02:13:19 AM
What is the bet you’re proposing?  That the number of searches in January 2020 will be higher than in January 2019?  Or that the increase will be proportionately larger?  Or what?

As I tersely stated here (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635588.html#msg9635588), that the number of searches the first week of 2020 will be greater than the number of searches in the first week of 2019.  If you are interested in taking the bet, we will more carefully define these terms.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 25, 2019, 02:16:12 AM
I could care less about the diet, I would like to go back to the original topic. Most fads last a season to a year,

I'm willing to bet that Beyond/Impossible/similar product sales go up in one year from today. (not google trends)

I'm willing to bet they stay up for 5 years

I would lay good odds that some form of the imitation meat becomes a regular protein on most menus for 50-100 years if not longer but I wont be around to find out.

I'll go for the one year bet, I like the idea that the player wining the bet gets to choose the loosers bottom quotes for one year.  Any takers? ? ?... Carb?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 03:11:55 AM
What is the bet you’re proposing?  That the number of searches in January 2020 will be higher than in January 2019?  Or that the increase will be proportionately larger?  Or what?

As I tersely stated here (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635588.html#msg9635588), that the number of searches the first week of 2020 will be greater than the number of searches in the first week of 2019.  If you are interested in taking the bet, we will more carefully define these terms.

I’m not saying that there isn’t an increase in Google searches for keto diets in the first week of January each year for the reasons already mentioned.  But the shape and height of the last one is different to the previous one.

To me, that suggests that there must be some extra factor causing the increase, making the increase steeper and higher than previous years.  And that in January, 2020 this extra factor mightn’t occur, so that the increase isn’t as large or steep.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2015-12-17%202019-10-25&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F03cg86

I’ve included ‘apples’ to make it clearer when January is.  The proportionate increase varies from year to year.  And the number of searches in 2016, 2017 and 2018 continued to increase following the January increase.  But for 2019, Google searches decreased, with no subsequent increase (yet).

Captain Video,

It’s an argument about whether Google Trends is an appropriate measure of the popularity or not of Beyond Burgers (it isn’t).

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on October 25, 2019, 03:21:44 AM
And what do we call it?

I'm partial to the incredibly literal Ersatz Meat.

I could care less about the diet, I would like to go back to the original topic. Most fads last a season to a year,

I'm willing to bet that Beyond/Impossible/similar product sales go up in one year from today. (not google trends)

I'm willing to bet they stay up for 5 years

I would lay good odds that some form of the imitation meat becomes a regular protein on most menus for 50-100 years if not longer but I wont be around to find out.

Agreed on all points.

This topic makes me think of war time substitutions by ersatz goods.  It's WWI and suddenly all normal breads are gone.  So is coffee.  Do people give them up?  No, they just eat, "war bread," and drink coffee that's mostly just chicory.  They substitute with ersatz goods.

When climate policy makes meat (permanently) expensive, I expect we'll do that.  And it helps that this new grade/type of meatless meat is actually pretty good!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 25, 2019, 10:53:23 AM
In the U.S. (and probably elsewhere) it's traditional to make resolutions at New Year's. A common one is to lose weight. So it's to be expected that lots of people will google all weight-loss systems around that time. This does not mean they're going to adopt any one particular one. It just means they are trying to learn about them.

But I thought the proposed bet had changed from measuring the relative popularity of keto vs. fake meat, to whether or not fake meat is a fad. And of course, Impossible and Beyond are just the latest entrants into the fake meat market which has existed for over half a century. Judging by the reviews, they come closer to the experience of eating meat than previously-existing products. But they're merely different versions, not a whole new concept.

So if you bet that fake meat is a fad, you've already lost. Fake meat is like broccoli: It's a food product that some people like and others don't.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 10:59:37 AM
Short-sellers sink teeth into Beyond Meat https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-10-24/short-sellers-sink-teeth-into-beyond-meat


Short-sellers sink teeth into Beyond Meat

Quote
“We really think sentiment has been driving the share price rather than fundamentals,” said Arun Sundaram, analyst at CFRA. The independent research firm began covering the stock earlier this month with a “sell” rating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 25, 2019, 11:02:03 AM
P.S. At one of my hiking lodges they once served lasagna with fake meat. The lasagna was excellent. Lots of veggies and lots of cheese. The fake meat added protein, but otherwise didn't seem to make a difference one way or the other. It was one of the older kinds. I think it was called Veggie Ground Round. I don't think it has much taste of its own. It's just a way to add some bulk and protein to meatless recipes. It's not something I would make at home, but allowed the cook to provide me with a meatless main course that was closer to what she was used to making than otherwise.
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 11:03:35 AM
I could care less about the diet, I would like to go back to the original topic. Most fads last a season to a year,

I'm willing to bet that Beyond/Impossible/similar product sales go up in one year from today. (not google trends)

I'm willing to bet they stay up for 5 years

I would lay good odds that some form of the imitation meat becomes a regular protein on most menus for 50-100 years if not longer but I wont be around to find out.

I'll go for the one year bet, I like the idea that the player wining the bet gets to choose the loosers bottom quotes for one year.  Any takers? ? ?... Carb?
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Where are you getting the sales figures? 

You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 25, 2019, 11:11:49 AM
I could care less about the diet, I would like to go back to the original topic. Most fads last a season to a year,

I'm willing to bet that Beyond/Impossible/similar product sales go up in one year from today. (not google trends)

I'm willing to bet they stay up for 5 years

I would lay good odds that some form of the imitation meat becomes a regular protein on most menus for 50-100 years if not longer but I wont be around to find out.

I'll go for the one year bet, I like the idea that the player wining the bet gets to choose the loosers bottom quotes for one year.  Any takers? ? ?... Carb?
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Where are you getting the sales figures? 

You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no bet for me then

i'm not convinced your wrong about keto and I have never argued against it, why not take that argument elsewhere into a keto thread.

I'm only interested in beyond burgers and your claim of them being a fad. I guess you don't think they are now or you would take the bet.  >:D



Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 01:03:41 PM
I could care less about the diet, I would like to go back to the original topic. Most fads last a season to a year,

I'm willing to bet that Beyond/Impossible/similar product sales go up in one year from today. (not google trends)

I'm willing to bet they stay up for 5 years

I would lay good odds that some form of the imitation meat becomes a regular protein on most menus for 50-100 years if not longer but I wont be around to find out.

I'll go for the one year bet, I like the idea that the player wining the bet gets to choose the loosers bottom quotes for one year.  Any takers? ? ?... Carb?
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Where are you getting the sales figures? 

You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

no bet for me then

i'm not convinced your wrong about keto and I have never argued against it, why not take that argument elsewhere into a keto thread.

I'm only interested in beyond burgers and your claim of them being a fad. I guess you don't think they are now or you would take the bet.  >:D
Where are you getting the sales figures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on October 25, 2019, 02:29:44 PM
Well if its just a fad it should be obvious when it leaves the market and stops selling.

I don't know about the others but Beyond is reporting its earnings.

https://investors.beyondmeat.com/news-releases/news-release-details/beyond-meatr-report-third-quarter-2019-financial-results-october?mod=article_inline

Quote
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct. 14, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) (“Beyond Meat”), a leader in plant-based meat, announced today it will report results for the third quarter ended September 28, 2019 on Monday, October 28, 2019 after market close.

If its just a fad I would expect all the fast food restaurants to drop them in a year.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 02:37:25 PM
Well if its just a fad it should be obvious when it leaves the market and stops selling.

I don't know about the others but Beyond is reporting its earnings.

https://investors.beyondmeat.com/news-releases/news-release-details/beyond-meatr-report-third-quarter-2019-financial-results-october?mod=article_inline

Quote
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Oct. 14, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Beyond Meat, Inc. (NASDAQ: BYND) (“Beyond Meat”), a leader in plant-based meat, announced today it will report results for the third quarter ended September 28, 2019 on Monday, October 28, 2019 after market close.

If its just a fad I would expect all the fast food restaurants to drop them in a year.

OK you're proposing a different method to decide if we judge it a fad. Is it Sales figure, earnings or number of fast food restaurants to drop them.  Whatever the metric is we need to know what the current number is and we need to be confident that a comparable number will be available at the conclusion of the bet.

That would be the minimum criteria for a measurable outcome. I think google trends meets that criteria.

If you're serious, come up with a reliable metric.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on October 25, 2019, 03:28:26 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 04:22:59 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 04:50:42 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Friendly Angel on October 25, 2019, 04:55:26 PM
And what do we call it?

I'm partial to the incredibly literal Ersatz Meat.


Interestingly, the Lexicon Valley podcast had a segment on the original meaning of the word "meat".  It pretty much meant anything you eat, including fruits and vegetables.  If you meant "animal flesh" you had to specify "flesh-meat".  This can still be seen in words like "mince meat".

So rather than find a new word for fake meat, just start calling all meat as flesh-meat.  I usually refer to it as carrion, just for kicks.


https://slate.com/transcripts/QW9EcC9VQ0FJU2NCMXpjOVRSUFI2UXZBRDJ3YmlLUjlJYU9hVjhneWdROD0=
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2019, 05:07:42 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.


With a random sample of supermarkets that would actually be valid, I think.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 05:37:02 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.


With a random sample of supermarkets that would actually be valid, I think.

CarbShark was expressing scepticism about whether the sales figures would be reliable enough to be believed.  I was suggesting a way for a person to check whether the sale figures are credible.  Obviously, they can’t be used as the method of determining the winner in a ‘bet,’ because there could be disagreement about the amount of shelf space being given to a product.

I eat sauerkraut daily.  I love sauerkraut.  I know that it is not a very popular product, because my supermarket allocates a very tiny amount of space to it (if you blinked, you’d miss it).  But it’s not a fad because it has been eaten for many, many years.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on October 25, 2019, 05:43:23 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.


With a random sample of supermarkets that would actually be valid, I think.

CarbShark was expressing scepticism about whether the sales figures would be reliable enough to be believed.  I was suggesting a way for a person to check whether the sale figures are credible.  Obviously, they can’t be used as the method of determining the winner in a ‘bet,’ because there could be disagreement about the amount of shelf space being given to a product.


I think it could be used.  Just agree on a measure of shelf space.  But it would be impractical to do the survey.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on October 25, 2019, 08:34:28 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.


With a random sample of supermarkets that would actually be valid, I think.

CarbShark was expressing scepticism about whether the sales figures would be reliable enough to be believed.  I was suggesting a way for a person to check whether the sale figures are credible.  Obviously, they can’t be used as the method of determining the winner in a ‘bet,’ because there could be disagreement about the amount of shelf space being given to a product.


I think it could be used.  Just agree on a measure of shelf space.  But it would be impractical to do the survey.

My skepticism wasn't about whether product sales were a good measure of popularity, but I'm skeptical about getting a reliable and consistent source of product sales data.

A good random sample of shelf space at supermarkets across the country might be pretty good. (Although I would also predict it would be far less in "flyover" country than the coasts).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 25, 2019, 09:47:20 PM
You probably wouldn’t want to go by stock prices because those have already dropped

Started at $25, shot up to 300-something on investor enthusiasm, and settled back to around $100. I call that a huge gain. But stock prices are a very bad measure because they don't show how popular a thing is; they show how popular investors think a thing will become.

Sales figures are the measure, if they're available.

To measure the popularity of a diet you'd have to know how many people are on it. I have no idea where you'd get that number, but as I've said before, google search numbers don't show how many people are on it, they just show how many people are curious to find out something about it. (I'm not arguing that keto is not popular. As near as I can tell it's as popular as astrology or homeopathy.)

I wouldn't use stock prices either for that reason.

I'm not opposed to using sales figures if we're just looking at products for sale, but I would have to see where those sales figures are coming from, and make sure they're accurate, consistent, reliable and that we can be sure the  source and methods we can see now will be available a year from now.

Sale figures are the best measure of the popularity of Beyond Burger.  Google Trends is a very dodgy measure, with no way of checking its accuracy.  At least with sales figures, there is a way of checking whether they’re credible or not.  Go down to your local supermarket, and see how much shelf space it is giving Beyond Burger (and similar products).  Do the same in 12 months.  If the supermarket is allocating the same or more space to Beyond Burger (and similar products), then sales of it isn’t decreasing in your area,  because supermarkets don’t give space to products which aren’t selling.


With a random sample of supermarkets that would actually be valid, I think.

CarbShark was expressing scepticism about whether the sales figures would be reliable enough to be believed.  I was suggesting a way for a person to check whether the sale figures are credible.  Obviously, they can’t be used as the method of determining the winner in a ‘bet,’ because there could be disagreement about the amount of shelf space being given to a product.


I think it could be used.  Just agree on a measure of shelf space.  But it would be impractical to do the survey.

My skepticism wasn't about whether product sales were a good measure of popularity, but I'm skeptical about getting a reliable and consistent source of product sales data.

A good random sample of shelf space at supermarkets across the country might be pretty good. (Although I would also predict it would be far less in "flyover" country than the coasts).

But who would be assessing the amount of shelf space in determining the ‘winner’ of a ‘bet?’  My suggestion was only to give the ‘loser ‘ of a ‘bet’ some confidence that the sales figures are credible.

The advantage of Google Trends is that it’s fairly clear cut in determining whether the number of searches are increasing or decreasing (what the results would me is another matter; you can invent stories to justify virtually anything).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on October 26, 2019, 06:17:49 PM
The most recent spike in weekly Google searches for ketogenic diets provided by jt512 suggests something happened.  Someone died on a keto diet.  Or someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) adopts a keto diet.  As has been noted many times, Google Trends doesn’t necessarily measure interest in adopting a keto diet.


There has been a spike during the first week of January for each of the last 4 years.  Occam's razor says it's a seasonal phenomenon and that we should expect one next January as well.  Thus, IMO, you were correct not to take the bet I offered.

That’s one of the reasons I wasn’t interested in your bet.  You’d already mentioned that Google searches increase in the first week of January for various reasons. 

It can’t be the whole reason though.  I can’t see a spike for the previous 3 years similar to an obvious spike for the last year.  ‘Something’ must have happened (or it’s an artifact of the search parameters you’ve employed).  What settings did you use?  I’m interested in doing a similar one for Australia.  Perhaps if you copy the link and paste it?


I took the data from your post: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0 (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.msg9635440.html#msg9635440)

Here's what happens the first week of January every year: New Years Day, and people make New Years resolutions to lose weight.

The data show that there is a spike the first week of every year.  Furthermore, every year the spike is higher than the previous year, and the increase has been exponential (literally).  You seem to think that the data show that this trend has reversed.  I see why you say that, but the evidence is weak.  My guess is that there will again be a spike, and it will, as usual, be higher than the last one.  Want to bet on that?  It's no "sucker bet"; I actually could lose!

The last increase (I’ll take your word for it that it was the first week in January, 2019) looks different to the previous increases in that it’s much more obviously spike-like.  It goes upwards very abruptly, and then it declines.  It doesn’t look anything like anything in the preceding years.  There are no other spikes.  Increases perhaps, but no spikes.

You're wrong.  There is a spike the first week in January every year.  The anomaly is that there was a peak between the most recent two January spikes.  Ignore that and look at the spike that has occurred every 52 weeks.  The magnitude of the spike has approximately doubled every year.

Quote
Why?  What caused it?

I've already told you why (I think) it happens, but who cares?  It happens every year.

Quote
I suspect that something must have happened.  Perhaps someone famous (or followed by many people on social media) happened to go on a keto diet at the right time (around the end of the end of the year) for more people to have the time and inclination to do a Google search on keto diets.

And it may not be repeated next year in January.

Of course it might not. On the other hand, it might.  If you believe it won't, put your money where your mouth is and take the bet.

OK, I’ll take the bet.  We now have to agree on the terms.  My argument is that in previous years, the number of Google searches increased in the first week of January, but then stayed higher, and continued to increase throughout the year.  There was no spike in any of the years.

But last January was different.  The number of Google searches suddenly increased, and almost as abruptly decreased, forming an obvious spike.  And the number of Google searches continued to decrease throughout the year.

In contrast, Google searches for ‘apples’ showed much the same pattern and number of searches year to year.

I surmise that ‘something’ must have happened just before the first week of last January (perhaps someone famous went on a keto diet?), which might not occur again this December, and that interest in keto diets is now decreasing, and it’s a fad.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2014-12-01%202019-10-27&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 05:36:32 PM
The bet is on.

jt is betting that Google searches on Google Trends for ‘ketogenic diet’ will be higher for the first week of January 2020 than the corresponding period in 2019.  I’m betting that it will be lower.

The bet is for $50US.

Anyone else wanting to bet?

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m

It should be easy to determine whether searches are increasing or decreasing just looking at the curve.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 12, 2019, 05:38:36 PM
The bet is on.

jt is betting that Google searches on Google Trends for ‘ketogenic diet’ will be higher for the first week of January 2020 than the corresponding period in 2019.  I’m betting that it will be lower.

The bet is for $50US.

Anyone else wanting to bet?


We need to be careful that we define the two periods we are comparing unambiguously.  I'll get back to you by PM about it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 06:16:02 PM
Perhaps CarbShark might care to bet too?  He started this with the suggestion that Google searches on Google Trends is a good method for measuring popularity.

It isn’t actually.  Surveys are the only way of determining popularity, but even surveys have their flaws.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on November 12, 2019, 07:51:52 PM
I still want to do the beyond/impossible bet but at this point I hardly think its fair.

https://www.businessinsider.com/burger-king-tgi-fridays-chains-sell-plant-based-meat-2019-5

Burger king
McDonalds Canada
A&W Canada
Hard Rock Cafe
The Cheesecake Factory
Qdoba
Red Robin
TGI Fridays
Carl's Jr.
Del Taco
Blaze Pizza
Dunkin' (brand new beyond breakfast sausage, its good)
Little Caesars
Fatburger
Hardee's
Denny's

I see them at smaller chains locally and even the mom and pop chicken wing places

KFC has the chicken version coming soon

I see the beyond brand burgers, sausage and crumbles at every major grocery store I shop including

Walmart.
Kroger (best price)
Publix
Whole Foods (Amazon)
Sprouts
ALDI (I don't actually shop here but I looked it up)

But if anyone wants to take the fad bet i'm still willing,
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 12, 2019, 09:55:31 PM
I don't bet. Considering the gullibility and capriciousness of the public, I could see the popularity of keto diets increasing even if clear scientific evidence of their toxicity were to appear. I could see the popularity skyrocket if some really popular celebrity took it up, or I could see it plummet if some really popular celebrity took up some other diet. There will always be a core of loyal followers, but the public at large is fickle, and influenced by feelings, not by evidence.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 09:59:11 PM
I still want to do the beyond/impossible bet but at this point I hardly think its fair.

https://www.businessinsider.com/burger-king-tgi-fridays-chains-sell-plant-based-meat-2019-5

Burger king
McDonalds Canada
A&W Canada
Hard Rock Cafe
The Cheesecake Factory
Qdoba
Red Robin
TGI Fridays
Carl's Jr.
Del Taco
Blaze Pizza
Dunkin' (brand new beyond breakfast sausage, its good)
Little Caesars
Fatburger
Hardee's
Denny's

I see them at smaller chains locally and even the mom and pop chicken wing places

KFC has the chicken version coming soon

I see the beyond brand burgers, sausage and crumbles at every major grocery store I shop including

Walmart.
Kroger (best price)
Publix
Whole Foods (Amazon)
Sprouts
ALDI (I don't actually shop here but I looked it up)

But if anyone wants to take the fad bet i'm still willing,

Well, unless CarbShark is willing to bet against you that meat-free alternatives won’t become more popular in a year’s time, you won’t have any takers in a bet.  Unless you’re willing to accept Google Trends as a (very poor) proxy of popularity.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 12, 2019, 10:07:53 PM
The bet is on.

jt is betting that Google searches on Google Trends for ‘ketogenic diet’ will be higher for the first week of January 2020 than the corresponding period in 2019.  I’m betting that it will be lower.

The bet is for $50US.

Anyone else wanting to bet?

We need to be careful that we define the two periods we are comparing unambiguously.  I'll get back to you by PM about it.
Sorry guys but that's a dumb bet. The very same diet has, a various times trended as LCHF, ketogenic, keto-clean and keto. I think keto has been the most popular lately, but it could fade in favor of VLC or even ketogenic.

You're not betting on whether the diet is going to fade from popularity, but you're betting on whether the term to describe the diet will fade.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 10:13:13 PM
I don't bet. Considering the gullibility and capriciousness of the public, I could see the popularity of keto diets increasing even if clear scientific evidence of their toxicity were to appear. I could see the popularity skyrocket if some really popular celebrity took it up, or I could see it plummet if some really popular celebrity took up some other diet. There will always be a core of loyal followers, but the public at large is fickle, and influenced by feelings, not by evidence.

I don’t bet either.  I don’t buy Lotto tickets.  Nor do I bet on horse races (there was supposed to have been the running of the Melbourne Cup recently, the ‘race that stops Australia,’ but I don’t know, or care, which horse won).

I only entered the bet because jt challenged me to do so.  I don’t know whether the popularity of ketogenic diets is going to increase or decrease (or what its level of popularity actually is).  But I’m fairly confident that Google searches in the first week of January 2020 is going to be less (?fewer) than the corresponding period in 2019 because 1.  The previous increase was much of a spike than previous years, suggesting there was some added extra factor, such as a celebrity adopting the ketogenic diet), which may not be repeated.  2.  Google searches have progressively decreased over 2019, instead of increasing as in previous years, suggesting the trend line has turned.

But $50US is such a small trivial amount, I can afford to lose it.  My only worry is paying it, if I lose.  I’ve suggested payment with an Amazon gift card.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 10:23:01 PM
The bet is on.

jt is betting that Google searches on Google Trends for ‘ketogenic diet’ will be higher for the first week of January 2020 than the corresponding period in 2019.  I’m betting that it will be lower.

The bet is for $50US.

Anyone else wanting to bet?

We need to be careful that we define the two periods we are comparing unambiguously.  I'll get back to you by PM about it.
Sorry guys but that's a dumb bet. The very same diet has, a various times trended as LCHF, ketogenic, keto-clean and keto. I think keto has been the most popular lately, but it could fade in favor of VLC or even ketogenic.

