NA: beyond burger

[GeorgeC]

Anyone try the beyond burger? I was pleasantly surprised.

When you unwrap it, its appearance, texture, and smell are not entirely unlike those of cat food. To be clear, I mean the fancy canned cat food made of lamb.

Be careful when you grill it, though; I think they must use bits of duraflame logs as an accelerant. My Weber almost melted down.

It's a bit expensive, too.

BUT, at the end of the day, when you add ketchup, mustard, mayo, raw onion, and a slice of American cheese, it actually tastes like a real burger, which is more than I can say of any veggie burger or black bean burger I've ever had before.

 

[asicer]

If I want to eat beef I will eat beef, not plant that tastes like beef. If I want to eat plants, I will eat plants and not meat that tastes like plants. Maybe my views will change someday when meat becomes unavailable. But that day is not today.

 

[Norman]

Put enough garbage on top of it and you can kill the bad taste of anything including trash hamburgers from Five Guys, Mickey D's, or the fast food joint of your choice.

BTW, ketchup is for French Fries. It does not belong on hot dogs or hamburgers.

 

[denverpilot]

Ummm. No. Just no. Not going to either.

 

[flyingron]

Actually, Ostrich is a neat alternative the beef. Just don't cook it based on coloration (it is done well before it becomes "medium" in beef coloring.

 

[cgrab]

When you realize that everything that was taught about "healthy foods" in the 60's and 70's was wrong you will feel much better and live longer. I stopped eating rice and bread and potatoes and as my Dad used to say-everything white-a year ago. I've lost 25 pounds, sleep better and have more energy. My wife has lost over 50 pounds. We buy our eggs from Costco two large cartons at a time and the bacon in 5 pound packs. We eat fresh salads with fruit and nuts mixed in and drink lots a water and a little wine.

Like everything else, if you don't use your position at the top of the food chain, you'll loose it.

 

[Ravioli]

Heading off topic early - only post #8. What's with Tofurkey and the like? If you don't eat turkeys, why do you want to eat turkey tasting stuff? It's like eating them in effigy.

 

[Mike Smith]

When you realize that everything that was taught about "healthy foods" in the 60's and 70's was wrong you will feel much better and live longer. I stopped eating rice and bread and potatoes and as my Dad used to say-everything white-a year ago. I've lost 25 pounds, sleep better and have more energy. My wife has lost over 50 pounds. We buy our eggs from Costco two large cartons at a time and the bacon in 5 pound packs. We eat fresh salads with fruit and nuts mixed in and drink lots a water and a little wine.

Like everything else, if you don't use your position at the top of the food chain, you'll loose it.

The way you eat isn't why you lost weight, you lost weight because you were eating fewer calories than you burned. I just stopped eating too much about three years ago and lost 60 pounds. I ate ice cream every day. I did and still do eat white rice and potatoes and bread and have maintained my weight. There are no "good" nor "bad" foods, just food. I feel better because I don't weigh 225 pounds anymore. I sleep better because I get some exercise. A LCHF diet is not superior to any other. Its great that your way of eating suits you, but is in no way superior to how I eat.

 

[asicer]

Heading off topic early - only post #8. What's with Tofurkey and the like? If you don't eat turkeys, why do you want to eat turkey tasting stuff? It's like eating them in effigy.

If you want to bring it back on topic, this Beyond Burger thingamajigger pretty much went on my no-fry list when the OP mentioned cat food and Duraflame logs.

 

[cgrab]

The way you eat isn't why you lost weight, you lost weight because you were eating fewer calories than you burned. I just stopped eating too much about three years ago and lost 60 pounds. I ate ice cream every day. I did and still do eat white rice and potatoes and bread and have maintained my weight. There are no "good" nor "bad" foods, just food. I feel better because I don't weigh 225 pounds anymore. I sleep better because I get some exercise. A LCHF diet is not superior to any other. Its great that your way of eating suits you, but is in no way superior to how I eat.

You are absolutely right

 

[Sac Arrow]

It's not that I wouldn't be willing to give it a shot, but one important stat that is missing from the front page nutrition comparison is carbohydrates. It took some digging, but a 4-oz patty has 7g of carbs. 7 grams isn't a lot overall, but it is a lot for a 4 ounce portion. That is also the beef (pardon the pun) I have with bean based substitutes as well.

Oh yeah, I love how they put a big X in the beef column under 'plant based.' Ultimately, isn't beef plant based?

 

[GeorgeC]

Matter is condensed energy and meat is condensed vegetables.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The way you eat isn't why you lost weight, you lost weight because you were eating fewer calories than you burned. I just stopped eating too much about three years ago and lost 60 pounds. I ate ice cream every day. I did and still do eat white rice and potatoes and bread and have maintained my weight. There are no "good" nor "bad" foods, just food. I feel better because I don't weigh 225 pounds anymore. I sleep better because I get some exercise. A LCHF diet is not superior to any other. Its great that your way of eating suits you, but is in no way superior to how I eat.

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Strictly on a calorie basis, you can eat more calories on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet than a high carbohydrate diet to maintain the same weight (you have to.) Significantly more. Carbohydrates are converted to energy more efficiently than protein. That also means that they, in turn, are converted to body fat more efficiently.

That doesn't mean you can't lose and maintain weight on a HCLF diet. Of course you can, but your caloric intake must be less than if you were on a LCHP or F diet.

 

[Mike Smith]

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Strictly on a calorie basis, you can eat more calories on a high protein, low carbohydrate diet than a high carbohydrate diet to maintain the same weight (you have to.) Significantly more. Carbohydrates are converted to energy more efficiently than protein. That also means that they, in turn, are converted to body fat more efficiently.

That doesn't mean you can't lose and maintain weight on a HCLF diet. Of course you can, but your caloric intake must be less than if you were on a LCHP or F diet.

It really isn't more complicated than that. You're talking about the thermic effect of food and it is not "significantly" more. A 2000 calorie per day diet of 50p/30f/20c would produce a TEF of @320 calories. The same 2000 calories of 50c/25f/25p would produce a TEF of @250, 70 calories is not significant, unless its Oreos, one Oreo is @ 70 calories, that is significantly awesome. The theory of high protein diets allowing you to eat "significantly more" for the same result is just not true. You get one Oreo per day.

 

[Sac Arrow]

It really isn't more complicated than that. You're talking about the thermic effect of food and it is not "significantly" more. A 2000 calorie per day diet of 50p/30f/20c would produce a TEF of @320 calories. The same 2000 calories of 50c/25f/25p would produce a TEF of @250, 70 calories is not significant, unless its Oreos, one Oreo is @ 70 calories, that is significantly awesome. The theory of high protein diets allowing you to eat "significantly more" for the same result is just not true. You get one Oreo per day.

We are talking about two entirely different things. I'm not talking about thermic effects at all.

 

[Zeldman]

Actually, Ostrich is a neat alternative the beef. Just don't cook it based on coloration (it is done well before it becomes "medium" in beef