You're not betting on whether the diet is going to fade from popularity, but you're betting on whether the term to describe the diet will fade.

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.  Or will only show results as a ‘term’ instead of a topic.  ‘Keto’ defaults to ‘ketogenic.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F02c3sn,High%20fat%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m

‘Low carbohydrate’ seems much more popular as a term in Germany, but the relative popularity of the terms appear to be the same over time.  It should be valid to use the most popular terminology.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=DE&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F02c3sn,High%20fat%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m

If you have evidence that the terminology is changing, then show it.

But you were the one claiming that you can use Google Trends to measure the popularity of ketogenic diets and Beyond Burger 2.0.  That in a year’s time, ketogenic diets will be more popular, and Beyond Burger less.

This is the page in which you made your prediction:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.75.html
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 12, 2019, 11:04:26 PM
The bet is on.

jt is betting that Google searches on Google Trends for ‘ketogenic diet’ will be higher for the first week of January 2020 than the corresponding period in 2019.  I’m betting that it will be lower.

The bet is for $50US.

Anyone else wanting to bet?

We need to be careful that we define the two periods we are comparing unambiguously.  I'll get back to you by PM about it.
Sorry guys but that's a dumb bet. The very same diet has, a various times trended as LCHF, ketogenic, keto-clean and keto. I think keto has been the most popular lately, but it could fade in favor of VLC or even ketogenic.

You're not betting on whether the diet is going to fade from popularity, but you're betting on whether the term to describe the diet will fade.

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.  Or will only show results as a ‘term’ instead of a topic.  ‘Keto’ defaults to ‘ketogenic.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F02c3sn,High%20fat%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m

‘Low carbohydrate’ seems much more popular as a term in Germany, but the relative popularity of the terms appear to be the same over time.  It should be valid to use the most popular terminology.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=DE&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F02c3sn,High%20fat%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m

If you have evidence that the terminology is changing, then show it.

But you were the one claiming that you can use Google Trends to measure the popularity of ketogenic diets and Beyond Burger 2.0.  That in a year’s time, ketogenic diets will be more popular, and Beyond Burger less.

This is the page in which you made your prediction:

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.75.html

I said keto, not ketogenic, but either way, once you plan a bet you nail down the terms, and if I were going to do the bet I would include all versions of LCHF, ketogenic, keto and any other nickname that might crop up. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 12, 2019, 11:10:20 PM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 11:28:46 PM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.

Anyway, this is the way that Google Trends handles changing terminology:

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4359550

‘Topics’ seems better, since it’s more inclusive than ‘terms.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet

Ketogenic diets seems to include everything as a ‘topic’ but not as a ‘term.’

Here’s the graph for keto diet term, ketogenic diet term and ketogenic diet topic.  The curve for ketogenic topic is higher than that for keto term, but they’re very similar.  Ketogenic diet topic seems to be including everything.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on November 12, 2019, 11:46:39 PM
I still want to do the beyond/impossible bet but at this point I hardly think its fair.

https://www.businessinsider.com/burger-king-tgi-fridays-chains-sell-plant-based-meat-2019-5

Burger king
McDonalds Canada
A&W Canada
Hard Rock Cafe
The Cheesecake Factory
Qdoba
Red Robin
TGI Fridays
Carl's Jr.
Del Taco
Blaze Pizza
Dunkin' (brand new beyond breakfast sausage, its good)
Little Caesars
Fatburger
Hardee's
Denny's

I see them at smaller chains locally and even the mom and pop chicken wing places

KFC has the chicken version coming soon

I see the beyond brand burgers, sausage and crumbles at every major grocery store I shop including

Walmart.
Kroger (best price)
Publix
Whole Foods (Amazon)
Sprouts
ALDI (I don't actually shop here but I looked it up)

But if anyone wants to take the fad bet i'm still willing,

When I see it at my local Woollies I'll believe it's achieved market penetration. So far it seems to be US distribution only.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 12, 2019, 11:58:05 PM
I still want to do the beyond/impossible bet but at this point I hardly think its fair.

https://www.businessinsider.com/burger-king-tgi-fridays-chains-sell-plant-based-meat-2019-5

Burger king
McDonalds Canada
A&W Canada
Hard Rock Cafe
The Cheesecake Factory
Qdoba
Red Robin
TGI Fridays
Carl's Jr.
Del Taco
Blaze Pizza
Dunkin' (brand new beyond breakfast sausage, its good)
Little Caesars
Fatburger
Hardee's
Denny's

I see them at smaller chains locally and even the mom and pop chicken wing places

KFC has the chicken version coming soon

I see the beyond brand burgers, sausage and crumbles at every major grocery store I shop including

Walmart.
Kroger (best price)
Publix
Whole Foods (Amazon)
Sprouts
ALDI (I don't actually shop here but I looked it up)

But if anyone wants to take the fad bet i'm still willing,

When I see it at my local Woollies I'll believe it's achieved market penetration. So far it seems to be US distribution only.

I believe that there is a British version which Woolies is stocking, but I haven’t seen it because I haven’t looked for it.  I’m reluctant to buy heavily processed food items, particularly ones using coconut oil as an ingredient (as many of the meat-alternatives seem to do), since it’s too high in saturated fats.
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 13, 2019, 12:53:02 AM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.

Anyway, this is the way that Google Trends handles changing terminology:

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4359550

‘Topics’ seems better, since it’s more inclusive than ‘terms.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet

Ketogenic diets seems to include everything as a ‘topic’ but not as a ‘term.’

Here’s the graph for keto diet term, ketogenic diet term and ketogenic diet topic.  The curve for ketogenic topic is higher than that for keto term, but they’re very similar.  Ketogenic diet topic seems to be including everything.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86
So just to catch up, I showed you this tool that you spent a few minutes tinkering with, and decided you were an expert.

Then you misunderstood how to use it and actually bet money based on your misunderstanding of how it worked.

You asked me to use it to support my claim and I did,  directly contradicting your claim and now you’re claiming that your apples and oranges comparisons are more valid.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 01:34:35 AM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.

Anyway, this is the way that Google Trends handles changing terminology:

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4359550

‘Topics’ seems better, since it’s more inclusive than ‘terms.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet

Ketogenic diets seems to include everything as a ‘topic’ but not as a ‘term.’

Here’s the graph for keto diet term, ketogenic diet term and ketogenic diet topic.  The curve for ketogenic topic is higher than that for keto term, but they’re very similar.  Ketogenic diet topic seems to be including everything.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86
So just to catch up, I showed you this tool that you spent a few minutes tinkering with, and decided you were an expert.

Then you misunderstood how to use it and actually bet money based on your misunderstanding of how it worked.

You asked me to use it to support my claim and I did,  directly contradicting your claim and now you’re claiming that you apples and oranges comparisons are more valid.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not claiming to be an expert on Google Trends.  We’ve agreed to use ‘ketogenic diet topic’ not ‘ketogenic diet term’ as the measure for the bet, since ‘topic’ seems to include all keto diets, making it unnecessary to look at each variant of ketogenic diet terminology.

Here’s another Google Trends.  I’ve also included keto-clean term, since you mentioned it:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m,Ketogenic%20diet%20term,Keto-clean

Keto diet term is around 1/4 of ketogenic diet topic, and the shape of the curves are very similar, so ketogenic diet topic searches includes keto diet term searches, and everything else.

But you were one of the first to propose a bet, and to use Google Trends, regarding the popularity of keto diets versus Beyond Burger 2.0.  What’s caused you to go off the idea of a bet?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 13, 2019, 10:12:40 AM
The bet I proposed is still on the table. Although I never suggested actual money.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 13, 2019, 12:14:59 PM
The bet I proposed is still on the table. Although I never suggested actual money.

True. The stakes were that the winner could set the loser's sig text for a specified period of time. A clever idea, which has real consequences but avoids any legal complications or moral considerations around gambling for money. I don't remember if you specified precisely how the outcome was to be determined.

I expect that the popularity of fake meat will grow as the products become cheaper and more appealing, but I see no relationship between that and the popularity of keto diets, since the later has a dedicated core following plus some number of people who try it for a while and then quit, and most people who eat meat are not on keto diets. A lot of people could switch to fake meat without having any effect on the number of LCHF believers. I see no particular significance in the number of people on keto diets short-term as that could rise and fall dramatically without affecting the number of core believers at all. So, personally, I don't think that internet searches tells us anything about the actual popularity of either fake meat or keto diets. An internet search could be someone who will buy the product or try the diet, but it could also be someone who heard a word in a random conversation or from a woo-believing celebrity or in an ad and wanted to find out what it meant. I sometimes look up a word just to find out what it means.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 13, 2019, 12:43:50 PM
The intention was to suggest that the popularity of these fake meat burgers is a fad, while at the same time the LCHF keto diet, which is often dismissed here and elsewhere as a fad, is not a fad.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 13, 2019, 12:46:56 PM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.

Anyway, this is the way that Google Trends handles changing terminology:

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4359550

‘Topics’ seems better, since it’s more inclusive than ‘terms.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet

Ketogenic diets seems to include everything as a ‘topic’ but not as a ‘term.’

Here’s the graph for keto diet term, ketogenic diet term and ketogenic diet topic.  The curve for ketogenic topic is higher than that for keto term, but they’re very similar.  Ketogenic diet topic seems to be including everything.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86
So just to catch up, I showed you this tool that you spent a few minutes tinkering with, and decided you were an expert.

Then you misunderstood how to use it and actually bet money based on your misunderstanding of how it worked.

You asked me to use it to support my claim and I did,  directly contradicting your claim and now you’re claiming that you apples and oranges comparisons are more valid.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not claiming to be an expert on Google Trends.  We’ve agreed to use ‘ketogenic diet topic’ not ‘ketogenic diet term’ as the measure for the bet, since ‘topic’ seems to include all keto diets, making it unnecessary to look at each variant of ketogenic diet terminology.

Here’s another Google Trends.  I’ve also included keto-clean term, since you mentioned it:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m,Ketogenic%20diet%20term,Keto-clean

Keto diet term is around 1/4 of ketogenic diet topic, and the shape of the curves are very similar, so ketogenic diet topic searches includes keto diet term searches, and everything else.

But you were one of the first to propose a bet, and to use Google Trends, regarding the popularity of keto diets versus Beyond Burger 2.0.  What’s caused you to go off the idea of a bet?
Nobody is searching for “Ketogenic diet term”.

They are searching for the term “Ketogenic diet”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 03:27:32 PM

‘Ketogenic diet’ seems the most popular over time.  Some selections default to ‘ketogenic diet’ anyway.   

You can't compare searches for the term keto with the topic Ketogenic diet. That's truly apples and fruits.

Here are searches for the term keto diet and the term ketogenic diet.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Ketogenic%20diet,Keto%20diet

So keto seems to be leading in trends recently, as I said.

Anyway, this is the way that Google Trends handles changing terminology:

https://support.google.com/trends/answer/4359550

‘Topics’ seems better, since it’s more inclusive than ‘terms.’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet

Ketogenic diets seems to include everything as a ‘topic’ but not as a ‘term.’

Here’s the graph for keto diet term, ketogenic diet term and ketogenic diet topic.  The curve for ketogenic topic is higher than that for keto term, but they’re very similar.  Ketogenic diet topic seems to be including everything.

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=Keto%20diet,Ketogenic%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86
So just to catch up, I showed you this tool that you spent a few minutes tinkering with, and decided you were an expert.

Then you misunderstood how to use it and actually bet money based on your misunderstanding of how it worked.

You asked me to use it to support my claim and I did,  directly contradicting your claim and now you’re claiming that you apples and oranges comparisons are more valid.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not claiming to be an expert on Google Trends.  We’ve agreed to use ‘ketogenic diet topic’ not ‘ketogenic diet term’ as the measure for the bet, since ‘topic’ seems to include all keto diets, making it unnecessary to look at each variant of ketogenic diet terminology.

Here’s another Google Trends.  I’ve also included keto-clean term, since you mentioned it:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,Keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F014j1m,Ketogenic%20diet%20term,Keto-clean

Keto diet term is around 1/4 of ketogenic diet topic, and the shape of the curves are very similar, so ketogenic diet topic searches includes keto diet term searches, and everything else.

But you were one of the first to propose a bet, and to use Google Trends, regarding the popularity of keto diets versus Beyond Burger 2.0.  What’s caused you to go off the idea of a bet?
Nobody is searching for “Ketogenic diet term”.

They are searching for the term “Ketogenic diet”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but If someone searches for ‘ketogenic diet’  (as well as ‘keto diet’ and its equivalents) it gets aggregated in ‘ketogenic diet’ topic.  It’s shown by the fact that the curve for ‘ketogenic diet’ topic is so similar to that for keto diet’ term, but higher.  When it increases, so does that for keto diet.’  Likewise for decreases.

If you’ve got some method of aggregating the searches for the various synonyms of ‘keto diet’ you can think of, then what is it?  You’re the expert on Google Trends apparently.

You didn’t offer to bet money, but you did make your prediction, that fake meat products would be less popular, and ketogenic diets as popular or even more popular, in a year’s time - with the comment ‘care to make it interesting?’ (suggesting money is involved).

https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,51299.75.html
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 03:41:25 PM
The bet I proposed is still on the table. Although I never suggested actual money.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll take your bet.  How are we going to measure popularity of a real physical product, with real physical sales figures, with a diet concept with self-reporting as to whether the person is on it?  Surveys, for example, have shown that 2/3 of self-reported vegetarians eat meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 04:19:48 PM
Another study suggesting low carbohydrate diets are dangerous:

https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Low-carbohydrate-diets-are-unsafe-and-should-be-avoided

I was doing a Google search, looking for figures of the number of people on a keto diet, but got sidetracked.  What percentage of the American population is on a keto diet? 1%? 5%? Who knows?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 13, 2019, 06:18:21 PM
The intention was to suggest that the popularity of these fake meat burgers is a fad, while at the same time the LCHF keto diet, which is often dismissed here and elsewhere as a fad, is not a fad.

Specifically this particular brand? Or the two very recent brands (Beyond and Impossible)? Or fake meat in general? Fake meat has been around for decades. Boca Burger has been around for 40 years and continues to be a successful business (now a subsidiary of Kraft, who would not have bought it if they'd regarded it as merely a fad.) Tempeh, while not attempting to taste like meat, is often used as a meat substitute, and has been around in Asia since pretty much forever.

For the purposes of a bet, you'd need to agree on a definition of "fad" and a way to determine what is or is not a fad. Good luck with that. I foresee disagreements at the end over who actually won if the terms are not defined with extreme specificity.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 06:42:12 PM
The intention was to suggest that the popularity of these fake meat burgers is a fad, while at the same time the LCHF keto diet, which is often dismissed here and elsewhere as a fad, is not a fad.

Specifically this particular brand? Or the two very recent brands (Beyond and Impossible)? Or fake meat in general? Fake meat has been around for decades. Boca Burger has been around for 40 years and continues to be a successful business (now a subsidiary of Kraft, who would not have bought it if they'd regarded it as merely a fad.) Tempeh, while not attempting to taste like meat, is often used as a meat substitute, and has been around in Asia since pretty much forever.

For the purposes of a bet, you'd need to agree on a definition of "fad" and a way to determine what is or is not a fad. Good luck with that. I foresee disagreements at the end over who actually won if the terms are not defined with extreme specificity.

Absolutely agree.  But for the purposes of a bet it has been proposed that we use the very poor proxy of Google searches, at least for ketogenic diets, for which there are no other figures, as far as I can see.  Google searches should give a definite answer, but not to the question of interest though; whether ketogenic diets are becoming more or less popular, whether more or fewer (or is it less?) people are on a ketogenic diet.  Or think that they’re on a ketogenic diet.

I’m interested in the bet because of what Google searches actually mean.  Whether you can plot a trend line and assert that the trend line will continue into the future when you don’t actually know what the Google searches mean.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 13, 2019, 07:05:23 PM
I’m interested in the bet because of what Google searches actually mean.  Whether you can plot a trend line and assert that the trend line will continue into the future when you don’t actually know what the Google searches mean.


You can plot a trend line and make a prediction about the future regardless of what the data represent.  But extrapolation is always risky, and depends on strong assumptions. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 13, 2019, 07:11:38 PM
The bet I proposed is still on the table. Although I never suggested actual money.


I’ll take your bet.  How are we going to measure popularity of a real physical product, with real physical sales figures, with a diet concept with self-reporting as to whether the person is on it?  Surveys, for example, have shown that 2/3 of self-reported vegetarians eat meat.

My bet would be using Google Trends. We can work out the details. Take it or leave it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 13, 2019, 08:14:14 PM
The bet I proposed is still on the table. Although I never suggested actual money.


I’ll take your bet.  How are we going to measure popularity of a real physical product, with real physical sales figures, with a diet concept with self-reporting as to whether the person is on it?  Surveys, for example, have shown that 2/3 of self-reported vegetarians eat meat.


My bet would be using Google Trends. We can work out the details. Take it or leave it.

I’ll take it, particularly since there’s no specie involved.

What are the details you’re proposing?

I’m looking forward to changing your signature.  Something along the lines of ‘I’m not a doctor, but have done a ton of searching on the Internet to confirm my beliefs on diet and nutrition.’
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 14, 2019, 09:06:55 AM
The thing about betting is that unforeseen events can interfere. There's a story, probably fiction, but illustrative nonetheless, about a guy who had a pet rat. He'd let it go in the basement of a bar, then come into the bar, have a few drinks, and then bet people that he could go down into the basement and catch a rat with his bare hands. One day he didn't realize that this particular bar had a cat.

So many things could affect the popularity of a search term that a bet based on it has a possible random factor built in. But as a spectator I'll enjoy the show.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 14, 2019, 10:03:03 AM
The thing about betting is that unforeseen events can interfere.

Yes, that's what a bet is and that's what makes it interesting.
Quote

So many things could affect the popularity of a search term that a bet based on it has a possible random factor built in. But as a spectator I'll enjoy the show.

That's true. If one year from now fake burgers are linked to a dozen deaths, then google trends will show them very popular and I'll lose.

That's the risk you take when you make a bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 14, 2019, 12:17:50 PM
So many things could affect the popularity of a search term that a bet based on it has a possible random factor built in.

Craps, poker, roulette, blackjack.... Bets are affected by random factors?  Who knew?  If uncertainty were not involved there would be no bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 14, 2019, 03:16:36 PM
The thing about betting is that unforeseen events can interfere.

Yes, that's what a bet is and that's what makes it interesting.
Quote

So many things could affect the popularity of a search term that a bet based on it has a possible random factor built in. But as a spectator I'll enjoy the show.

That's true. If one year from now fake burgers are linked to a dozen deaths, then google trends will show them very popular and I'll lose.

That's the risk you take when you make a bet.

And also, if one year from now keto diets are linked to a dozen deaths, then google trends will show them very popular and I’ll lose.  ‘Fake’ Burgers are more likely to be safer than the product they’re replacing.

But anyway.  What are terms of the bet you’re proposing?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 14, 2019, 03:26:24 PM
The thing about betting is that unforeseen events can interfere.

Yes, that's what a bet is and that's what makes it interesting.
Quote

So many things could affect the popularity of a search term that a bet based on it has a possible random factor built in. But as a spectator I'll enjoy the show.

That's true. If one year from now fake burgers are linked to a dozen deaths, then google trends will show them very popular and I'll lose.

That's the risk you take when you make a bet.

And also, if one year from now keto diets are linked to a dozen deaths, then google trends will show them very popular and I’ll lose.  ‘Fake’ Burgers are more likely to be safer than the product they’re replacing.

But anyway.  What are terms of the bet you’re proposing?

Of course Ketogenic diets have been used for over 100 years and have never been linked to any deaths. Fake burgers have never been tested for safety.

I'll work out the terms when I have time.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 14, 2019, 03:48:46 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.

My impression here, based on the recommendations of all the major medical organizations and every doctor I've ever known, either personally or professionally, is that a diet that prohibits or severely restricts a major class of nutrient, and/or that requires the consumption of a disproportionate amount of any major nutrient, is more likely to be deleterious to health than is any food item eaten in moderation. Thus the LCHF diets, which severely restrict carbs and require the consumption of a large amount of fat, are more likely to cause harm than the occasional consumption of fake hamburgers. I suspect that a diet of 100% fake hamburger would be very unhealthy. I cannot think of a food that will cause no harm when eaten to excess. And half of LCHF is by definition eating an excessive amount of fat.

The thing about this whole dispute is that you're comparing a diet which places severe limits and requirements on your entire menu, with a single food item that is likely eaten only occasionally, and may be eaten as a part of any other conceivable food philosophy.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 14, 2019, 04:07:00 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.

My impression here, based on the recommendations of all the major medical organizations and every doctor I've ever known, either personally or professionally, is that a diet that prohibits or severely restricts a major class of nutrient, and/or that requires the consumption of a disproportionate amount of any major nutrient, is more likely to be deleterious to health than is any food item eaten in moderation. Thus the LCHF diets, which severely restrict carbs and require the consumption of a large amount of fat, are more likely to cause harm than the occasional consumption of fake hamburgers. I suspect that a diet of 100% fake hamburger would be very unhealthy. I cannot think of a food that will cause no harm when eaten to excess. And half of LCHF is by definition eating an excessive amount of fat.

The thing about this whole dispute is that you're comparing a diet which places severe limits and requirements on your entire menu, with a single food item that is likely eaten only occasionally, and may be eaten as a part of any other conceivable food philosophy.

Agreed.  But the target of the bet is ‘popularity’ not ‘health effects.’  CarbShark is claiming that ketogenic diets will be just as popular in a years time (and isn’t a ‘fad,’ at least not in that time frame), whereas ‘fake’ hamburgers will be less popular (and is a ‘fad’).

We already know that meat-eating has caused deaths.  Bacterial contamination of meat products is rife, and some of the bacterial contaminants are toxic, with resulting deaths reported.  Not to mention mad cow disease.  Meat producers put the onus on consumers to treat the bacterial contamination in such a way as to remove the risk as much as possible.  Surface contamination of cuts of meat isn’t as much of a threat as ground meat for burgers, in which contaminating bacteria get distributed throughout the burger meat.

‘Fake’ burgers by definition are going to be safer than ‘real’ burgers in a microbiological sense. 
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 14, 2019, 04:19:40 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.


The outcomes of both types of bets are entirely deterministic.  The uncertainty in the outcome of a die roll, which we call randomness, is really just lack of information about the initial conditions of the toss.  Likewise, the uncertainty about the number of searches there will be for some product at some date in the future is lack of information about the forces that drive searches for that product.  Thus, at a fundamental level, both types of bets are similar: the uncertainty in their outcomes is fundamentally lack of information.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 14, 2019, 05:11:58 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.


The outcomes of both types of bets are entirely deterministic.  The uncertainty in the outcome of a die roll, which we call randomness, is really just lack of information about the initial conditions of the toss.  Likewise, the uncertainty about the number of searches there will be for some product at some date in the future is lack of information about the forces that drive searches for that product.  Thus, at a fundamental level, both types of bets are similar: the uncertainty in their outcomes is fundamentally lack of information.

Well, there is ‘information.’  We have the previous searches over time.  The bet is about how the information is being interpreted.  You think the trend line will continue, and the number of Google searches will continue to increase.  I think the trend line has already turned, and the number of Google searches will decline.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 14, 2019, 05:13:30 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.


The outcomes of both types of bets are entirely deterministic.  The uncertainty in the outcome of a die roll, which we call randomness, is really just lack of information about the initial conditions of the toss.  Likewise, the uncertainty about the number of searches there will be for some product at some date in the future is lack of information about the forces that drive searches for that product.  Thus, at a fundamental level, both types of bets are similar: the uncertainty in their outcomes is fundamentally lack of information.

Well, there is ‘information.’  We have the previous searches over time.  The bet is about how the information is being interpreted.  You think the trend line will continue, and the number of Google searches will continue to increase.  I think the trend line has already turned, and the number of Google searches will decline.


Yes, of course there is information.  But it is incomplete information, which is why there is uncertainty.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 14, 2019, 06:08:31 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.

My impression here, based on the recommendations of all the major medical organizations and every doctor I've ever known, either personally or professionally, is that a diet that prohibits or severely restricts a major class of nutrient, and/or that requires the consumption of a disproportionate amount of any major nutrient, is more likely to be deleterious to health than is any food item eaten in moderation. Thus the LCHF diets, which severely restrict carbs and require the consumption of a large amount of fat, are more likely to cause harm than the occasional consumption of fake hamburgers. I suspect that a diet of 100% fake hamburger would be very unhealthy. I cannot think of a food that will cause no harm when eaten to excess. And half of LCHF is by definition eating an excessive amount of fat.


You say excessive I say appropriate.
 
Quote
The thing about this whole dispute is that you're comparing a diet which places severe limits and requirements on your entire menu, with a single food item that is likely eaten only occasionally, and may be eaten as a part of any other conceivable food philosophy.

That's a good point, but which is more likely to continue generating Google Searches at the same level a year from now?

I would argue that if the fake burgers are a fad their google search popularity will drop significantly.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 14, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.

My impression here, based on the recommendations of all the major medical organizations and every doctor I've ever known, either personally or professionally, is that a diet that prohibits or severely restricts a major class of nutrient, and/or that requires the consumption of a disproportionate amount of any major nutrient, is more likely to be deleterious to health than is any food item eaten in moderation. Thus the LCHF diets, which severely restrict carbs and require the consumption of a large amount of fat, are more likely to cause harm than the occasional consumption of fake hamburgers. I suspect that a diet of 100% fake hamburger would be very unhealthy. I cannot think of a food that will cause no harm when eaten to excess. And half of LCHF is by definition eating an excessive amount of fat.


You say excessive I say appropriate.
 
Quote
The thing about this whole dispute is that you're comparing a diet which places severe limits and requirements on your entire menu, with a single food item that is likely eaten only occasionally, and may be eaten as a part of any other conceivable food philosophy.

That's a good point, but which is more likely to continue generating Google Searches at the same level a year from now?

I would argue that if the fake burgers are a fad their google search popularity will drop significantly.

I would argue that google searches for ‘fake’ burgers (they’re still ‘burgers,’ just not made out of meat) might drop significantly a year from now, because they will have established their market in consumers.  Anyone who wants to eat them will already be eating them and not needing to do further google searches.

But it’s still a very doubtful proposition that the number of Google searches translates into popularity.  Sometimes it does, but not always.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 14, 2019, 07:59:35 PM
... the target of the bet is ‘popularity’ not ‘health effects.’ 

CarbShark raised a valid point earlier when he pointed out that if one of the products or diets is associated with deaths and that gets reported, the product or diet could drop significantly in popularity while generating a big surge in Google searches. So the searches don't even necessarily indicate popularity.

We already know that meat-eating has caused deaths.  Bacterial contamination of meat products is rife, and some of the bacterial contaminants are toxic, with resulting deaths reported.  Not to mention mad cow disease.

Correct: Meat causes many deaths and other health problems. But to be fair, Carb didn't say that meat has never caused a death, he said that LCHF (?) keto (?) diets hadn't caused a death, and we have no way of knowing whether the people killed by eating meat were on an LCHF/keto diet.

All the major health organizations say that LCHF is unhealthy, but I do not know if there's been any research directly linking it to deaths. I still disagree with his claim, but it's a bit more subtle than the obviously untrue claim that meat has not caused deaths, which is not what he claimed.

Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.


The outcomes of both types of bets are entirely deterministic.  The uncertainty in the outcome of a die roll, which we call randomness, is really just lack of information about the initial conditions of the toss.  Likewise, the uncertainty about the number of searches there will be for some product at some date in the future is lack of information about the forces that drive searches for that product.  Thus, at a fundamental level, both types of bets are similar: the uncertainty in their outcomes is fundamentally lack of information.

Chaos theory disagrees. There are some kinds of interactions that are fundamentally indeterminate. Not just hard to predict for lack of information, but actually unknowable.

And an honest roulette wheel is actually impossible for any real gambler to predict. The only thing that is knowable is that zero and double zero throw the odds into the house's favor. When you play roulette you are playing a game of chance. You are not making use of any information. When you gamble on stocks you are (presumably) using concrete information that you believe tells you what the stock will do.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 14, 2019, 08:12:53 PM
Yes, of course there's chance involved in gambling. But then there's another kind of bet: My X is better than your X. There's some objective way to decide. I'm sure I'm right so I bet. (Not me, personally, since I don't.) Each side is confident it's backing the facts. This is very different from gambling on craps, where (loaded dice aside) you know the outcome is chance. You're taking a risk on an unknown outcome, not backing an outcome you are confident of.

The outcomes of both types of bets are entirely deterministic.  The uncertainty in the outcome of a die roll, which we call randomness, is really just lack of information about the initial conditions of the toss.  Likewise, the uncertainty about the number of searches there will be for some product at some date in the future is lack of information about the forces that drive searches for that product.  Thus, at a fundamental level, both types of bets are similar: the uncertainty in their outcomes is fundamentally lack of information.

Chaos theory disagrees.

Then you don't understand chaos theory.  Chaotic systems are deterministic, but unpredictable.  Furthermore, they are unpredictable precisely because we lack information on their initial conditions (just as I stated above).

Quote
And an honest roulette wheel is actually impossible for any real gambler to predict.

That is false.  Roulette wheels are deterministic systems, a fact which has been exploited to beat them.

Quote
The only thing that is knowable is that zero and double zero throw the odds into the house's favor. When you play roulette you are playing a game of chance. You are not making use of any information. When you gamble on stocks you are (presumably) using concrete information that you believe tells you what the stock will do.

Even for typical roulette players, who don't take the physics into account, your comments above are in agreement with what I said.  There is uncertainty in both the roulette outcome and the future stock price precisely because we lack information (consider the contrapositive: if had complete information, we would know where the ball would land and what the future stock price would be).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 14, 2019, 09:18:33 PM
All the major health organizations say that LCHF is unhealthy, but I do not know if there's been any research directly linking it to deaths.

There is Mazidi et al (2019) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31004146), who found that total, CVD, and cancer mortality increased monotonically as the percentage of carbohydrate in the diet decreased; and Seidelmann et al (2018) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30122560), who found a U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, with mortality increasing monotonically the more the percentage of carbohydrate in the diet diverged from 55%. However, the authors found that low-carbohydrate diets increase mortality only when the diet is high in protein and fat from animal sources.  In contrast, when the protein in and fat in the diet are mainly from plant sources, then mortality continues to decline as carbohydrate is further reduced below 55%.  Thus the culprit in low-carbohydrate diets may not be low levels of carbohydrate per se, but the high levels of fat and protein from animals sources that they are usually associated with.

Carbshark will say that none of the diets included in the above analyses were ketogenic, and therefore their results don't apply to keto diets.  If that is true, then the increase in mortality observed as CHO intake is reduced will reverse itself when CHO intake becomes low enough to induce ketosis.  While the extant data can't rule that out, it does seem unlikely.

Kirkpatrick et al (2019) (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287419302673#bib1) comprehensively review the scientific evidence on low-carbohydrate diets; and with respect to total, CVD, and cancer mortality, conclude, "Long-term consumption of extreme CHO intakes (low and high) has been associated with all-cause, CV, and cancer mortality in the general population [emphasis in the original]."
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 14, 2019, 09:47:29 PM
All the major health organizations say that LCHF is unhealthy, but I do not know if there's been any research directly linking it to deaths.

There is Mazidi et al (2019) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31004146), who found that total, CVD, and cancer mortality increased monotonically with the percentage of carbohydrate in the diet; and Seidelmann et al (2018) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30122560), who found a U-shaped relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, with mortality increasing monotonically the more the percentage of carbohydrate in the diet diverged from 55%.  Carbshark will say that none of the diets included in those analyses were ketogenic, and therefore their results don't apply.  If that is true, then the increase in mortality observed as CHO intake is reduced will reverse itself when CHO intake becomes low enough to induce ketosis.  While the extant data can't rule that out, it does seem unlikely.

Kirkpatrick et al (2019) (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287419302673#bib1) comprehensively review the scientific evidence on low-carbohydrate diets; and with respect to total, CVD, and cancer mortality, conclude, "Long-term consumption of extreme CHO intakes (low and high) has been associated with all-cause, CV, and cancer mortality in the general population [emphasis in the original]."

I didn’t make myself clear what I meant when I noted that meat causes deaths.  CarbShark had noted (correctly) that if ‘fake’ burgers cause 10 deaths in a year’s time, then google searches for it probably will increase, without indicating an increase in popularity.  But food poisoning and deaths due to contaminated hamburger meat goes unnoticed and largely unreported.

The U-shaped curve for mortality with varying levels of carbohydrate intake has now been found in at least 3 studies.  CarbShark still has to find a single study showing  that ketogenic diets lead to lower mortality.  Not one.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 15, 2019, 08:48:10 AM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.

The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.

(FWIW, I do neither.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 15, 2019, 03:50:42 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.

The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.

(FWIW, I do neither.)

Agree with you completely.  Using your analogy of the share market, jt is a ‘chartist:’

https://blog.stocktwits.com/heres-how-a-full-time-chartist-and-technical-analyst-looks-at-the-market-1ce091f90d0a

drawing trend lines on a graph and asserting that they’re going to continue into the future.

I’m more of a fundamentals, wondering what the changes in the numbers of searches actually mean.

But I actually gamble big time in the share market.  A year ago, CSL were $200 a share, after I bought them for an average of $6 a share around 25 years ago (and subsequently they had a 3 for 1 split) and I was seriously overweight in them, and I wondered whether I ought to sell some of them, and pay the capital gains tax.  I didn’t need the money, so I didn’t do anything.  Last week they were up to $270, so so far my ‘gamble’ has paid off (CSL is an Australian company which has become largely international with its revenue largely in US dollars).  The Australian share price also varies according to the exchange rate, not just the fundamentals.

I’m interested in the bet, because I’m interested in how we know things.  I agree that google searches is a poor method of knowing.  Sometimes it provides useful information, usually it doesn’t.  I’ve seen a paper noting that google trends can be used to detect an outbreak of, say, scarlet fever several weeks before aggregation of doctor’s’ notifications will do so, as parents google ‘scarlet fever.’  When their children are diagnosed with it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 15, 2019, 05:07:16 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is, that at a deeper level, both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  What we casually call "randomness" is fundamentally lack of information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

ETA: Indeed, the roulette better knows the expected future value of his bet exactly.  The stock better has only vague information about it.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 15, 2019, 05:17:10 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.

Yes, and I agree with you too.  When we have the results of the bet, then we can debate what it means.  Whether the popularity of ketogenic diets is increasing or decreasing.  I’m hoping that I win the bet to see how CarbShark explains it (though he has an extended time frame to October 2020, in a year’s time, as his original prediction).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 15, 2019, 05:31:59 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.

Everything in life involves uncertainty. But some things are as near random as makes no difference in normal life (or gambling) and some things have strong knowable influences. The fact that even the most knowable things involve some uncertainty does not change the fact that some things are far more knowable than others. You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 15, 2019, 06:08:47 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.

Everything in life involves uncertainty. But some things are as near random as makes no difference in normal life (or gambling) and some things have strong knowable influences. The fact that even the most knowable things involve some uncertainty does not change the fact that some things are far more knowable than others. You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.

I’m pretty certain that the sun is going to rise tomorrow.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 15, 2019, 06:58:45 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.
You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.

Perhaps focus on what I'm actually arguing, rather than on what I "seem to be."
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 15, 2019, 07:38:37 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.
You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.


Perhaps focus on what I'm actually arguing, rather than on what "I seem to bd."

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing. I posted that some kinds of betting is on things that are pure chance while some betting is on things where there's actual information on which to form an educated calculation of likely outcomes, and some people make bets on things they're certain about, and you came back with how there's no such thing as chance because everything is deterministic, which seems completely irrelevant because we don't have all the information, and nobody does, and anyway your thesis that everything is deterministic is not by any means generally accepted.

So I'm left guessing at what you're actually arguing.

I'm arguing that not all betting is equal because different events have different levels of uncertainty.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 15, 2019, 08:41:02 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.
You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.


Perhaps focus on what I'm actually arguing, rather than on what "I seem to bd."

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing. I posted that some kinds of betting is on things that are pure chance while some betting is on things where there's actual information on which to form an educated calculation of likely outcomes, and some people make bets on things they're certain about, and you came back with how there's no such thing as chance because everything is deterministic, which seems completely irrelevant because we don't have all the information, and nobody does, and anyway your thesis that everything is deterministic is not by any means generally accepted.

So I'm left guessing at what you're actually arguing.

I'm arguing that not all betting is equal because different events have different levels of uncertainty.

jt and I are betting on information.  Google searches for the topic of ‘ketogenic diets:’

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m

We’re betting on different results based on our different interpretations of the information.  jt looks at the graph for the past 5 years, and notes that the number of searches has increased over the past 5 years, and that the peak in the first week of January each year is higher than the previous year, and concluded that the next peak in January 2020 will be higher than that for January 2019.

I look at the same information, and notice that the peak in January 2019 is more obviously spike-like.  It increases abruptly, and decreases just as abruptly, and the number of searches has decreased in the subsequent months.  In previous years, the increase in January is smaller, stayed higher, and continued to increase in the subsequent months, from which I surmise that there was something different in late December 2018.  Perhaps someone famous (or at least with a lot of followers on social media) went on a ketogenic diet?  Which augmented the usual increase in searches in the first week of January for diet-related topics (such as New Years Resolutions), which might not repeat for January 2020.  And the subsequent decline suggests to me that interest in ketogenic diets (or at least interest in doing google searches on them) has decreased too.

Even a rough trend line estimation by eye suggests that the peak in January 2020 won’t be as high as that for January 2019.  I think based on the information I’m making a very good bet, and jt is making a very bad bet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 15, 2019, 08:57:00 PM
Perhaps another Google Trends will make it clearer:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F03cg86,%2Fm%2F014j1m,%2Fm%2F023s6n

Searches for ‘apples’ (fruit) and ‘weight loss’ (topic) since 2004 have been relatively constant over the years.  There’s intra-year variation.  Searches for ‘weight loss’ increases in early January each year, but the increase in each year is much the same, albeit there seems to be an overall increase occurring around 2009.  Searches for ‘ketogenic diet’ (topic) weren’t significant till around 2015, but then they took off in a big way.  jt thinks the increase will continue.  I think the increase has stopped, and that they’ll continue to decrease.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 15, 2019, 09:12:14 PM
... Then you don't understand chaos theory. ...

Right back at ya!

But you entirely miss my actual point, which is that a stock speculator is basing his/her bets on information. It might be good information or bad information and it might be incomplete information, but the speculator is betting on what he or she believes the stock will do. The roulette gambler is not basing his or her bet on information. The roulette gambler is just hoping for luck. These are very different kinds of bets.


In fact, I understood your point completely, and you're not wrong.  However, I think you missed my point, which is at a deeper level both the roulette bet and the stock market bet involve uncertainty, which derives from lack of (complete) information.  One could argue mathematically that the roulette better actually has more information about the outcome than the stock better, because the roulette better knows the probability distribution of the bet completely: it's uniform over the set {0, 00; 1,2,...,36}.  In contrast, the stock better knows for certain only that the future stock price will be non-negative, and he has only vague information about its probability distribution.

Quote
The bets above are not even being judged directly on the relevant facts, but only on a proxy of those facts, which everyone agrees may or may not be an accurate proxy. The argument is over the popularity of certain diets and food products, but the bets are to be settled based on internet searches for those diets and foods. Searches may be made because someone supports the thing being searched, or because they oppose the thing, or because they've just heard of it for the first time and want to know what it is. An extremely poor proxy for actual popularity. Thus, though there is actual information involved, it's much closer to gambling on roulette than to speculating on stock.


My bet with Bachfiend was never about popularity.  It is, and always has been, about internet searches.
You seem to be arguing that since there's uncertainty in everything, that there's no difference between gambling at roulette and betting on something you have actual information about.


Perhaps focus on what I'm actually arguing, rather than on what "I seem to bd."

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

That's unfortunate, but there is no point in my reposting it.  You can just as easily reread it.

Quote
I posted that some kinds of betting is on things that are pure chance while some betting is on things where there's actual information on which to form an educated calculation of likely outcomes...

We have information both in the case of a classic gamble, like the outcome of a die role and in the bet between Bachfiend and I.  In the case of a die roll, your information may be that the die has six sides and is completely symmetrical.  Therefore, you conclude that ther outcome will be one of the integers from 1 to 6, each with equal probability.  On the other hand, I know that the guy throwing the die has been practicing for 20 years in a little room with bars on the windows how to control the die such that it has a 50% chance of coming up 6, and the other numbers equally likely.  The die roll is both deterministic, in that how it lands is completely determined by Newtonian equations given initial conditions.  But you and I come to the table with different information, and thus come to different conclusions about the likelihood of the various possible outcomes.  But there is still "randomness" involved for both of us.  But all this "randomness" is lack of knowledge about the initial conditions.  So we see that "randomness" is fundamentally lack of information.  So here we have a situation where two people have different information and come to different conclusions.

Now consider the bet between Bachfiend and me.  We have some information in common: the historical record of searches.  But we have other information that differs.  Based on my background, I see regularity in the data: a years-long exponential increase with ever-increasing seasonal peaks, which I suspect are due to people's New Years resolutions to go on a diet.  I don't have any good reason to think this trend will not continue, so I bet (with not much confidence—it's not the bet I first proposed) that next year's peak will be higher than this year's.  Bachfiend, on the other hand, coming to the bet with whatever background information he has, thinks that the last peak marked the beginning of a decline, and so he takes the other side of the bet.  So here again we have a situation where two people have different information and come to different conclusions.  The outcome of this bet is "random," just like the dice bet, and that "randomness" is exactly due to lack of information. 

Do the bets have different flavors?  Sure.  But at a deeper level, they are unified by both being bets on deterministic events under limited information (where the information of two different betters may be different and lead to different predictions).

Quote
and some people make bets on things they're certain about

Do they?  If so, that has no relevance to the discussion, since there is no certainty about the outcome of either the casino bet or the Google Trends bet.

Quote
...and you came back with how there's no such thing as chance because everything is deterministic...

Perhaps you will reread what I wrote and see that I never said that.

Quote
...we don't have all the information, and nobody does...

Exactly.  That's what every bet has in common.

Quote
and anyway your thesis that everything is deterministic is not by any means generally accepted.

It is generally accepted that everything bigger than a molecule is deterministic.

Quote
I'm arguing that not all betting is equal because different events have different levels of uncertainty.

Sure, but that's a banality.  Even two stock investments have different levels of uncertainty.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 15, 2019, 09:14:40 PM

Even a rough trend line estimation by eye suggests that the peak in January 2020 won’t be as high as that for January 2019.  I think based on the information I’m making a very good bet, and jt is making a very bad bet.


And I think it's almost 50:50, in contrast with the bet I first proposed, in which I thought I had a substantial advantage.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 16, 2019, 10:06:03 AM
...

Clearly, we disagree on all of this. I'll let you have the last word.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on November 16, 2019, 12:37:46 PM
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Well, on some level, I can't really tell if CS actually has a skeptical blind spot, because he sounds like a real weasel in this thread. What exactly is the point of having a double bet on two independent conditions? Then there are four different outcomes. One motivation that I can think of is that you want to set up a wager so that you win on either condition. Or will try to claim a win on a draw condition. But really, I think the whole thing is a red herring. There is no objective index we can use to measure LCHF; presumably, CS is aware of this, and it is telling that rather than propose one, he would rather try to argue that we should use Google Trends as an substitute.

Unlike with beef, when it comes to a properly conducted scientific survey (i.e. random population sample) that gives us some kind of objective data, there is no substitute.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on November 16, 2019, 12:38:24 PM
I feel like its all more or less the same thing with very slight variations.
Their formulations and philosophies are quite different.  IB is (proudly) made from GMO soy protein and flavored with GMO leghemoglobin.  BB (proudly) contains no soy or GMO ingredients.

Yes, this is an important point. The fact that one company is promoting anti-science woo (anti-GMO), whereas Impossible Foods is inherently pro-GMO as part of their business mode: they genetically engineer their soy, so that it produces enough heme. That is the main selling point: the soy protein heme that basically happens to taste like blood, which is a major advancement for imitating the taste of red meat with plant protein.

Yes, it is part of the white noise that Beyond Burger and Impossible Burger are being talked about like they are the same thing, just like Elliot notes on Mr. Robot:

Quote
How do we know if we're in control? That we're not just making the best of what comes at us, and that's it? Trying to constantly pick between two shitty options? Like your two paintings in the waiting room. Or... Coke and Pepsi? McDonald's or Burger King? Hyundai or Honda? Hmm. It's all part of the same blur, right?

That’s the point. I’m saying this new round of pricy fake burgers is a fad that has come and will go.

At some point, with economy of scale, these kind of veggie burgers should quickly cost less than the meat equivalent, further sparking growth of the market. When beef isn't cheap anymore, people might switch to these overnight as a fast food option. Who knows? Now that's a real intersting one: how long until veggie burgers are on the value menu, and beef is kicked off.

Now, if I thought CS was arguing in good faith, I could press him: it sounds like he is arguing the fad part is that they cost more than regular beef, which seems silly. Maybe, it indicates his values, that he can't comprehend that, despite the marketing, they are not strictly a beef substitute.

Some actually interesting wager ideas:

heme or soy with no heme, or something else
GMO vs anti-GMO sentiments - this can apply to BB vs Impossible, but also newer and smaller companies in the market. Remember, other than Impossible Foods, all strains of GMO soy in the US are herbicide resistant strains made by Monsanto. The fact that most people are brainless morons means we can guarantee that they will misapply the sentiment.
Which newcomer company will be #3
price parity - economy of scale is the only reason they cost more than beef patties. This is a positive feedback loop, since the lower the price gets, the more people will swarm to them
veggie burgers replacing beef burgers on the value menu
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 16, 2019, 02:04:51 PM
...

Clearly, we disagree on all of this. I'll let you have the last word.


Actually, I don't disagree with you.  I just think you're missing the bigger picture.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 16, 2019, 02:25:38 PM
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Well, on some level, I can't really tell if CS actually has a skeptical blind spot, because he sounds like a real weasel in this thread. What exactly is the point of having a double bet on two independent conditions? Then there are four different outcomes. One motivation that I can think of is that you want to set up a wager so that you win on either condition. Or will try to claim a win on a draw condition. But really, I think the whole thing is a red herring. There is no objective index we can use to measure LCHF; presumably, CS is aware of this, and it is telling that rather than propose one, he would rather try to argue that we should use Google Trends as an substitute.

Unlike with beef, when it comes to a properly conducted scientific survey (i.e. random population sample) that gives us some kind of objective data, there is no substitute.

You’ve made some very good points in your last two comments, so I’ll do them together in one.

No one knows how popular ketogenic diets are.  I’ve asked CarbShark, but he hasn’t responded.  Is it 1%?  5% of the American population?  Without knowing the percentage now, it’s impossible to know how popular it is in a year’s time.

CarbShark also raised the scenario that if Beyond Burger 2.0 causes the death of 10 people in October of next year, its google searches will increase, and he’ll lose the bet despite them becoming less popular.  But regular meat-containing burgers are already known to cause illness, even death, due to bacterial contamination, which is hardly reported let alone noticed.  I could equally raise the more likely scenario of a hamburger bacterial contamination scare in October 2020, making Beyond Burger more popular, despite no change in google searches.

Just in the way they’re made, ‘fake’ burgers are safer than ‘real’ burgers microbiologically.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 16, 2019, 02:34:51 PM
On a related subject, while I feel that beans with whole grains are a better tasting and more nutritional alternative to meat than are the fake hamburgers, I find the notion of crickets interesting. Supposedly they convert plant protein to animal protein much more efficiently than cows or pigs or even chickens, yet cricket powder is astronomically expensive. I bought a cricket bar for kicks and giggles, but after a lot of searching (and it wasn't easy!) I finally learned that the amount of cricket in the bar was minuscule. The packaging made a big deal out of the cricket, and loudly touted the amount of protein, but it turned out that almost all the protein in the bar was from grains and legumes. A pound of cricket powder on Amazon costs $34 (free shipping if you're a Prime member). The cricket bars boast of their protein content, but of the first three that showed up on the search, only one admitted in the product description that it's plant-based protein "boosted with cricket powder."

The one I tried, which had so little cricket powder as to be as near zero as makes no difference, tasted terrible.

Cricket burgers anyone?

Guess I'll stick to the good old standards: beans, grains, tofu.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on November 16, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
"$34 (free shipping if you're a Prime member)"

It's free shipping if you're not a Prime member because it's more than $25. Also, it's not really free.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 16, 2019, 03:26:15 PM
On a related subject, while I feel that beans with whole grains are a better tasting and more nutritional alternative to meat than are the fake hamburgers, I find the notion of crickets interesting. Supposedly they convert plant protein to animal protein much more efficiently than cows or pigs or even chickens, yet cricket powder is astronomically expensive. I bought a cricket bar for kicks and giggles, but after a lot of searching (and it wasn't easy!) I finally learned that the amount of cricket in the bar was minuscule. The packaging made a big deal out of the cricket, and loudly touted the amount of protein, but it turned out that almost all the protein in the bar was from grains and legumes. A pound of cricket powder on Amazon costs $34 (free shipping if you're a Prime member). The cricket bars boast of their protein content, but of the first three that showed up on the search, only one admitted in the product description that it's plant-based protein "boosted with cricket powder."

The one I tried, which had so little cricket powder as to be as near zero as makes no difference, tasted terrible.

Cricket burgers anyone?

Guess I'll stick to the good old standards: beans, grains, tofu.

I would have thought with your liking for Mexican cuisine, you would already be eating grasshoppers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapulines

They’re not vegetarian food, but they are vegetarian.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 16, 2019, 07:15:46 PM
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Well, on some level, I can't really tell if CS actually has a skeptical blind spot, because he sounds like a real weasel in this thread. What exactly is the point of having a double bet on two independent conditions? Then there are four different outcomes. One motivation that I can think of is that you want to set up a wager so that you win on either condition. Or will try to claim a win on a draw condition. But really, I think the whole thing is a red herring. There is no objective index we can use to measure LCHF; presumably, CS is aware of this, and it is telling that rather than propose one, he would rather try to argue that we should use Google Trends as an substitute.

Unlike with beef, when it comes to a properly conducted scientific survey (i.e. random population sample) that gives us some kind of objective data, there is no substitute.

The reason that's the bet I want to make is that LC diets have been dismissed as a Fad here since I started posting, by many of the same people who now think these fake burgers are a sea change and are the first nail in the coffin for meat.

Well, I'm saying no. One year from now (or whenever the bet is made) interest LC diets (keto; ketogenic; Atkins; LCHF; etc.) will be going strong, while interest in the fake burgers (Beyond; Impossible; any others that hit the market) will have faded significantly.

If both are going strong, I lose.
If keto drops and fake meat is going strong, I lose
If keto is going strong and fake meat drops I win.
If both drop, push.

So of the four possible outcomes, there are two by which I would lose and only one which I would win.

And that makes me weasily?

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on November 16, 2019, 07:55:04 PM
We don't have a survey of dietary behaviors that gives a direct indication of adherence to an LCHF diet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 16, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
I’m more interested in the double  bet: keto remains popular and fake meat fades

Well, on some level, I can't really tell if CS actually has a skeptical blind spot, because he sounds like a real weasel in this thread. What exactly is the point of having a double bet on two independent conditions? Then there are four different outcomes. One motivation that I can think of is that you want to set up a wager so that you win on either condition. Or will try to claim a win on a draw condition. But really, I think the whole thing is a red herring. There is no objective index we can use to measure LCHF; presumably, CS is aware of this, and it is telling that rather than propose one, he would rather try to argue that we should use Google Trends as an substitute.

Unlike with beef, when it comes to a properly conducted scientific survey (i.e. random population sample) that gives us some kind of objective data, there is no substitute.

The reason that's the bet I want to make is that LC diets have been dismissed as a Fad here since I started posting, by many of the same people who now think these fake burgers are a sea change and are the first nail in the coffin for meat.

Well, I'm saying no. One year from now (or whenever the bet is made) interest LC diets (keto; ketogenic; Atkins; LCHF; etc.) will be going strong, while interest in the fake burgers (Beyond; Impossible; any others that hit the market) will have faded significantly.

If both are going strong, I lose.
If keto drops and fake meat is going strong, I lose
If keto is going strong and fake meat drops I win.
If both drop, push.

So of the four possible outcomes, there are two by which I would lose and only one which I would win.

And that makes me weasily?

How popular are low carbohydrate diets anyway?  I’ve asked you repeatedly to provide a figure.  Unless you know, and have a way of knowing, then it’s impossible to know whether it’s becoming more or less popular, or whether it’s a fad (and fads don’t need to disappear over the short term of several years).

‘Fake’ burgers have been around for years, acquiring a niche market.  Beyond Burger 2:0 might fail, but there are other similar products on the market.  It’s more hype than a sea change.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 16, 2019, 09:16:13 PM
"$34 (free shipping if you're a Prime member)"

It's free shipping if you're not a Prime member because it's more than $25. Also, it's not really free.

Okay, I should have said "Shipping included," meaning that $34 is the full price before tax.

I would have thought with your liking for Mexican cuisine, you would already be eating grasshoppers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapulines

They’re not vegetarian food, but they are vegetarian.

I've actually never heard of this. But I was only in Oaxaca for a month out of my 4 1/2 years in Mexico. And now that I've read the article, I'll pass on the leaded grasshoppers. And I doubt I'd be able to get them in Maui anyway.

Several decades ago, there was a prize offered in Canada for anyone who could develop a practical grasshopper harvester. It would have to be able to gather up grasshoppers from farm fields without excessive damage to the crops. I don't think anything ever came of it.

... fake burgers ...

How about we adopt more accurate language. Beyond, Impossible, Boca, and the others are not fake burgers. They are plant-based burgers. A hamburger is generally understood to be beef, so these products are fake hamburgers because they're intended to taste like beef.

"Fad" seems to be a fuzzy word used when somebody wants to dismiss something. But you can't really know if something is a fad until after it's faded away. People have been eating meatless burgers for decades. If there's a spike in consumption because of a couple of new products, and if those products flop and consumption returns to its previous level, were meatless burgers a fad? Meatless burgers have been around far longer than the Atkins diet, which I think was the first LCHF diet. The people who have been eating Boca burgers for forty years are not going to stop eating meatless burgers even if Beyond and Impossible fail to succeed. What's more likely is that a lot of people will try out the new products, some of them will like it and continue to eat it, and some will not like it and will quit, leaving the overall meatless burger market a bit (or maybe a lot) larger than it was before these two new products became available.

In Mexico, a lot of people who eat meat, eat fake meat occasionally, and there are a lot of vegetarian restaurants there that, when I was there, were serving the older fake meat products, and which may start serving the new products now. If restaurants can get the products in a form that allows them to cook them in a Mexican fashion, they will certainly be popular there among the same people eating the older versions now. If all they can buy are frozen patties for cooking up as burgers, it will be a harder sell in Mexico. But in any case, this is an example of a largely meat-eating society that nevertheless eats a lot of fake meat as well. I had a Mexican friend who ate meat and who liked the vegetarian restaurants. And those restaurants do a land-office business. I never saw one that was not crowded. Personally, the stuff tasted too much like meat for me, and I preferred a restaurant where I could get beans, rice, tortillas, possibly nopales, and hot sauce. Which was about half of all the restaurants there, since the other half used lard in the beans and/or chicken broth in the rice.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 17, 2019, 11:12:46 PM
"$34 (free shipping if you're a Prime member)"

It's free shipping if you're not a Prime member because it's more than $25. Also, it's not really free.

Okay, I should have said "Shipping included," meaning that $34 is the full price before tax.

I would have thought with your liking for Mexican cuisine, you would already be eating grasshoppers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapulines

They’re not vegetarian food, but they are vegetarian.

I've actually never heard of this. But I was only in Oaxaca for a month out of my 4 1/2 years in Mexico. And now that I've read the article, I'll pass on the leaded grasshoppers. And I doubt I'd be able to get them in Maui anyway.

Several decades ago, there was a prize offered in Canada for anyone who could develop a practical grasshopper harvester. It would have to be able to gather up grasshoppers from farm fields without excessive damage to the crops. I don't think anything ever came of it.

... fake burgers ...

How about we adopt more accurate language. Beyond, Impossible, Boca, and the others are not fake burgers. They are plant-based burgers. A hamburger is generally understood to be beef, so these products are fake hamburgers because they're intended to taste like beef.

"Fad" seems to be a fuzzy word used when somebody wants to dismiss something. But you can't really know if something is a fad until after it's faded away. People have been eating meatless burgers for decades. If there's a spike in consumption because of a couple of new products, and if those products flop and consumption returns to its previous level, were meatless burgers a fad? Meatless burgers have been around far longer than the Atkins diet, which I think was the first LCHF diet. The people who have been eating Boca burgers for forty years are not going to stop eating meatless burgers even if Beyond and Impossible fail to succeed. What's more likely is that a lot of people will try out the new products, some of them will like it and continue to eat it, and some will not like it and will quit, leaving the overall meatless burger market a bit (or maybe a lot) larger than it was before these two new products became available.

In Mexico, a lot of people who eat meat, eat fake meat occasionally, and there are a lot of vegetarian restaurants there that, when I was there, were serving the older fake meat products, and which may start serving the new products now. If restaurants can get the products in a form that allows them to cook them in a Mexican fashion, they will certainly be popular there among the same people eating the older versions now. If all they can buy are frozen patties for cooking up as burgers, it will be a harder sell in Mexico. But in any case, this is an example of a largely meat-eating society that nevertheless eats a lot of fake meat as well. I had a Mexican friend who ate meat and who liked the vegetarian restaurants. And those restaurants do a land-office business. I never saw one that was not crowded. Personally, the stuff tasted too much like meat for me, and I preferred a restaurant where I could get beans, rice, tortillas, possibly nopales, and hot sauce. Which was about half of all the restaurants there, since the other half used lard in the beans and/or chicken broth in the rice.

I like the Mirriam-Webster definition of ‘fad:’

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fad

A practice or interest followed for a time with excessive interest.  ‘A time’ isn’t defined, it could be short or long.  The practice or interest may be more or less true, but it’s a fad if it’s excessive.  Beyond Burger would be a fad to some consumers if it was the sole or main dietary ingredient instead of being part of a balanced diet.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on November 18, 2019, 07:03:50 AM
JFC.  Take it to a new thread please.  Pages and pages of semantics has wrecked this thread as a source for info for those who are interested in plant based meat alternatives.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 18, 2019, 09:50:39 AM
I like the Mirriam-Webster definition of ‘fad:’

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fad

A practice or interest followed for a time with excessive interest.  ‘A time’ isn’t defined, it could be short or long.  The practice or interest may be more or less true, but it’s a fad if it’s excessive.  Beyond Burger would be a fad to some consumers if it was the sole or main dietary ingredient instead of being part of a balanced diet.

Neither "a time" nor "excessive interest" is defined, so a fad is a subjective concept. That said, I don't think any significant number of people are eating BB or IB (or Boca) with "excessive interest," though a few may be (depending on one's outlook) "excessively" interested in the concept of fake meat that tastes more like meat than the older varieties. A friend of mine just told me he's switched from meat to fake meat, but it is (and meat was) a small part of his balanced diet.

OTOH, we see people whose zeal regarding LCHF seems pretty much all-consuming. ;D That might be regarded as excessive interest.

I suspect that LCHF diets and fake meats are here to stay. The former because of widespread public misunderstanding of how the body works, and the latter because of a small but significant number of people who are appalled by the cruelty and/or the environmental impact of the meat industry, and the more these products taste like meat the more people will buy them. (As I've noted elsewhere, there were fake meat products available when I quit eating meat for ethical reasons 52 years ago, and I made an intentional decision, after much pondering the issue, not to use them because I thought that weaning myself of the taste of meat was preferable to always wanting it and knowing I was always getting "second-best." Because of that choice I gradually lost the desire to eat meat, and now I enjoy eating beans as much as I ever enjoyed eating meat. The down side is that now, if I'm around people who are eating meat, it nauseates me.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 18, 2019, 03:22:31 PM
Been looking at vegetarian meat substitutes, but some of them are ridiculously expensive. As an example, a 10-pack of turkey and chicken meat hotdog sausages is 33 NOK, and then there's 4-pack of vegetarian ones for 40 NOK. No 10-packs.

The cheapest non-meat was another type of burger, which they've now sold out of since I bought two packs in the previous two weeks, so I guess they haven't been selling a lot of them. 55 NOK for 4 burgers, vs. the "Beyond Burger" 2 burgers for 80 NOK. More than three times as expensive by weight, vs. both the other veggie burgers and beef burgers.

I hope the market picks up and the prices drop along with an increasing range of products.

I've said this before, but I really believe the road to vegetarianism is not through fake meat. It's through normal vegetable foods. Instead of fake-meat burgers, try meatless chili beans with 100% whole-grain bread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 18, 2019, 04:06:00 PM
Beans, beans, the musical fruit.
The more you eat the more you toot.
The more you toot the better you feel,
So let's have beans at every meal!

;D

FWIW, I farted just as much when I ate meat and never ate beans as I fart now that I do eat beans. (Though not at every meal.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on November 18, 2019, 04:19:40 PM
... now that I do eat beans. (Though not at every meal.)

Do you like pigeon peas?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 18, 2019, 04:22:49 PM
JFC.  Take it to a new thread please.  Pages and pages of semantics has wrecked this thread as a source for info for those who are interested in plant based meat alternatives.

I’m a vegetarian, and part of the ‘natural’ market for plant based meat alternatives.  As Daniel has noted many times, they’ve been around for many years.  I’ve looked at them, and decided to avoid them.  My rule of thumb is to think twice before buying any food product with more than 5 ingredients, and plant based meat alternatives contain many.  The ones I have looked at contain coconut oil, which is high in saturated oil, which should be limited in a healthy diet to less than 10% of calories (about 20 grams in a 2000 kcal/diet), which isn’t much.

The best diet and nutrition strategy is to mainly cook at home from single ingredients, to make balanced meals.  And avoid as much as possible eating in restaurants, fast food and otherwise, and eating heavily processed food ingredients and meals.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on November 18, 2019, 07:31:02 PM
JFC.  Take it to a new thread please.  Pages and pages of semantics has wrecked this thread as a source for info for those who are interested in plant based meat alternatives.

Too late. This thread hasn't been about that for weeks now.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 18, 2019, 07:35:20 PM
... now that I do eat beans. (Though not at every meal.)

Do you like pigeon peas?

Never heard of them. Is that a euphemism for bird shit? I mostly eat black beans, navy beans, and kidney beans. I eat tofu which is a soy product, but I don't eat soy beans themselves. Several decades ago I made bean patties out of soybeans, but it's been over three decades since I did that. Soy has more lysine than other beans, but also more fat and less flavor.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on November 20, 2019, 11:54:21 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/burger-king-impossible-burger-lawsuit-trnd/index.html

Quote
A man is suing Burger King because the meatless Impossible Whopper is cooked on the same grill as meat products, the lawsuit alleges.

The class action lawsuit, filed Monday in the Southern District of Florida, claims that although the burger chain advertises its vegan option as meat-free, it is contaminated by meat by-product because it's cooked on the same grill as meat products.
The suit accuses Burger King of false advertising and benefiting monetarily from offering a vegan option that is not in fact vegan.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on November 20, 2019, 12:02:20 PM
... now that I do eat beans. (Though not at every meal.)

Do you like pigeon peas?

Never heard of them. Is that a euphemism for bird shit? I mostly eat black beans, navy beans, and kidney beans. I eat tofu which is a soy product, but I don't eat soy beans themselves. Several decades ago I made bean patties out of soybeans, but it's been over three decades since I did that. Soy has more lysine than other beans, but also more fat and less flavor.

pigeon peas are good, they are in "rice and peas" a Jamaican/West indies dish

https://www.goya.com/en/recipes/rice-with-pigeon-peas-and-coconut

i'm sure you could substitute vegan stock for the chicken

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 20, 2019, 04:27:11 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/burger-king-impossible-burger-lawsuit-trnd/index.html

Quote
A man is suing Burger King because the meatless Impossible Whopper is cooked on the same grill as meat products, the lawsuit alleges.

The class action lawsuit, filed Monday in the Southern District of Florida, claims that although the burger chain advertises its vegan option as meat-free, it is contaminated by meat by-product because it's cooked on the same grill as meat products.
The suit accuses Burger King of false advertising and benefiting monetarily from offering a vegan option that is not in fact vegan.

I think the issue would be whether or not they scrub the grill before cooking the meatless burger. I went to a Mongolian grill once. They scrubbed the grill thoroughly before cooking my food. I never went back, but I consider that they took reasonable measures to keep my food meat-free.

As for Burger King, I would assume they're using the same grill and would make inquiries about the cleaning of it if I ever lost my mind and thought I'd want to eat something there. (When I do eat in a restaurant I prefer locally-owned-and-operated one-of-a-kind restaurants over chains or franchises.)

... now that I do eat beans. (Though not at every meal.)

Do you like pigeon peas?

Never heard of them. Is that a euphemism for bird shit? I mostly eat black beans, navy beans, and kidney beans. I eat tofu which is a soy product, but I don't eat soy beans themselves. Several decades ago I made bean patties out of soybeans, but it's been over three decades since I did that. Soy has more lysine than other beans, but also more fat and less flavor.

pigeon peas are good, they are in "rice and peas" a Jamaican/West indies dish

https://www.goya.com/en/recipes/rice-with-pigeon-peas-and-coconut

i'm sure you could substitute vegan stock for the chicken

Looks interesting. I don't recall ever seeing pigeon peas in the store. I'd eat them if they were served to me in a meatless dish, but I probably wouldn't go to any great lengths to search them out. I do eat green sweet peas from time to time. The description in your link says they have a grainy consistency, so maybe they're more like a cooked dried pea?

My split pea soup turned out good, but I need to work on the seasonings a bit, as I think it could have been better.
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 20, 2019, 04:36:44 PM
I think the issue is that they represented the meal as vegan.

When I cook for my vegan friends I always use separate pans or clean the grill in between.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on November 20, 2019, 04:41:12 PM
I don't think they did represent it as vegan.  It didn't say it anywhere on their signs here.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 20, 2019, 04:45:04 PM
The suit says they did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 20, 2019, 05:10:13 PM
The suit says they did


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Burger King website states there’s a non-broiler meat-free option, so it doesn’t seem as though it’s suitable for strict vegetarians or vegans.  Whether they advise sufficiently at the point of sale is the critical question.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Captain Video on November 20, 2019, 05:19:10 PM
Burger King uses a conveyor belt driven gas broiler, it would be impossible to "clean" it in the same way you might on a flat top or char grill.  I read the same thing Bachfiend did, you have to ask for them to be cooked a different way, that is not advertised anywhere in the restaurant where I have seen.

I'm surprised this has not come up before, they cook pork sausage patties in the same broiler in the mornings as the beef burgers. If that got out in the media I wonder how many people from urban areas would stop eating there. A large portion of African Americans, at least my customers will not eat pork and are particular to pork being cooked in the same space as beef or chicken.

I also make sure that the beyond sausage I make for customers is on a well scraped and freshly cleaned section of the grill, its still the same grill though.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 20, 2019, 05:34:09 PM
Burger King uses a conveyor belt driven gas broiler, it would be impossible to "clean" it in the same way you might on a flat top or char grill.  I read the same thing Bachfiend did, you have to ask for them to be cooked a different way, that is not advertised anywhere in the restaurant where I have seen.

I'm surprised this has not come up before, they cook pork sausage patties in the same broiler in the mornings as the beef burgers. If that got out in the media I wonder how many people from urban areas would stop eating there. A large portion of African Americans, at least my customers will not eat pork and are particular to pork being cooked in the same space as beef or chicken.

I also make sure that the beyond sausage I make for customers is on a well scraped and freshly cleaned section of the grill, its still the same grill though.

Yes, they seem to be wanting to cater for ‘carnivorous flexitarians’ who want to reduce their meat intake.

As a vegetarian, I wouldn’t object to a meat-free burger being cooked on the same grill (but I wouldn’t eat the meat-free burgers I’ve seen in the shops for health reasons - they’re too high in saturated fats).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 20, 2019, 05:48:33 PM
Burger King uses a conveyor belt driven gas broiler, it would be impossible to "clean" it in the same way you might on a flat top or char grill.  I read the same thing Bachfiend did, you have to ask for them to be cooked a different way, that is not advertised anywhere in the restaurant where I have seen.

I'm surprised this has not come up before, they cook pork sausage patties in the same broiler in the mornings as the beef burgers. If that got out in the media I wonder how many people from urban areas would stop eating there. A large portion of African Americans, at least my customers will not eat pork and are particular to pork being cooked in the same space as beef or chicken.

I also make sure that the beyond sausage I make for customers is on a well scraped and freshly cleaned section of the grill, its still the same grill though.

Yes, they seem to be wanting to cater for ‘carnivorous flexitarians’ who want to reduce their meat intake.

As a vegetarian, I wouldn’t object to a meat-free burger being cooked on the same grill (but I wouldn’t eat the meat-free burgers I’ve seen in the shops for health reasons - they’re too high in saturated fats).


Great word!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on November 20, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
A lot of vegetarian friends of mine are also opportunarians and will eat meat if it was prepared not specifically for them and would potentially go to waste if uneaten. If there's a plate of burgers or chicken at a cookout for everyone. I subscribe to a meat free diet, but I see the sense and value in not creating more of a demand, but also helping to reduce waste. It also helps when you're broke.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 20, 2019, 06:49:20 PM
Burger King uses a conveyor belt driven gas broiler, it would be impossible to "clean" it in the same way you might on a flat top or char grill.  I read the same thing Bachfiend did, you have to ask for them to be cooked a different way, that is not advertised anywhere in the restaurant where I have seen.

I'm surprised this has not come up before, they cook pork sausage patties in the same broiler in the mornings as the beef burgers. If that got out in the media I wonder how many people from urban areas would stop eating there. A large portion of African Americans, at least my customers will not eat pork and are particular to pork being cooked in the same space as beef or chicken.

I also make sure that the beyond sausage I make for customers is on a well scraped and freshly cleaned section of the grill, its still the same grill though.

Yes, they seem to be wanting to cater for ‘carnivorous flexitarians’ who want to reduce their meat intake.

As a vegetarian, I wouldn’t object to a meat-free burger being cooked on the same grill (but I wouldn’t eat the meat-free burgers I’ve seen in the shops for health reasons - they’re too high in saturated fats).


Great word!

It was used in one of the links.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 20, 2019, 06:50:45 PM
A lot of vegetarian friends of mine are also opportunarians and will eat meat if it was prepared not specifically for them and would potentially go to waste if uneaten. If there's a plate of burgers or chicken at a cookout for everyone. I subscribe to a meat free diet, but I see the sense and value in not creating more of a demand, but also helping to reduce waste. It also helps when you're broke.  :laugh:
Vegetarians, sure, some, But That doesn’t sound like any of the vegans I know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on November 20, 2019, 07:01:53 PM
A lot of vegetarian friends of mine are also opportunarians and will eat meat if it was prepared not specifically for them and would potentially go to waste if uneaten. If there's a plate of burgers or chicken at a cookout for everyone. I subscribe to a meat free diet, but I see the sense and value in not creating more of a demand, but also helping to reduce waste. It also helps when you're broke.  :laugh:
Vegetarians, sure, some, But That doesn’t sound like any of the vegans I know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's neither here nor there, but I did know someone who was vegan, unless in that situation, or if he was dumpster diving (which is just radical opportunarian anyway).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 20, 2019, 07:48:51 PM
I don't fault anyone for being "opportunarian": Eating vegetarian or vegan generally and eating meat when it would otherwise go to waste. Especially if they're hard up for cash. But I could not do it myself. I just find it too repulsive. Like eating worms. I have no ethical objection to eating worms, but I find them too disgusting. I would not eat dumpstered meat for that reason, even though I have no ethical objection to it.

I spent a weekend once at a place where all the food was dumpstered. But it was also all vegetarian. It was a big gathering of social-justice-type activists. The food was all very good.

Long story

I actually was not aware at the time that the food had been dumpstered. Then, on the way home afterwards I stopped at the home of one of the organizers, who I will call C. Several people from the weekend gathering were there, and one of them had brought a watermelon, which he announced had been dumpstered. I said, "Cool! I've never had dumpstered food before." C said to me, "Yes, you have." Now, I knew C to be a very sharp person, and if she said that I'd eaten dumpstered food then it had to be true, but she didn't know me well enough to know all my eating habits. So I didn't contradict her, but I said "What?" And she said "Did you eat anything this weekend?" That was when I learned that everything served during the entire event had all been dumpstered. By a catholic priest, no less. I won't mention his name because he has some small degree of renown in certain circles.

[close]
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 20, 2019, 09:25:35 PM
Despite being a vegetarian, I would eat meat, if there was nothing else available, and I was starving, perhaps not haven eaten for a week or two.

But I can go for a day or two without difficulty or feeling the need to eat, let alone eat meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Friendly Angel on November 22, 2019, 02:32:44 PM
My wife's vegan networks have tips like asking for your veggie burger to be microwaved instead of grilled so it never touches anything that touches meat.  That wouldn't work with BeyondMeat but it works fine for Grillers.

My wife got a regular hamburger by mistake at a family restaurant once - it was the waitress's fault but she still groused when it got sent back.  Then when she returned, the veggie burger was on the same bun as before so wife sent it back again... that's where she and I split - I would've eaten the bun that had touched meat.

I get a lot of grief for not giving up cheese and eggs, but I'm satisfied with the minimal amount of animal suffering I contribute to.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on November 22, 2019, 03:06:06 PM
My wife got a regular hamburger by mistake at a family restaurant once - it was the waitress's fault but she still groused when it got sent back.  Then when she returned, the veggie burger was on the same bun as before so wife sent it back again... that's where she and I split - I would've eaten the bun that had touched meat.

Probably sputum on that burger at some point in this type of conflict.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 22, 2019, 03:44:08 PM
My wife's vegan networks have tips like asking for your veggie burger to be microwaved instead of grilled so it never touches anything that touches meat.  That wouldn't work with BeyondMeat but it works fine for Grillers.

My wife got a regular hamburger by mistake at a family restaurant once - it was the waitress's fault but she still groused when it got sent back.  Then when she returned, the veggie burger was on the same bun as before so wife sent it back again... that's where she and I split - I would've eaten the bun that had touched meat.

I get a lot of grief for not giving up cheese and eggs, but I'm satisfied with the minimal amount of animal suffering I contribute to.

One of the many reasons why I don’t eat at restaurants.  I want to know what I’m eating.  When I’m travelling, I buy ingredients at supermarkets (such as bread, fruit, yoghurt and milk), and consume that for calories.  It might be an ‘unbalanced’ diet, but that’s OK for short periods of time.  And I know I’m not getting excessive saturated fats, sugars and salt.

In the hypothetical case that I was in the same situation I would have given the waitress a 1 cent tip. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 22, 2019, 06:01:48 PM
My wife's vegan networks have tips like asking for your veggie burger to be microwaved instead of grilled so it never touches anything that touches meat.  That wouldn't work with BeyondMeat but it works fine for Grillers.

My wife got a regular hamburger by mistake at a family restaurant once - it was the waitress's fault but she still groused when it got sent back.  Then when she returned, the veggie burger was on the same bun as before so wife sent it back again... that's where she and I split - I would've eaten the bun that had touched meat.

I get a lot of grief for not giving up cheese and eggs, but I'm satisfied with the minimal amount of animal suffering I contribute to.

I won't knowingly eat anything that has touched meat. But since it's not possible to know what goes on in a restaurant kitchen, I try to ask the right questions, and accept their answers. But a situation like the above is unlikely to happen to me since I seldom eat in restaurants, and never order fake meat since I tried it in Mexico.

If I was served meat after asking for non-meat, I would not have waited for a replacement. I'd have left the restaurant. Or if I was with friends and could not leave, I'd have sent the food back and told them not to bring me anything else. I'd have been polite about it, but firm in eating nothing else.

An off-topic story

When I was on the prison bus being transported from the prison at Terre Haute, Indiana to the prison at Sandstone, MN, they gave us a bag lunch consisting of a Bologna sandwich on white bread, an apple, and a juice box (actually flavored sugar water). We were free to move around the bus, so I got up and asked if anyone wanted to trade their apple for my sandwich. There were no takers. So I asked if anybody wanted my sandwich, and one guy put his hand up and I gave it to him. Walking back to my seat, two guys gave me their apples. I declined a third because I had enough.

[close]
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: lonely moa on November 24, 2019, 01:48:28 AM

I won't knowingly eat anything that has touched meat.



I suppose you only eat robotically prepared food.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 24, 2019, 09:57:33 AM

I won't knowingly eat anything that has touched meat.

I suppose you only eat robotically prepared food.

Great way to intentionally misunderstand what I said.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 24, 2019, 03:20:08 PM

I won't knowingly eat anything that has touched meat.



I suppose you only eat robotically prepared food.

It’s probably the best food to eat, if you’re going to eat prepared food or restaurant food.  George Orwell in ‘Down and Out in Paris and London’ described working in upmarket restaurant kitchens where the chef would closely examine the meals before being sent out to the customers, rearranging and examining the food items on the plate with his bare hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_Paris_and_London

I’d prefer the food preparers not to be touching my food with their bare hands, either wearing frequently changed gloves or clean instruments.

And most processed food nowadays is robotically prepared anyway.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 24, 2019, 08:09:06 PM
People touching my food is just not one of the things I worry about.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 24, 2019, 08:29:55 PM
People touching my food is just not one of the things I worry about.

The risk is pretty low.  Most people aren’t ‘Typhoid Mary:’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet (as an aside, I’m bemused that Americans don’t like using the word ‘toilet’).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 25, 2019, 01:44:22 AM
People touching my food is just not one of the things I worry about.

The risk is pretty low.  Most people aren’t ‘Typhoid Mary:’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon)



Typhoid Marys are rare; Norwalk Marys are common.  There are "about 685 million cases of [Norovirus] and 200,000 deaths globally a year[, and it] is common both in the developed and developing world," according to Wikipedia.

Quote
I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet (as an aside, I’m bemused that Americans don’t like using the word ‘toilet’).

You know the old saying: You can lead a food handler to soap and water, but you can't make him wash.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 25, 2019, 01:58:36 AM
Apropos, this sign was posted above every urinal in the men's room of some restaurant in Germany.  It reads, "Where were your hands today?"


(http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/haendewaschen.jpeg)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on November 25, 2019, 08:12:32 AM
I quite enjoy those impossible burgers and impossible sausage (available at Tim Hortons). I actually prefer the taste and texture as compared to a regular burger. I find the more moist. I'm under no illusions they're any healthier. Nothing about the word "burger" is ever a promise to me that it's a healthy dietary item.

I think if we want to move more people off of meat, this is the way to go. Some people, like me, just can't really give up meat. I'm not really sure what's the deal with the huge push back from the vegan community, other than maybe it just puts the word "meat" in the spotlight. I get maybe beef producers are scared. They should be. They are the new coal industry.


Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 25, 2019, 08:28:57 AM
I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet

The problem is, we have no way of knowing if the kitchen staff are washing their hands.

When I first left home I could not afford to eat in a restaurant. Then I quit eating meat and restaurants back then offered nothing vegetarian. After they started offering vegetarian options I could eat out, but I seldom did because by then was in the habit of cooking my own food. And then my cardiologist put me on a low-sodium diet, so once again I cannot eat in restaurants.

Maybe the FSM is trying to protect me. ;D

Apropos, this sign was posted above every urinal in the men's room of some restaurant in Germany.  It reads, "Where were your hands today?"

(http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/haendewaschen.jpeg)

I read or heard somewhere that on average, money is dirtier than toilet seats and bathroom floors.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 25, 2019, 10:32:55 AM
People touching my food is just not one of the things I worry about.

The risk is pretty low.  Most people aren’t ‘Typhoid Mary:’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet (as an aside, I’m bemused that Americans don’t like using the word ‘toilet’).
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.


We visit the room, not the plumbing fixture. We use the fixtures (toilet and then sink, hopefully )



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 25, 2019, 11:04:10 AM
People touching my food is just not one of the things I worry about.

The risk is pretty low.  Most people aren’t ‘Typhoid Mary:’

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet (as an aside, I’m bemused that Americans don’t like using the word ‘toilet’).
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.


We visit the room, not the plumbing fixture. We use the fixtures (toilet and then sink, hopefully )

And when we visit the room to use the fixture, we "take a shit" even though, hopefully, nobody ever takes any shit away from the toilet.

Language has its oddities.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Friendly Angel on November 25, 2019, 11:54:19 AM
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.


Friend of mine was visiting England and was looking for a public restroom.  Saw a stairway leading down to what he thought he was looking for and a gentleman coming up.  He said "Pardon me, is there a men's room down there?"  English guy said ... a little perplexed... "No, but there's a toilet."
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 25, 2019, 12:41:31 PM
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.


Friend of mine was visiting England and was looking for a public restroom.  Saw a stairway leading down to what he thought he was looking for and a gentleman coming up.  He said "Pardon me, is there a men's room down there?"  English guy said ... a little perplexed... "No, but there's a toilet."

On my first trip to England I saw a number of signs on buildings that read: "to let" (not a common phrase in the US) but my fill-in-the-blanks reading kept seeing that as "toilet"
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 25, 2019, 01:06:45 PM
I’d be worried if there weren’t hand washing facilities, and the food preparers weren’t washing their hands often and adequately, particularly after visiting the toilet

The problem is, we have no way of knowing if the kitchen staff are washing their hands.

When I first left home I could not afford to eat in a restaurant. Then I quit eating meat and restaurants back then offered nothing vegetarian. After they started offering vegetarian options I could eat out, but I seldom did because by then was in the habit of cooking my own food. And then my cardiologist put me on a low-sodium diet, so once again I cannot eat in restaurants.

Maybe the FSM is trying to protect me. ;D

Apropos, this sign was posted above every urinal in the men's room of some restaurant in Germany.  It reads, "Where were your hands today?"

(http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/haendewaschen.jpeg)

I read or heard somewhere that on average, money is dirtier than toilet seats and bathroom floors.

What’s money?  Is it that obsolete object replaced by EFTPOS? 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 25, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
What’s money?

It's little green pieces of paper that your friendly neighborhood drug dealer will give you powdered happiness in return for.

It's the $100 bills in vaults all over the world that many governments keep in storage to convince people that their own little green pieces of paper have value.

Here in the U.S. a lot of people still buy groceries with it. A lot of people prefer to get paid in it so they don't have to pay tax.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on November 25, 2019, 07:56:58 PM
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

Not in Australia.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.

Those terms are polite euphemisms devised by people who think that the word "toilet" is dirty or in some way rude. Some more: Water closet; little boy's room; dunny.

We visit the room, not the plumbing fixture. We use the fixtures (toilet and then sink, hopefully )

You might. We go to the toilet. While there, we use the toilet. Then we go to the bathroom, which is where the sink is, and we wash our hands. In public or shared toilets, the sinks are just outside the stalls.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 25, 2019, 08:33:05 PM
Toilet is used to refer to the plumbing fixture. Not the room where it’s installed.

Not in Australia.

The room is a restroom; men’s room/women’s  room; bath room; powder room, etc.

Those terms are polite euphemisms devised by people who think that the word "toilet" is dirty or in some way rude. Some more: Water closet; little boy's room; dunny.

We visit the room, not the plumbing fixture. We use the fixtures (toilet and then sink, hopefully )

You might. We go to the toilet. While there, we use the toilet. Then we go to the bathroom, which is where the sink is, and we wash our hands. In public or shared toilets, the sinks are just outside the stalls.

I remember watching one of Eddie Murphy’ ‘comedies,’ and being bemused by his frequent use of obscene words, and then using the word ‘bathroom’ when he actually wanted the toilet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on November 30, 2019, 07:57:49 AM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet! Between them and making sandwiches with the sausages (lots of ketchup, mustard and onions) i realised last week was 70% meat free (technically vegan I guess) for me and I really enjoyed the food I ate (ymmv). The week before was about 50/50.
I havent noticed much difference in any other aspect of my life. My run times and lifts have improved slightly but I wouldnt be rushing to chalk that up to a few days of eating beans.
It is hard to squeeze 100 or so grams of plant protein into 2000 calories though and still have room for a beer or snack at the end of the day.

Anyway, Im off to fry some eggs.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on November 30, 2019, 05:35:02 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 30, 2019, 06:32:53 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet! Between them and making sandwiches with the sausages (lots of ketchup, mustard and onions) i realised last week was 70% meat free (technically vegan I guess) for me and I really enjoyed the food I ate (ymmv). The week before was about 50/50.
I havent noticed much difference in any other aspect of my life. My run times and lifts have improved slightly but I wouldnt be rushing to chalk that up to a few days of eating beans.
It is hard to squeeze 100 or so grams of plant protein into 2000 calories though and still have room for a beer or snack at the end of the day.

Anyway, Im off to fry some eggs.

If your last week was 70% meat free, does that mean that your diet consisted of 30% meat?  That doesn’t sound particularly ‘technically vegan’ to me.  In fact, it sounds like a fairly typical western diet with too much animal-based meat.

I’m almost a vegan, but I don’t claim to be vegan.  Were it not for the half an egg a day, a little cheese, and the skim milk, I’d be vegan.  Being a vegan is like being pregnant.  Either you are, or you’re not.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on November 30, 2019, 06:41:58 PM
  Being a vegan is like being pregnant.

 8)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 30, 2019, 07:14:15 PM
  Being a vegan is like being pregnant.

 8)

I should have known that someone would take it out of context, omitting the important next sentence. >:(
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 30, 2019, 07:18:25 PM
Wow! I saw that pulled quote as a show of respect. That’s what the sunglasses emoji means, “cool”

But go ahead and take offense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on November 30, 2019, 07:26:32 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
I would love to but its not available here and Im on a budget. I also kinda like the cheap processed burgers that probably arent mostly meat.

Carbshark- No. To clarify- I had meat 2 days last week and eggs 3 days that week. So 70% probably isnt technically accurate but I had 4 days where I consumed no animal products.
The week before it was about 3 days as I had more eggs.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on November 30, 2019, 08:00:13 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
I would love to but its not available here and Im on a budget. I also kinda like the cheap processed burgers that probably arent mostly meat.

Carbshark- No. To clarify- I had meat 2 days last week and eggs 3 days that week. So 70% probably isnt technically accurate but I had 4 days where I consumed no animal products.
The week before it was about 3 days as I had more eggs.


That’s an argument you’re having with bachfiend not me (I got it).

Please don’t confuse me with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on November 30, 2019, 08:02:33 PM
I should have known that someone would take it out
That's what she said!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on November 30, 2019, 08:49:39 PM
Being a vegan is like being pregnant.  Either you are, or you’re not.

Except that vegans will disagree on the details around the edges.

ETA: There's an episode of the really brilliant and hilarious BBC show "Coupling" where Jane claims to be a vegetarian while eating meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on November 30, 2019, 09:11:45 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
I would love to but its not available here and Im on a budget. I also kinda like the cheap processed burgers that probably arent mostly meat.

Carbshark- No. To clarify- I had meat 2 days last week and eggs 3 days that week. So 70% probably isnt technically accurate but I had 4 days where I consumed no animal products.
The week before it was about 3 days as I had more eggs.


That’s an argument you’re having with bachfiend not me (I got it).

Please don’t confuse me with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My personal pronouns are ‘he/him,’ not ‘they/them.’  Using the non-preferred personal pronoun for a specified person is hate speech, according to the forum moderators, and is not allowed.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on November 30, 2019, 10:27:09 PM
My wife got a regular hamburger by mistake at a family restaurant once - it was the waitress's fault but she still groused when it got sent back.  Then when she returned, the veggie burger was on the same bun as before so wife sent it back again... that's where she and I split - I would've eaten the bun that had touched meat.

Probably sputum on that burger at some point in this type of conflict.

https://youtu.be/sjQY19HM0fU


Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 01, 2019, 09:00:00 AM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
I would love to but its not available here and Im on a budget. I also kinda like the cheap processed burgers that probably arent mostly meat.

Carbshark- No. To clarify- I had meat 2 days last week and eggs 3 days that week. So 70% probably isnt technically accurate but I had 4 days where I consumed no animal products.
The week before it was about 3 days as I had more eggs.


That’s an argument you’re having with bachfiend not me (I got it).

Please don’t confuse me with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not an argument but I do apologise. That wasnt at all intentional and wont happen again.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 01, 2019, 02:42:42 PM
Burgers are pretty much my favourite food but I dont like buying beef so these burgers are now a regular part of my diet!


Have you tried Impossible Burger yet?  I think it tastes better than Beyond Burger, at least for "hamburgers."
I would love to but its not available here and Im on a budget. I also kinda like the cheap processed burgers that probably arent mostly meat.

Carbshark- No. To clarify- I had meat 2 days last week and eggs 3 days that week. So 70% probably isnt technically accurate but I had 4 days where I consumed no animal products.
The week before it was about 3 days as I had more eggs.


That’s an argument you’re having with bachfiend not me (I got it).

Please don’t confuse me with them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not an argument but I do apologise. That wasnt at all intentional and wont happen again.

Agreed.  It’s not an argument, but a matter of definitions.  One is either a vegan, or one isn’t.  A diet is either vegan, or it isn’t.  Your diet isn’t vegan, but it’s following at least part of the Dietary Guidelines, which recommends meat-free days.

My diet is almost vegan (all I’d need to do to make it vegan is to drop the half an egg, 30 grams of cheese and the skim milk I drink daily and it would be vegan), but until I do that, I don’t claim to be a vegan, technical or otherwise.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 01, 2019, 03:52:49 PM
[It's] a matter of definitions.  One is either a vegan, or one isn’t.  A diet is either vegan, or it isn’t.

Except that vegans will disagree on the details around the edges.

There is no concise definition of "vegan" that all vegans agree on.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on December 01, 2019, 03:56:21 PM
Do vegans wear leather shoes? Do they step on ants?
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 01, 2019, 04:09:31 PM
I think the point was he is eating as a vegan three or four days a week.

That’s a perfectly acceptable description of ones eating patterns even to the most pedantic. But apparently that’s a problem here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 01, 2019, 04:21:28 PM
I think the point was he is eating as a vegan three days a week.

That’s perfectly acceptable description of ones eating patterns even to the most pedantic. But apparently that’s a problem here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually the point he was making was that, by definition, he’s following the Dietary Guidelines in reducing his consumption of meat and meat products by having meat-free days.  He’s not eating as a vegan.  And we don’t know what he’s eating on his meat and egg-free days anyway.  If he’s eating cheese, or any cheese containing product (such as pizza), or any other dairy containing products, such as milk or yoghurt (even chocolate), then those days aren’t ‘vegan’ either.

BTW - you didn’t misgender Harry Black.  But you deliberately misgendered me, and you still haven’t apologized for it.  I expect an apology, and a promise not to do it again.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 01, 2019, 04:30:12 PM
Do vegans wear leather shoes? Do they step on ants?
So yeah, as carbshark points out I am speaking soley about diet here.
I dont believe there is any inherent advantage in a vegan diet other than lower carbon footprint but Im not sure how much of that is undone with processing burgers and sausages etc.
Its just something I wanted to play around with.

In answer to your question, the vegans I know do not wear clothes or use products that have animal parts as part of the manufacturing process.
They accept that one cannot exist in the world without harming some life and just make reasonable efforts to minimise that. I believe some of them would not be against eating roadkill and meat of that kind in principle.
My brother is a vegetarian in that he doesnt buy meat but will eat it if its presented to him when away from home so as not to be a pain in the ass.

Bachfiend- FWIW (not much) I had no dairy or animal products on my meat free days. I did wear leather shoes.
How that is defined is very uninteresting to me.

We are getting a bit far afield of the burgers though. I am starting to look forward to them more than any other part of my regular weekly diet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 01, 2019, 04:31:37 PM
I think the point was he is eating as a vegan three days a week.

That’s perfectly acceptable description of ones eating patterns even to the most pedantic. But apparently that’s a problem here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually the point he was making was that, by definition, he’s following the Dietary Guidelines in reducing his consumption of meat and meat products by having meat-free days.  He’s not eating as a vegan.  And we don’t know what he’s eating on his meat and egg-free days anyway.  If he’s eating cheese, or any cheese containing product (such as pizza), or any other dairy containing products, such as milk or yoghurt (even chocolate), then those days aren’t ‘vegan’ either.

BTW - you didn’t misgender Harry Black.  But you deliberately misgendered me, and you still haven’t apologized for it.  I expect an apology, and a promise not to do it again.

Making a mockery of misgendering is against the forum rules.  If you think he did it deliberately, report him.  Otherwise pull up your diaper, and get your shit straight.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 01, 2019, 04:59:44 PM
I think the point was he is eating as a vegan three days a week.

That’s perfectly acceptable description of ones eating patterns even to the most pedantic. But apparently that’s a problem here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, actually the point he was making was that, by definition, he’s following the Dietary Guidelines in reducing his consumption of meat and meat products by having meat-free days.  He’s not eating as a vegan.  And we don’t know what he’s eating on his meat and egg-free days anyway.  If he’s eating cheese, or any cheese containing product (such as pizza), or any other dairy containing products, such as milk or yoghurt (even chocolate), then those days aren’t ‘vegan’ either.

BTW - you didn’t misgender Harry Black.  But you deliberately misgendered me, and you still haven’t apologized for it.  I expect an apology, and a promise not to do it again.

Making a mockery of misgendering is against the forum rules.  If you think he did it deliberately, report him.  Otherwise pull up your diaper, and get your shit straight.

I won’t report him, but I do expect an apology and a promise he won’t do it again.  He’s previously claimed that he doesn’t know I’m male (I’ve assured him I am), writing that for all he knows I’m a teenage girl.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 01, 2019, 05:23:34 PM
Quote
I won’t report him, but I do expect an apology and a promise he won’t do it again.

That'll be the day
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 01, 2019, 05:47:03 PM
Quote
I won’t report him, but I do expect an apology and a promise he won’t do it again.

That'll be the day

That does it.  I’m reporting you.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 01, 2019, 05:48:46 PM
[admin]Everyone is advised to knock off the bickering and abide by the forum rules[/admin]
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 01, 2019, 06:08:36 PM
[admin]Everyone is advised to knock off the bickering and abide by the forum rules[/admin]

So what does this mean?  What action are you taking?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 01, 2019, 06:55:48 PM
[admin]Everyone is advised to knock off the bickering and abide by the forum rules[/admin]

So what does this mean?  What action are you taking?
Any actions taken against any individual are discussed with no one but that individual and are not commented upon.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on December 01, 2019, 07:01:38 PM
I had a Beyond taco at Del Taco a few month ago and didn't like it. I tried the Beyond burrito today and it was quite good.
I honestly think my original reaction was only because it's been literally two decades since I've had "taco flavor" on meat and I wasn't into it. Much the same way I'm not into BBQ sauce. It worked for me today though. Still not a huge fan of taco spice flavoring, but it wasn't as overwhelming. It's also nice I can get fast food that doesn't rely on cheese and can provide some protein.
I travel enough between LA and the desert house that eating on the road often becomes a necessity and it's all fast food between here and there...
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 01, 2019, 07:23:27 PM
At one of my hiking lodges, the smallest of the three I went to during my last few years of hiking, they made a vegetarian lasagna using something called Veggie Ground Round. I think it's one of the older soy-based TVP products intended to be a nutritional, rather than a culinary, substitute for meat. I didn't detect any meat flavor in the lasagna, so I liked it a lot. I never attempted to make it at home, though the tofu chocolate pudding recipe I posted way back then came from the same lodge. I looked for the Veggie Ground Round in the store when I got home. I don't remember if they didn't have it, or maybe they did and it had too much sodium, or maybe I just decided I wasn't interested in fake meat. But the lasagna was really good. (I've never had bad lasagna. I've never had lasagna that was not excellent. But it's easier just to make pasta and a tomato sauce with everything that would otherwise go into lasagna.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 01, 2019, 07:42:47 PM
I tried meat substitutes in my chili, but the kids revolted (and quite frankly, they weren't not wrong).  So I switched back to turkey.  I wonder if beyond fauxmeat will cut the mustard.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 01:18:46 AM

The rationale of Beyond Burger is that it’s replacing meat and meat products with a healthier alternative.

It isn’t, going on the nutritional information:

https://www.beyondmeat.com/products/the-beyond-burger/

Click on ‘product detail’ for the breakdown.  It’s high in fat, and also high in saturated fat, which is no wonder since its fourth (out of 18) ingredient is coconut oil, which isn’t a particularly healthy vegetable oil.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: 2397 on December 02, 2019, 04:55:08 AM
Well, they only have 43% the calories per unit of currency that the vegetarian burgers I'm currently buying have. Although they also have 45% of the total mass.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 02, 2019, 09:04:04 AM
The rationale of Beyond Burger is that it’s replacing meat and meat products with a healthier alternative.

No soy. No glutten. Beyond that I don't see claims it's a healthier alternative. Certainly they let people fill in the lines themselves. No one is going to package it as "as bad as a burger but a lower carbon foot print!"

I seriously hope no one who eats something called a burger thinks a meat alternative burger is "healthier". I find them entirely satisfying and actually better than a meat patty. If they are AS unhealthy as a meat patty but have a lower carbon footprint then that's a win.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 02, 2019, 09:11:32 AM
The rationale of Beyond Burger is that it’s replacing meat and meat products with a healthier alternative.

No soy. No glutten. Beyond that I don't see claims it's a healthier alternative. Certainly they let people fill in the lines themselves. No one is going to package it as "as bad as a burger but a lower carbon foot print!"

I seriously hope no one who eats something called a burger thinks a meat alternative burger is "healthier". I find them entirely satisfying and actually better than a meat patty. If they are AS unhealthy as a meat patty but have a lower carbon footprint then that's a win.
I think it depends on whether or not people think regular consumption of beef is 'unhealthy'.
I do think Im probably better off having 4 of these a week than 4 beef burgers as I enter my 40s, though how much better off may be quite negligible.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 02, 2019, 09:53:32 AM
The rationale of Beyond Burger is that it’s replacing meat and meat products with a healthier alternative.

No soy. No glutten. Beyond that I don't see claims it's a healthier alternative. Certainly they let people fill in the lines themselves. No one is going to package it as "as bad as a burger but a lower carbon foot print!"

I seriously hope no one who eats something called a burger thinks a meat alternative burger is "healthier". I find them entirely satisfying and actually better than a meat patty. If they are AS unhealthy as a meat patty but have a lower carbon footprint then that's a win.


Agreed. But now throw in another alternative: Legumes and whole grains without all the coconut oil. Include some onion and some chili peppers to taste and you have a better-tasting alternative to meat that really is healthy. The only things Beyond and Impossible have going for them are lower carbon footprint and no animals are murdered to make them.

I suspect that most of the people who eat these things are motivated by wanting to move away from the cruelty of murdering animals and/or the environmental disaster of the modern meat industry. I suspect that relatively few regard them as healthier. The health crowd switched to beans a long time ago. Obviously there will be exceptions. And some people will try them just to see what they taste like, and some few will prefer the taste.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 02, 2019, 09:56:47 AM
I tried the one at BK just to have tried it.  I expected it to be just as unhealthy as the regular.  I found it basically identical to the original.


If I were going to eat at BK I would probably order it again just to do another small thing for the environment.  For all I know their shipping/farming practices are as bad or worse than factory farming but I doubt it.  I honestly eat at Burger King so rarely that it won't really change my habits at all anyway.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 10:53:19 AM
The rationale of Beyond Burger is that it’s replacing meat and meat products with a healthier alternative.

No soy. No glutten. Beyond that I don't see claims it's a healthier alternative. Certainly they let people fill in the lines themselves. No one is going to package it as "as bad as a burger but a lower carbon foot print!"

I seriously hope no one who eats something called a burger thinks a meat alternative burger is "healthier". I find them entirely satisfying and actually better than a meat patty. If they are AS unhealthy as a meat patty but have a lower carbon footprint then that's a win.


Agreed. But now throw in another alternative: Legumes and whole grains without all the coconut oil. Include some onion and some chili peppers to taste and you have a better-tasting alternative to meat that really is healthy. The only things Beyond and Impossible have going for them are lower carbon footprint and no animals are murdered to make them.

I suspect that most of the people who eat these things are motivated by wanting to move away from the cruelty of murdering animals and/or the environmental disaster of the modern meat industry. I suspect that relatively few regard them as healthier. The health crowd switched to beans a long time ago. Obviously there will be exceptions. And some people will try them just to see what they taste like, and some few will prefer the taste.

I, for one, prefer the taste and texture of the Impossible Burger to any other vegetable-based burger I've ever eaten as well as to turkey burgers.

As to whether it is healthier than hamburger or not, we have a body of evidence showing that red meat consumption is a risk factor for all-cause mortality, cancer, and heart disease.  Some of that risk, but probably not all of it, is likely due to saturated fat, and on that score Impossible and Beyond Burger are no better than hamburger.  IB and BB are also much higher in sodium than hamburger.  On the other hand, we have no studies tying plant-based foods to premature death, cancer or heart disease, and a consistent body of evidence showing, basically, that the more plant based your diet is, the better off you are.  I think the smart money is on the Impossible and Beyond Burgers.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 02, 2019, 11:25:05 AM
hmmm.  I like this analysis.  I am now seeing analogies to vaping.  It is probably better than eating burgers (analogous to smoking), but if you don't currently eat beef burgers (I don't), maybe don't start using beyond burger (analogous to vaping).

Where it falls apart for me is the whole carbon footprint thing.  I know turkey and chicken are TERRIBLE for carbon emissions.  It is likely, but not yet proven that beyond burgers are better in that respect, while likely, but not yet proven, that they are worse for you than bird meat.

And I am now Chidi from the Good Place.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 02, 2019, 11:35:26 AM
Agreed. But now throw in another alternative: Legumes and whole grains without all the coconut oil. Include some onion and some chili peppers to taste and you have a better-tasting alternative to meat that really is healthy. The only things Beyond and Impossible have going for them are lower carbon footprint and no animals are murdered to make them.

We have to look at meat eaters like smokers. You can give them perfectly healthy alternatives. "Hey, instead of lighting up, why not eat a carrot?" You can scare the fuck out of them "Smoking will give you cancer". You will certainly get many people to stop smoking and switch to a healthy and beneficial alternative. But there will be people who just don't have the will power or something to switch. Their only hope is, then, possible a less bad alternative. And yes, if you can change your diet to legumes and whole grains and cut out meat then more power to you. But moving an entire population of hardcore, dedicated meat eaters who just fucking looooove to sink their teeth into a juicy burger and don't care about the health effects or the effects on the planet, your only hope is find the vaping of meat consumption.

While I think I can reduce my meat consumption, I cannot reduce it to zero. And when I dine out, it don't want a legumes. I want a steak or a burger. But if you can offer me a steak or burger patty that 95% the way to meat and is roughly the same cost and has a lower carbon foot print, I will gladly change.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 02, 2019, 12:19:23 PM
hmmm.  I like this analysis.  I am now seeing analogies to vaping.  It is probably better than eating burgers (analogous to smoking), but if you don't currently eat beef burgers (I don't), maybe don't start using beyond burger (analogous to vaping).

Where it falls apart for me is the whole carbon footprint thing.  I know turkey and chicken are TERRIBLE for carbon emissions.  It is likely, but not yet proven that beyond burgers are better in that respect, while likely, but not yet proven, that they are worse for you than bird meat.

And I am now Chidi from the Good Place.
Seems like these might not be any better than poultry for the environment?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html

Article written by Emma Newburger :laugh:
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 12:46:33 PM
hmmm.  I like this analysis.  I am now seeing analogies to vaping.  It is probably better than eating burgers (analogous to smoking), but if you don't currently eat beef burgers (I don't), maybe don't start using beyond burger (analogous to vaping).

Where it falls apart for me is the whole carbon footprint thing.  I know turkey and chicken are TERRIBLE for carbon emissions.  It is likely, but not yet proven that beyond burgers are better in that respect, while likely, but not yet proven, that they are worse for you than bird meat.  I suspect that the former is closer to the truth than the latter. 

And I am now Chidi from the Good Place.
Seems like these might not be any better than poultry for the environment?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html)

The article contradicts itself, saying in one place that IB/BB have half the carbon footprint of chicken and, in another place, that their carbon footprint is between chicken and beef. It's hard to imagine how a food made from plants, which consume CO2 to O2 would have a greater carbon footprint than chickens, which do the opposite.

Quote
Article written by Emma Newburger :laugh:


That's fuckin' hilarious.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 02, 2019, 12:51:45 PM
hmmm.  I like this analysis.  I am now seeing analogies to vaping.  It is probably better than eating burgers (analogous to smoking), but if you don't currently eat beef burgers (I don't), maybe don't start using beyond burger (analogous to vaping).

Where it falls apart for me is the whole carbon footprint thing.  I know turkey and chicken are TERRIBLE for carbon emissions.  It is likely, but not yet proven that beyond burgers are better in that respect, while likely, but not yet proven, that they are worse for you than bird meat.

And I am now Chidi from the Good Place.
Seems like these might not be any better than poultry for the environment?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/02/beyond-meat-uses-climate-change-to-market-fake-meat-substitutes-scientists-are-cautious.html)


The article contradicts itself, saying in one place that IB/BB have half the carbon footprint of chicken and, in another place, that their carbon footprint is between chicken and beef.


Quote
Article written by Emma Newburger :laugh:


That's fuckin' hilarious.
Good catch!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 01:16:00 PM

We have to look at meat eaters like smokers.


This is nonsense

There is absolutely no direct evidence showing health issues from eating meat. The only evidence is weak correlations found in epidemiological studies that don’t control for many behaviors that could correlate with meat consumption/avoidance and health.

There is plenty of direct evidence showing health issues from consuming some plant based and derived foods (sugar, refined flours and other fast simple carbs).

Unlike smoking, consuming meat is nutritious and has contributed to human survival throughout our evolution.

And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 02, 2019, 02:07:21 PM

And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.


It strikes me there is a broad consensus that meat has a larger carbon footprint and in terms of global warming a more serious environmental impact.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/choosing-chicken-over-beef-cuts-carbon-footprint-surprising-amount/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 02:17:06 PM

We have to look at meat eaters like smokers.


This is nonsense

There is absolutely no direct evidence showing health issues from eating meat. The only evidence is weak correlations found in epidemiological studies that don’t control for many behaviors that could correlate with meat consumption/avoidance and health.

There is plenty of direct evidence showing health issues from consuming some plant based and derived foods (sugar, refined flours and other fast simple carbs).

Unlike smoking, consuming meat is nutritious and has contributed to human survival throughout our evolution.

And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. And there was no quid pro quo.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 02:36:13 PM

And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.


It strikes me there is a broad consensus that meat has a larger carbon footprint and in terms of global warming a more serious environmental impact.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/choosing-chicken-over-beef-cuts-carbon-footprint-surprising-amount/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 02, 2019, 02:42:59 PM
Does that also take into account the growing of seed corn?  We grow a metric fuckton of corn that humans can't actually eat.  Technically, cows can't safely eat it either, though we feed it to them on feedlots.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 03:28:02 PM

We have to look at meat eaters like smokers.


This is nonsense

There is absolutely no direct evidence showing health issues from eating meat. The only evidence is weak correlations found in epidemiological studies that don’t control for many behaviors that could correlate with meat consumption/avoidance and health.

There is plenty of direct evidence showing health issues from consuming some plant based and derived foods (sugar, refined flours and other fast simple carbs).

Unlike smoking, consuming meat is nutritious and has contributed to human survival throughout our evolution.

And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is a consensus on the ‘health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact.’  if you have contrarian experts saying the dead opposite, then cite and link to their publications.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 02, 2019, 03:34:50 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 05:17:57 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: arthwollipot on December 02, 2019, 05:18:16 PM
We have to look at meat eaters like smokers. You can give them perfectly healthy alternatives. "Hey, instead of lighting up, why not eat a carrot?" You can scare the fuck out of them "Smoking will give you cancer". You will certainly get many people to stop smoking and switch to a healthy and beneficial alternative. But there will be people who just don't have the will power or something to switch. Their only hope is, then, possible a less bad alternative. And yes, if you can change your diet to legumes and whole grains and cut out meat then more power to you. But moving an entire population of hardcore, dedicated meat eaters who just fucking looooove to sink their teeth into a juicy burger and don't care about the health effects or the effects on the planet, your only hope is find the vaping of meat consumption.

The only problem with that analogy - and I broadly agree with you, by the way - is that meat eating is not physiologically and psychologically addictive.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 05:52:19 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 06:09:42 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 06:10:51 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

The fact remains that to produce a calorie of meat you have to feed the farm animals many more calories of plant food, which humans could be eating instead.  And some grazing land might be unsuitable for other purposes, but in America most cattle are fattened up for slaughter on feedlots using unnatural grain-based feed (the farmland used for growing grains for cattle could be used for humans instead).

There are also very good ethical reasons for avoiding, or at least reducing, consumption of animal-based food.  Feedlots aren’t particularly ethical or environmentally friendly.  Perhaps you ought to look at the satellite images of them (I think someone posted them on this thread, although I might be wrong, and it was another one).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 06:13:02 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!

No one can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 06:24:59 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

The fact remains that to produce a calorie of meat you have to feed the farm animals many more calories of plant food, which humans could be eating instead.  And some grazing land might be unsuitable for other purposes, but in America most cattle are fattened up for slaughter on feedlots using unnatural grain-based feed (the farmland used for growing grains for cattle could be used for humans instead).

There are also very good ethical reasons for avoiding, or at least reducing, consumption of animal-based food.  Feedlots aren’t particularly ethical or environmentally friendly.  Perhaps you ought to look at the satellite images of them (I think someone posted them on this thread, although I might be wrong, and it was another one).

Well no. Cattle, grazing on undeveloped land are feeding themselves, you don't have to feed them.

And most of the food they eat cannot be eaten by humans. Most of the food they eat is consumed grazing. In the US most cattle spend most of their lives grazing and go to the feedlot for 30 to 90 days before slaughter.

I do not agree that there good are ethical reasons for avoiding animal-based food.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 06:27:36 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 06:44:12 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

The fact remains that to produce a calorie of meat you have to feed the farm animals many more calories of plant food, which humans could be eating instead.  And some grazing land might be unsuitable for other purposes, but in America most cattle are fattened up for slaughter on feedlots using unnatural grain-based feed (the farmland used for growing grains for cattle could be used for humans instead).

There are also very good ethical reasons for avoiding, or at least reducing, consumption of animal-based food.  Feedlots aren’t particularly ethical or environmentally friendly.  Perhaps you ought to look at the satellite images of them (I think someone posted them on this thread, although I might be wrong, and it was another one).

Well no. Cattle, grazing on undeveloped land are feeding themselves, you don't have to feed them.

And most of the food they eat cannot be eaten by humans. Most of the food they eat is consumed grazing. In the US most cattle spend most of their lives grazing and go to the feedlot for 30 to 90 days before slaughter.

I do not agree that there good are ethical reasons for avoiding animal-based food.

No:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

The cattle (actually calves) spend 200 days on the feedlots, putting on 400 to 600 pounds, almost doubling their weight.

We already know you’re an ethically challenged person.  No offence.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 07:19:48 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 02, 2019, 07:27:46 PM
No one can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

https://youtu.be/Mw-brvKO-Z0

The elephant in the room here is that what foods you enjoy are 100% a matter of habit, and if you want to you can change your preferences. I (like some of you) didn't think I could live without meat. But I had reached the conclusion that there's no possible way to ethically justify eating meat in a society where plant-based foods are abundant and cheap. Then for two weeks I didn't eat meat because there was a city-wide meat-cutters' strike, and coming from a union family I was not about to cross a picket line. By the time the strike was settled I had seen that I could indeed live without meat. And by the time a couple of years had passed I no longer found the smell or the idea of it appealing.

I won't fault anybody who chooses to eat meat because I do plenty of bad things. But "I can't live without it" is just not a valid argument because it's not true. And "I like the taste" is only because you choose to keep eating it. If you decide you don't want to eat it, because it's an environmental disaster, or because the cruelty of it is beyond the ability of words to express, or because it's terrible for your health, you only need to endure privation for a short while, after which you'll find you no longer crave it, and you enjoy plant-based foods as much as you ever enjoyed meat.

The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat. The old-fashioned standard plant-based foods are very healthy.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 07:32:24 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

The fact remains that to produce a calorie of meat you have to feed the farm animals many more calories of plant food, which humans could be eating instead.  And some grazing land might be unsuitable for other purposes, but in America most cattle are fattened up for slaughter on feedlots using unnatural grain-based feed (the farmland used for growing grains for cattle could be used for humans instead).

There are also very good ethical reasons for avoiding, or at least reducing, consumption of animal-based food.  Feedlots aren’t particularly ethical or environmentally friendly.  Perhaps you ought to look at the satellite images of them (I think someone posted them on this thread, although I might be wrong, and it was another one).

Well no. Cattle, grazing on undeveloped land are feeding themselves, you don't have to feed them.

And most of the food they eat cannot be eaten by humans. Most of the food they eat is consumed grazing. In the US most cattle spend most of their lives grazing and go to the feedlot for 30 to 90 days before slaughter.

I do not agree that there good are ethical reasons for avoiding animal-based food.

No:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

The cattle (actually calves) spend 200 days on the feedlots, putting on 400 to 600 pounds, almost doubling their weight.

We already know you’re an ethically challenged person.  No offence.

Well going from memory I understated the amount of time cattle spend on feedlots.  You looked it up and still managed to get it wrong as well (maybe some spend 200 days, but others less and some more. 

Current situation and future trends for beef production in the United States of America — A review (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/)

The feedlot phase of production, which normally is between 100 and 300 days duration
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 07:36:44 PM
No one can ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The elephant in the room here is that what foods you enjoy are 100% a matter of habit, and if you want to you can change your preferences.


You have a habit of pulling numbers out of your ass, nearly always exaggerations, to support whatever point it is you might be making.

Somehow you're concluding that the food people eat is based totally on habit, to which I respond bullshit.

Quote
I (like some of you) didn't think I could live without meat. But I had reached the conclusion that there's no possible way to ethically justify eating meat in a society where plant-based foods are abundant and cheap. Then for two weeks I didn't eat meat because there was a city-wide meat-cutters' strike, and coming from a union family I was not about to cross a picket line. By the time the strike was settled I had seen that I could indeed live without meat. And by the time a couple of years had passed I no longer found the smell or the idea of it appealing.

How do you know what other people think? I know plenty of vegans and vegetarians who live without meat, why would I think I couldn't?

I believe two things, that a diet that is based on meat, along with non-starchy leafy greens, is the healthiest, and that it's better for any animal (including humans) to eat the diet their species evolved eating.

 
 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 07:52:00 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 08:04:10 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 08:09:27 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 08:10:06 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.

Well, ‘a calorie is a calorie.’  What is a calorie if it isn’t?

I don’t expect an answer, just like your non-response to the refutation of your claim regarding feedlots.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 08:22:52 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.

It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.

Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.

 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 08:34:15 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 09:19:42 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.

It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.

Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.

It’s true that ‘calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories than from other foods.’ 

Some foods are calorie dense, often processed foods high in simple sugars and fats, and it’s easy to consume excessive calories leading to weight gain before satiety kicks in.

The Dietary Guidelines advise against the consumption of such foods.  Which is lost in the blizzard of advertising of food manufacturers and fast food outlets.

The best strategy is to cook your own meals at home, using single ingredients, and ensuring you include adequate protein (which leads to satiety, not fats).  And ensuring the ingredients aren’t calorie dense.
Title: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 09:22:43 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.

Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rooted in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 09:28:55 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either. 
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 09:34:34 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 09:37:41 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 02, 2019, 09:42:03 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 02, 2019, 09:44:27 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is a discussion we should end, because we've had it a dozen times before.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 02, 2019, 09:48:23 PM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

You're fighting an uphill battle against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law? I thought that was ignored by Nutrition scientists!


Really?  We're the one's who figured out the thermic effect of food.

Well, with a little help and encouragement from those who promote the alternate theory of diet and nutrition.


In your dreams.  The thermic effect of food was discovered in the 19th century.

And consistently denied with the "a calorie is a calorie" trope from the mainstream until well into the 21st century.


No, CS.  For the umpteenth time, it goes without saying that a physiologic calorie of food contains, um, one physiologic calorie.  Thermic effect, on the other hand, which is a component of energy expenditures, differs from food to food.

So, while it is correct to say a calorie is a calorie in the very narrow, minimalist and irrelevant sense, to use that mantra in terms of diet and nutrition, where due to the thermic effect of food and other variables, calories from some foods have a greater effect on the body than calories from other foods, it is not correct to dismiss diet approaches using the calorie is a calorie trope, and that's something that the mainstream has done since at least the 70s.


No one is dismissing diet approaches using any such "trope."  It has been shown that high-fat diets, whether ketogenic or not, offer no significant "metabolic advantage" over any other diet.  Your diet does not "work" because of thermogenesis.  It just reduces your appetite.

Quote
It's not nearly as prevalent now, due to the arguments of those pursuing the alternate hypothesis.


It was never a prevalent argument.  It was you guys who claimed, ignorantly, that your diet had a "metabolic advantage." 

Quote
Also, the discovery of the thermic effect of foods predates the mainstream diet-heart-hypothesis by decades, so proponents of that hypothesis cannot take credit for it. But can be blamed for ignoring it.


No one is ignoring the "metabolic advantage" of your diet, because there isn't one.  You want a "metabolic advantage"?  Then eat as much protein and carbohydrate as you can, and as little fat.
That doesn’t provide a metabolic advantage even with your definition of the term.


Yes it does.  Protein has roughly 8 times the thermic effect of fat.  Carbohydrate is intermediate.

Quote
Atkins definition (and I think it was he who coined that term) is simply that carbs, especially sugar and other fast and simpler carbs, are metabolized differently than fat or protein, and due to their effect on insulin levels, and insulin’s role as the regulator is fat storage, consuming fewer carbs and more fact provides an advantage rotes in metabolism for those wanting to store less fat or release fat from storage.


Once low-carb "experts" started listening to reason and reluctantly realized that that cannot affect energy balance, they eventually admitted that any "metabolic advantage" had to be due to thermogenesis.  Now we know that there is no practical thermogenic advantage either.
Low carb experts have changed their views that consuming fewer simple carbs has an effect on fat storage that is advantageous for weight loss. Many no longer use the term metabolic advantage, but that is more due to the term being misunderstood thanything else.


I don't know whether you mean that low-carb "experts" currently do or do not think that sugar intake affects energy balance independent of calorie intake.  If they do, then they are still wrong.

This is a discussion we should move to the LC topic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So why don’t you, instead of cluttering up this thread?  And perhaps you should start another thread to propagandist your false beliefs about feedlots.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 03, 2019, 08:41:26 AM

Yes, it does have a larger carbon footprint than plant based foods. But there is no consensus as to how large the difference or how large the carbon footprint.

Do you have a source? Here's a figure from the linked article:

Quote
Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein...

Do you have a link to a legit study that shows something significantly less? 17 or 18x would be in the same ball park. So I'm talking a study that says, say, 10x the emissions or even 15x the emissions as an example of a divergence in the consensus?

We've gone over this several times before.  The land use takes includes the grazing land for cattle that is not suitable or useful for any other purpose. The studies that have compared the CO2 between meat and veggies used a weighted scale, where they calculated every mode of transportation used for meat, but not for plant based.  Most of the CO2 attributed to meat comes from transporting feed, beef and meat.

Maybe the solution is to start using electric semi-trucks rather than once again changing the diets of hundreds of millions of people with little or no evidence to show it would be healthier (again).

So, no link? Just an assertion?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 03, 2019, 08:45:00 AM

The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 03, 2019, 09:03:58 AM
Somehow you're concluding that the food people eat is based totally on habit, to which I respond bullshit.

This is an odd comment, coming from someone who insists that if people simply stop eating sweet foods they will lose the desire for them.


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 03, 2019, 09:17:53 AM


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Fair enough. There are, of course, many people who don't want to drive a car to work. They would prefer a subway or reliable train. But there are huge numbers of people that simply won't give up their cars. For those, you might look at a less bad solution, like electric cars. Meat is in the same category. There are a few billion people I think who would like a meat that's less bad for the environment and less bad for cows and chickens but would be happy if it was at least as unhealthy as normal meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 03, 2019, 10:52:49 AM
Somehow you're concluding that the food people eat is based totally on habit, to which I respond bullshit.

This is an odd comment, coming from someone who insists that if people simply stop eating sweet foods they will lose the desire for them.

Not at all odd. Sugar is just one part of the diet. I believe sugar is an addiction, not a habit.

But your comment was that %100 of food choices are based on habit and that is bullshit.

Quote
I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Who made that comment ?  Your message was in response to a discussion about the laws of thermodynamics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 03, 2019, 11:10:15 AM


The problem with Beyond and Impossible is that (based on what people are saying above) it tastes like meat, so eating it you will never ween yourself of the desire for meat, and apparently it's not really much (or any) better for you than meat.

I do not WANT to end my enjoyment of meat. I would like a meat with a much lower carbon footprint, however.

I was responding to comments about being "unable" to quit eating meat. I specifically said that if people don't want to quit eating meat I won't criticize them for their choice.

Fair enough. There are, of course, many people who don't want to drive a car to work. They would prefer a subway or reliable train. But there are huge numbers of people that simply won't give up their cars. For those, you might look at a less bad solution, like electric cars. Meat is in the same category. There are a few billion people I think who would like a meat that's less bad for the environment and less bad for cows and chickens but would be happy if it was at least as unhealthy as normal meat.


Agreed.

And I was offering my experience: I knew that if I ate fake meat I'd always know that I was getting second-best and never be really happy with my diet, whereas changing my taste (simple to do, though it took a little while) I am much more satisfied than I'd be if I always craved meat and had to settle for something less.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm pointing out from my experience that there is an alternative which is just as satisfying and much healthier. There are benefits to driving a car vs. taking a train. There are no benefits of eating meat vs. a plant-based diet. And for what it's worth, you can make burgers that are made of beans and taste like beans but have all the feel of burgers including catsup and mustard if you like those. Because you can make them yourself they don't have to have any saturated fats or excessive amounts of sodium.

I get it that some folks don't want to switch. I'm just pointing out that there is an alternative, and that it tastes just as good, and is good for you. I think that in the discussion of Beyond and Impossible we should not forget that fake meat is not the only alternative to meat.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 04, 2019, 04:49:02 AM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 04, 2019, 01:47:02 PM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]

In a very ham fisted manner.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 05, 2019, 07:56:11 AM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2019, 10:55:18 AM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 05, 2019, 11:02:45 AM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 05, 2019, 11:13:32 AM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

I see nothing in that link that addresses the total greenhouse gasses per gram of protein for either plant-based foods or animal-based foods. It speaks of the emissions per sector and of slight improvements in recent years, but as near as I can tell, it ignores the obvious fact that there's a ten-fold reduction in protein when plants are fed to cows. (Other animals are more efficient. I think poultry only has a three-fold reduction.) So all the emissions of the plants that are fed to the animals accrue to the accounting for the animals. And the linked article does not even deal with water use, energy use, or pollution.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 05, 2019, 12:25:23 PM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.


Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2019, 01:35:36 PM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.

You're asking me to support a comment I didn't make. 

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 05, 2019, 02:50:00 PM
I'm still waiting for Carbshark to post a link that suggests there's no scientific consensus that meat production has a 15x-20x bigger carbon footprint than something like beans. This is the quote I suggested:

"Producing beef, for example, uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans, per gram of protein"
What’s your source for that quote? Those numbers seem made up.

Here’s an example of what I was referring to:


https://www.fb.org/market-intel/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was the source.

https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/we-cant-limit-global-warming-15c-without-changing-diets

To review when I originally posted that your comment was "And there is no broad consensus on the health impact of meat eating or the environmental impact. "

Do you suggested the 20x figure is not a consensus? I read it as that. So I asked for a source that pegs beef's emissions foot print at a lower x figure as compared to growing an efficient vegetable protein. What do your most trusted sources suggest? Beef is 2x? 1x? 10x that of a bean? Link, please.

As Daniel points out, that link doesn't address that. I'm not sure what question it answers.

You're asking me to support a comment I didn't make. 

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Cite some experts who take a contrarian view on the environmental impact of eating meat, besides the meat producers, their corporate customers, and their paid scientists.  You’re taking the same approach as global heating denialists, who make the same claim that humans aren’t cooking the Earth.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 05, 2019, 03:04:57 PM

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus. Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2019, 05:05:51 PM

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus.

That's all I'm saying. No broad consensus on the total impact compared to other sources

Quote
Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

So, again, you're asking me to defend a comment I haven't made.  I haven't claimed anything about agricultural products that produce protein.

My position is that the claims of the impact that current levels of meat production have on the environment are exaggerated.  This has led people (even people in this forum) to conclude that the best thing they can do to fight global warming is eat less beef. That's an absurd misdirection.

The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling.

The best things civilization can do are reduce the use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy; develop alternative building techniques that generate less greenhouse gas; hasten the development of clean transportation of goods (electric trucks and trains, not using fossil fuels as a primary source). Cutting meat consumption is way down the list.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 05, 2019, 05:10:25 PM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 05, 2019, 05:19:06 PM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.

Request for a merge then.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 05, 2019, 05:19:24 PM

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus.

That's all I'm saying. No broad consensus on the total impact compared to other sources

Quote
Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products that produce protein for human consumption.

So, again, you're asking me to defend a comment I haven't made.  I haven't claimed anything about agricultural products that produce protein.

My position is that the claims of the impact that current levels of meat production have on the environment are exaggerated.  This has led people (even people in this forum) to conclude that the best thing they can do to fight global warming is eat less beef. That's an absurd misdirection.

The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling.

The best things civilization can do are reduce the use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy; develop alternative building techniques that generate less greenhouse gas; hasten the development of clean transportation of goods (electric trucks and trains, not using fossil fuels as a primary source). Cutting meat consumption is way down the list.

No.  One of the things people can do to ‘fight’ global heating is to eat less beef, or avoid it altogether.  One thing, but not necessarily the best thing.  There’s nothing stopping a person from reducing beef consumption, and also doing the other things you mention.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: stands2reason on December 05, 2019, 06:32:30 PM
[modbreak]Discussion about whether or not sugar is addictive has been split off and can be found here:
https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=51624.msg9641054#msg9641054[/modbreak]

In a very ham fisted manner.

"Ham fisted"? Seems more a kid-glove approach to me. At another board I know of, a digression like the one about sugar would have been moved into a thread called "Snippiness" which is a dumping ground for anything and everything the mods don't like. Now sugar has its own thread where anyone who wants to can continue that discussion.

It was ham fisted, because CarbShark started the argument (yet again, sigh...) that sugar is addictive, and the Moderator chose to transfer the discussion to a new thread, with one of my comments as the first one, giving the impression that I think the idea that sugar could be addictive is anything worth considering seriously.  The Moderator should have started with the first CarbShark comment with the sucrose addictive nonsense (comment #389).  And anyway.  CarbShark had started a thread regarding sugar being addictive already a while back.

I'm pretty sure that the forum software requires the posts in the new thread remain in chronological sequence. Obviously, your comment didn't start the digression, the post you were replying to probably should have been the "OP".
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 05, 2019, 06:52:16 PM
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2019, 07:15:32 PM
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.

If this goes on maybe split it into a separate thread? Start with whatever post you like.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 05, 2019, 08:11:07 PM

There is no broad consensus on the environmental impact of eating meat.

You're pulling a single statistic from a single crop with a single meat product and claiming that I'm disputing that.

Maybe there isn't a broad consensus. Maybe there has only been one study that pegs it at 20x. What I'm asking is if you think there is no broad consensus then could you supply some kind evidence, beyond your own assertion, there is, in the literature, differences in opinion about the carbon footprint of the beef industry as compared to other agricultural products...

I think these documents sum up pretty well my position. What I've said before and stand by is that providing nutrition to billions of humans whether it's plants or animals, is not environmentally friendly. Animal agriculture has been unfairly singled out because it is somewhat less efficient than plant agriculture, but it's not the boogyman that vegans and vegetarians would have you believe and especially if you live in the developed world, it's impact is not nearly as high as reported. 

Skeptical Science actually refers to some of the claims about animal agriculture that have been expressed and defended in these forums as a myth.

<a href="https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm">

How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?</a>

<a href="https://skepticalscience.com/how-much-meat-contribute-to-gw.html">

How much does animal agriculture and eating meat contribute to global warming?</a>

(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/world-flowchart.jpg)

Quote
Moreover, in developed countries where the 'veganism will solve the problem' argument is most frequently made, animal agriculture is responsible for an even smaller share of the global warming problem than fossil fuels.  For example, in the USA, fossil fuels are responsible for over 10 times more human-caused greenhouse gas emissions than animal agriculture.

(Also, if you haven't spent time on the Skeptical Science web site, it's well worth it.)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 05, 2019, 08:47:40 PM
... The best thing individuals can do is to drive and fly less (or switch to electric cars) and use less fossil fuel based energy for heating and cooling. ...

So people should only do the single "best" thing and ignore all the others? I don't think anyone has said (I certainly haven't) that the meat industry is the largest contributor to climate change. We are saying that it is a significant contributor, which your chart supports.

I don't even say that you "should" quit eating meat. I am saying that the meat industry is an environmental disaster, and the claim that it is benign is untenable. Switching to a plant-based diet is just one of many things a person can do to mitigate global warming. Anybody who says that "Veganism will solve the problem" is an idiot. Has anybody actually said that? I find it hard to believe. But it is one of the things a person can do. Eat whatever you like. But own your effect on the environment.

The use of fossil fuels for transportation, electricity, heat, and industry is also an environmental disaster. That in no way changes the fact that the meat industry is another.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 05, 2019, 09:04:49 PM
It could have been. But the post it was started with was a cleaner break and gave no false impression of anyones opinion and contained all of the relevant information to carry on the conversation.

People are free to sulk about it.

I’m not sulking.  I just deleted the comment, so the new thread started with an empty box.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 06, 2019, 08:04:52 AM

Skeptical Science actually refers to some of the claims about animal agriculture that have been expressed and defended in these forums as a myth.

<a href="https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm">


(https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/EWGGHGLCA.jpg)

Based on your source beef production indeed has a 20x greater carbon footprint as compared to a vegetable protein source like lentils. Great. Thank you for another source on this.

Anyway, I return to my point. If a meat simulation or a tank grown meat product is AS unhealthy but has a smaller environmental footprint, that's an initial, but not final, win. It's like an HIV vaccine that provides immunity to 20% of users isn't ideal but against the backdrop of public health, a 20% reduction in ANY disease is a public health win.

And my ultimate point, to my own tastes, the BB patties taste better and are juicier than many meat burger patties I've had. I will order a BB over a normal burger purely for taste.



Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 06, 2019, 10:52:14 AM
Right it seems to support your position on the point I wasn’t arguing




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 06, 2019, 11:07:31 AM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 11:51:34 AM
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 06, 2019, 01:18:29 PM
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.

If that's an argument then it is a bad argument. "We shouldn't worry about X when we could totally eliminate Y." I think Dr. N refers to that as the nirvana fallacy. If we can just get one thing totally perfect... We can devote time and resources to making agriculture more efficient as well as air travel, say.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 06, 2019, 01:27:51 PM
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meat and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on December 06, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 06, 2019, 03:47:38 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 04:07:23 PM
Anyway, here’s is another source which has a lot of very ‘neat’ graphs:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions

It seems to me to be a bad argument that since agriculture causes such a small percentage of American greenhouse gas emissions, then it’s not worth doing anything about them.  The per capita greenhouse gas emissions for Americans from agriculture is larger than the total per capita greenhouse gas emissions from all sources for many countries of the world.
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meant and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you mean to say a person can’t reduce his or her CO2 emissions by doing all the things you’ve mentioned before, while at the same time reducing or eliminating consumption of ‘meant’ (sic).

The environmental damage of meat production isn’t confined to global heating.  There’s also the environmental damage from feedlots, which also include ethical considerations.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 06, 2019, 04:17:52 PM
My wife and I are pretty good about only buying local beef.  Both of us have ethical problems with feedlot cattle growth.  Local beef outfits are all made up of cows roaming around fields.  They surround my house.


If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.


To be even more contrarian, my cardiologist wants me to do a Whole30 for a month and transition into Mediterranean diet.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 06, 2019, 04:40:04 PM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 04:40:23 PM
The Australian coal-ition government’s Minister for Energy and (doing not much about) Climate Change is apparently going to announce Australia is currently on track to meet its very modest target of reducing CO2 emissions from 2005 by 26% in 2030:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/taylor-claims-australia-progressing-well-towards-paris-targets-20191206-p53hjv.html

As was pointed out at the end of the article, the current drought has reduced animal numbers, so emissions have dropped solely due to that.  So instead of praying for rain (which is the Prime Minister’s main policy for dealing with the drought), we should be praying for the drought to continue so we can meet our Paris commitments?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 06, 2019, 04:43:25 PM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
I mean, we could go so far as to just kill a bunch of ranchers and then ourselves and save a whole ton of carbon...but it's a pretty drastic step for such a measly return.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on December 06, 2019, 04:48:03 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
Oh man I loved that show!
Total tangent, but Vyvyan is now an Imperial Officer!
Spoiler
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ep8-170408_c9096720.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&width=960)
[close]
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 04:54:15 PM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
I mean, we could go so far as to just kill a bunch of ranchers and then ourselves and save a whole ton of carbon...but it's a pretty drastic step for such a measly return.

Well, it’s the only non-policy of the Australian government that has successfully reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but by a drought instead of shooting ranchers, but your proposal, although drastic, would work.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Harry Black on December 06, 2019, 05:12:11 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
Oh man I loved that show!
Total tangent, but Vyvyan is now an Imperial Officer!
Spoiler
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ep8-170408_c9096720.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&width=960)
[close]
Thats always what I think of when someone mentions lentils!!
And yes. We all saw it coming right?
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on December 06, 2019, 06:26:38 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
[close]
Oh man I loved that show!
Total tangent, but Vyvyan is now an Imperial Officer!
Spoiler
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ep8-170408_c9096720.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&width=960)
[close]
Thats always what I think of when someone mentions lentils!!
And yes. We all saw it coming right?
Ever since the Dark Side infiltrated facebook with memes, it was only a matter of time before the old crustpunks got seduced.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 06:46:38 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
Spoiler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
[close]
Oh man I loved that show!
Total tangent, but Vyvyan is now an Imperial Officer!
Spoiler
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ep8-170408_c9096720.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&width=960)
[close]
Thats always what I think of when someone mentions lentils!!
And yes. We all saw it coming right?
Ever since the Dark Side infiltrated facebook with memes, it was only a matter of time before the old crustpunks got seduced.

Adrian Edmonson from ‘the Young Ones.’  And something or another in the increasingly ridiculous Star Wars Universe (I haven’t seen the last two, and don’t intend to see the next):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ade_Edmondson
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 06, 2019, 07:58:34 PM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
I mean, we could go so far as to just kill a bunch of ranchers and then ourselves and save a whole ton of carbon...but it's a pretty drastic step for such a measly return.

Let's not shoot anybody. But if people ate less meat the ranchers would have a smaller market for their cows so they would stop breeding so many of them and there would be less CO2 and less cow shit running into our rivers. And there would be a lot more fresh water for other uses. One person's eating habits has a too small an impact to be measured, but if everybody says "My choices make no difference so I won't change" then the whole shebang goes down the toilet.

And for CarbShark's benefit, since everybody else seems to understand it already, this applies to all our choices, not just our eating habits. Meat is an environmental disaster, but it's not the only or even the biggest environmental disaster.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 06, 2019, 09:08:45 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 06, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: PANTS! on December 06, 2019, 10:19:50 PM
I'm actually surprised that lentils (my least favorite of all the legumes) have less than half the emissions of dried beans (the other legume). Beans and tofu are at the top of my list for main-course protein foods. I also eat fish, though I've cut way back. Tofu and beans are very dependent on the cook for their flavor, but done right they are amazing.
Interesting! I do like lentils though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYHEACE-v0k
Oh man I loved that show!
Total tangent, but Vyvyan is now an Imperial Officer!
Spoiler
(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/ep8-170408_c9096720.jpeg?region=0%2C0%2C1280%2C720&width=960)
[close]

Well, Boom Shanka
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 07, 2019, 02:52:23 AM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
Translation: let’s encourage everyone to go vegan and tell them it’s for global warming when it’s really about promoting my own personal sense of ethics and speaking the vegetarian lifestyle 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 07, 2019, 07:25:43 AM
If my wife and I both went vegetarian, I don't think the change to the planet warming would matter a whole lot.

Translation: One person's lifestyle choices do not have a measurable effect on the world. Therefore, none of us should make any changes.
Translation: let’s encourage everyone to go vegan and tell them it’s for global warming when it’s really about promoting my own personal sense of ethics and speaking the vegetarian lifestyle 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Translation: ethical treatment of farm animals before they’re slaughtered doesn’t matter, provided it supplies meat at the cheapest price, and the added environmental damage involved in practices such as feedlots also doesn’t matter.  We might as well allow dog fighting if people find it entertaining.  Banning it was just imposing other people’s personal ethics on others.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 07, 2019, 08:36:09 AM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
The amount of corn we produce for the bourbon trade is pretty large.  Most of the cattle graze on pasture land that would be difficult to farm on.  The soil is fine, but the land is rolling at a fair pitch that would make planting and harvesting pretty hard.  I don't know if that's the same the further north or west you go where the land flattens out. I'm on the cusp of the cumberlands here.  Anyway, the land that they graze on now was fine for growing tobacco but not corn or beans.  Something about the way they are havested.  The tobacco trade is dying a slow death.  We are trying to bring hemp on.  They say it grows well here.


I hate the way we raise chickens here. It's the same as everywhere else and horrible.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 07, 2019, 08:46:45 AM
Also, I haven't been on google earth in a long time and I just went and found my house.  It looks like a hillbilly compound with vehicles and barns and shit everywhere.


I don't know when these pictures were taken.  My uncle is here so it's not winter....but all of the corn/bean fields look plowed but not planted.  You can see the ones left fallow for hay/grass vs. the ones they are going to grow crops in that year.  It's pretty fascinating to look at.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 07, 2019, 03:38:36 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
The amount of corn we produce for the bourbon trade is pretty large.  Most of the cattle graze on pasture land that would be difficult to farm on.  The soil is fine, but the land is rolling at a fair pitch that would make planting and harvesting pretty hard.  I don't know if that's the same the further north or west you go where the land flattens out. I'm on the cusp of the cumberlands here.  Anyway, the land that they graze on now was fine for growing tobacco but not corn or beans.  Something about the way they are havested.  The tobacco trade is dying a slow death.  We are trying to bring hemp on.  They say it grows well here.


I hate the way we raise chickens here. It's the same as everywhere else and horrible.

Hemp seems to grow well everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

It seems to be a wonder crop, all of which can be used for many purposes.  It’s got a bad reputation because of the varieties that contain psychoactive drugs.  The growing of industrial hemp should be encouraged.

I regularly look at my house on Google Earth, but mainly to work out the best routes to get to places.  It also includes a public transport function telling me when the next bus is supposed to be arriving at the closest bus stop (and it’s usually out by 1 or 2 minutes which isn’t bad).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 07, 2019, 04:30:47 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
The amount of corn we produce for the bourbon trade is pretty large.  Most of the cattle graze on pasture land that would be difficult to farm on.  The soil is fine, but the land is rolling at a fair pitch that would make planting and harvesting pretty hard.  I don't know if that's the same the further north or west you go where the land flattens out. I'm on the cusp of the cumberlands here.  Anyway, the land that they graze on now was fine for growing tobacco but not corn or beans.  Something about the way they are havested.  The tobacco trade is dying a slow death.  We are trying to bring hemp on.  They say it grows well here.


I hate the way we raise chickens here. It's the same as everywhere else and horrible.

Hemp seems to grow well everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

It seems to be a wonder crop, all of which can be used for many purposes.  It’s got a bad reputation because of the varieties that contain psychoactive drugs.  The growing of industrial hemp should be encouraged.

I regularly look at my house on Google Earth, but mainly to work out the best routes to get to places.  It also includes a public transport function telling me when the next bus is supposed to be arriving at the closest bus stop (and it’s usually out by 1 or 2 minutes which isn’t bad).

I wonder if all these magical and wonderful properties that are attributed to hemp are not pushed and exaggerated by those who enjoy the psychoactive properties of some varieties.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 07, 2019, 04:36:33 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
The amount of corn we produce for the bourbon trade is pretty large.  Most of the cattle graze on pasture land that would be difficult to farm on.  The soil is fine, but the land is rolling at a fair pitch that would make planting and harvesting pretty hard.  I don't know if that's the same the further north or west you go where the land flattens out. I'm on the cusp of the cumberlands here.  Anyway, the land that they graze on now was fine for growing tobacco but not corn or beans.  Something about the way they are havested.  The tobacco trade is dying a slow death.  We are trying to bring hemp on.  They say it grows well here.


I hate the way we raise chickens here. It's the same as everywhere else and horrible.

Hemp seems to grow well everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

It seems to be a wonder crop, all of which can be used for many purposes.  It’s got a bad reputation because of the varieties that contain psychoactive drugs.  The growing of industrial hemp should be encouraged.

I regularly look at my house on Google Earth, but mainly to work out the best routes to get to places.  It also includes a public transport function telling me when the next bus is supposed to be arriving at the closest bus stop (and it’s usually out by 1 or 2 minutes which isn’t bad).

I wonder if all these magical and wonderful properties that are attributed to hemp are not pushed and exaggerated by those who enjoy the psychoactive properties of some varieties.

And I wonder if the ignorance of certain forum members is due to their inability to read and understand simple Wikipedia articles.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 07, 2019, 04:51:07 PM
Right back at ya


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 07, 2019, 05:24:29 PM
Right back at ya


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the CarbShark I’m used to.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Jeremy's Sea on December 07, 2019, 05:32:58 PM
The thing is, I didn't say it would make no difference.  I said it would matter a whole lot.  A measly enough return for me not to bother.  I also didn't say nobody should make any changes. I've already made some changes, I'm just not willing to make that specific change at this time.  Others can make whatever changes suit them.

Of course you can do whatever you want to do.  You’re sufficiently anonymous that being ‘shamed’ here for continuing to eat meat has no consequences for you.  Although, if your profile is right and you live in Keavy, Kentucky you don’t have the cop out of claiming that the cattle in your area aren’t being grazed on land unsuitable for any other use.  Looking at Google Earth, Keavy looks to be in a very beautiful area with a lot of green (?pastures), forests, lakes and rivers.
The amount of corn we produce for the bourbon trade is pretty large.  Most of the cattle graze on pasture land that would be difficult to farm on.  The soil is fine, but the land is rolling at a fair pitch that would make planting and harvesting pretty hard.  I don't know if that's the same the further north or west you go where the land flattens out. I'm on the cusp of the cumberlands here.  Anyway, the land that they graze on now was fine for growing tobacco but not corn or beans.  Something about the way they are havested.  The tobacco trade is dying a slow death.  We are trying to bring hemp on.  They say it grows well here.


I hate the way we raise chickens here. It's the same as everywhere else and horrible.

Hemp seems to grow well everywhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp

It seems to be a wonder crop, all of which can be used for many purposes.  It’s got a bad reputation because of the varieties that contain psychoactive drugs.  The growing of industrial hemp should be encouraged.

I regularly look at my house on Google Earth, but mainly to work out the best routes to get to places.  It also includes a public transport function telling me when the next bus is supposed to be arriving at the closest bus stop (and it’s usually out by 1 or 2 minutes which isn’t bad).

I wonder if all these magical and wonderful properties that are attributed to hemp are not pushed and exaggerated by those who enjoy the psychoactive properties of some varieties.
Regardless of whether or not stoners are enthusiastic about hemp, there is zero good reason to outlaw it, and there are many industrial sectors where it could be a huge benefit to the environment and costs to consumers. It is kind of irrelevant if stoners think it's magical or not. I'd be willing to bet the market would explode with hemp based products if prohibition laws were lifted on it.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 07, 2019, 05:38:49 PM
Hemp was the fiber of choice for ropes before synthetics came along. It grows well under a wide variety of conditions and requires little or no fertilizer or pesticides, compared to cotton, which is softer and more absorbent but requires a lot of both. Hemp contains no psychoactive chemicals, or at any rate too little to have any effect.

Some folks oppose it because it looks so much like marijuana that untrained, uneducated police officers cannot distinguish it, so there's the possibility that a field of hemp could conceal a patch of marijuana. I have a belt and a set of handkerchiefs made of hemp. I got the belt because it can be hard to find a non-leather belt. I got the handkerchiefs just because they are good.

Cotton clothing is more comfortable than hemp but hemp is far lighter on the environment.

In Maui we don't use an awful lot of clothing.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 07, 2019, 06:30:51 PM
Hemp was the fiber of choice for ropes before synthetics came along. It grows well under a wide variety of conditions and requires little or no fertilizer or pesticides, compared to cotton, which is softer and more absorbent but requires a lot of both. Hemp contains no psychoactive chemicals, or at any rate too little to have any effect.

Some folks oppose it because it looks so much like marijuana that untrained, uneducated police officers cannot distinguish it, so there's the possibility that a field of hemp could conceal a patch of marijuana. I have a belt and a set of handkerchiefs made of hemp. I got the belt because it can be hard to find a non-leather belt. I got the handkerchiefs just because they are good.

Cotton clothing is more comfortable than hemp but hemp is far lighter on the environment.

In Maui we don't use an awful lot of clothing.

Good point why it’s banned.  The obvious solution is to make marijuana legal.  Like Prohibition, the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed, and will continue to fail.  All it does to to enrich criminals.  Recreational drugs should be regulated and taxed just like legal drugs.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 08, 2019, 09:24:29 AM
Hemp was the fiber of choice for ropes before synthetics came along. It grows well under a wide variety of conditions and requires little or no fertilizer or pesticides, compared to cotton, which is softer and more absorbent but requires a lot of both. Hemp contains no psychoactive chemicals, or at any rate too little to have any effect.

Some folks oppose it because it looks so much like marijuana that untrained, uneducated police officers cannot distinguish it, so there's the possibility that a field of hemp could conceal a patch of marijuana. I have a belt and a set of handkerchiefs made of hemp. I got the belt because it can be hard to find a non-leather belt. I got the handkerchiefs just because they are good.

Cotton clothing is more comfortable than hemp but hemp is far lighter on the environment.

In Maui we don't use an awful lot of clothing.

Good point why it’s banned.  The obvious solution is to make marijuana legal.  Like Prohibition, the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed, and will continue to fail.  All it does to to enrich criminals.  Recreational drugs should be regulated and taxed just like legal drugs.

Then they'll say that hemp fields are concealing "bootleg" (untaxed) marijuana. Pot should be legalized, but that's really unconnected to hemp, which is more environmentally friendly than cotton, but would not be that big a market now that we're not rigging sailing ships with natural-fiber ropes. We rig our outrigger canoes with rope, but given a choice between hemp, which must be rubbed with tar to resist sea water, or synthetic rope, which is not treated with tar, I'll take the one without tar, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 08, 2019, 10:20:02 AM
I think I was mistaken above. I think this might be cotton rope. I guess it gets replaced before the sea water compromises its integrity. Hemp would probably be preferable in that case.

Pictures below are courtesy of Bruce Kurosaki. Part of our crew rigging the outrigger canoe for the Paddle for Life this year. We had to de-rig it for transport and then re-rig it at the beach. We might have re-rigged it anyway because a channel crossing is demanding on the canoe and you want to be sure the rigging is secure.

(https://i.imgur.com/BmoqbUB.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/IJkY6LN.jpg)
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 08, 2019, 02:40:03 PM
Hemp was the fiber of choice for ropes before synthetics came along. It grows well under a wide variety of conditions and requires little or no fertilizer or pesticides, compared to cotton, which is softer and more absorbent but requires a lot of both. Hemp contains no psychoactive chemicals, or at any rate too little to have any effect.

Some folks oppose it because it looks so much like marijuana that untrained, uneducated police officers cannot distinguish it, so there's the possibility that a field of hemp could conceal a patch of marijuana. I have a belt and a set of handkerchiefs made of hemp. I got the belt because it can be hard to find a non-leather belt. I got the handkerchiefs just because they are good.

Cotton clothing is more comfortable than hemp but hemp is far lighter on the environment.

In Maui we don't use an awful lot of clothing.

Good point why it’s banned.  The obvious solution is to make marijuana legal.  Like Prohibition, the ‘War on Drugs’ has failed, and will continue to fail.  All it does to to enrich criminals.  Recreational drugs should be regulated and taxed just like legal drugs.

Then they'll say that hemp fields are concealing "bootleg" (untaxed) marijuana. Pot should be legalized, but that's really unconnected to hemp, which is more environmentally friendly than cotton, but would not be that big a market now that we're not rigging sailing ships with natural-fiber ropes. We rig our outrigger canoes with rope, but given a choice between hemp, which must be rubbed with tar to resist sea water, or synthetic rope, which is not treated with tar, I'll take the one without tar, thank you very much.

There’s the same problem with bootleg tobacco.  Governments just have to ensure that there’s not too much being sold on the market to ensure it’s not eroding the tax base.  The American Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would just have one more area of responsibility added.

Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 08, 2019, 06:42:04 PM
My point was only that even once we've legalized pot, which I think is coming, it will be a separate fight to legalize the growing of hemp.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 08, 2019, 08:49:58 PM
My point was only that even once we've legalized pot, which I think is coming, it will be a separate fight to legalize the growing of hemp.

Why should the growing of industrial hemp be illegal even if marijuana is illegal?  In many countries, the growing of opium poppies is legal as a foodstuff and ornamental plant (America is a bit of a grey area regarding whether it’s banned or not):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_somniferum#Restrictions

It’s only illegal to extract the opium.  And there are commercial varieties low in opium.

Even if marijuana is illegal, the growing of industrial hemp should be legal (and perhaps controlled with registration of crops), and the processing of plants for drug use continue to be banned (just like opium).
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 08, 2019, 10:28:36 PM
Why should the growing of industrial hemp be illegal even if marijuana is illegal?

It shouldn't be. But it will be because of Republicans.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: st3class on December 08, 2019, 10:44:24 PM
Hemp was actually just legalized in the US last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States)

The USDA is still working out exactly how they're going to manage it, but the process is well underway, and hemp is being grown in many states.

The big issue is distinguishing the different strains of Cannabis sativa, some of which are legal at the federal level (hemp), some of which is still illegal (marijuana). As it stands, random testing is done during growing, harvesting, and shipping for THC levels. From my understanding though, the threshold is set far too low, since it is very easy for THC levels in hemp to raise higher than the legal limit.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: daniel1948 on December 09, 2019, 08:50:07 AM
Hemp was actually just legalized in the US last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#United_States)

The USDA is still working out exactly how they're going to manage it, but the process is well underway, and hemp is being grown in many states.

The big issue is distinguishing the different strains of Cannabis sativa, some of which are legal at the federal level (hemp), some of which is still illegal (marijuana). As it stands, random testing is done during growing, harvesting, and shipping for THC levels. From my understanding though, the threshold is set far too low, since it is very easy for THC levels in hemp to raise higher than the legal limit.

Thanks for posting this. I'm glad to learn that I was wrong.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: Calinthalus on December 09, 2019, 09:00:39 AM
It might surprise you but a lot of the local drive was because Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell wanted to bring the industry to Kentucky tobacco farmers.  There has been a lot of bipartisan support in Kentucky for Hemp to be back on the legal side for a long time.  We can't grow cotton here...
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: The Latinist on December 09, 2019, 09:31:16 AM
The weekend chef at work was talking to a friend who manages a Burger King.  She says the Beyond Burgers taste so good because, unless you specifically ask otherwise, they're cooked on the same grill as the beef ones.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: mindme on December 09, 2019, 12:06:35 PM
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meat and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.

Naturally. From my lay reading, I'm not seeing the impact of agriculture being woefully misrepresented.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: CarbShark on December 09, 2019, 12:50:49 PM
That’s not the argument that’s being made.

The argument is simple. The impact of agriculture production, meat and plant, on global warming should be truthfully and accurately represented in relation to all other causes without distortion.

From there an assessment can be made about where to focus efforts and where best to encourage action.

Naturally. From my lay reading, I'm not seeing the impact of agriculture being woefully misrepresented.

Well, there was the UN report that claimed that agriculture was responsible for a bigger impact on greenhouse gasses and global warming than the transportation sector.

And meat production (even in this thread) has been blamed for between 3% and 20% of the impact, depending on the source. There's a woeful misrepresentation there somewhere.
 

<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-eating-meat-affects-the-environment-but-cows-are-not-killing-the-climate-94968">

Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate</a>

Quote
A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change.
Quote

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation.

Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency drew a startling conclusion: Livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.

This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report’s senior author. The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.

The UN report itself is still quoted today, despite the admitted flaws.
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: jt512 on December 09, 2019, 04:18:25 PM
The weekend chef at work was talking to a friend who manages a Burger King.  She says the Beyond Burgers taste so good because, unless you specifically ask otherwise, they're cooked on the same grill as the beef ones.

They taste quite meaty regardless.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Title: Re: Beyond Burger 2.0
Post by: bachfiend on December 09, 2019, 04:25:09 PM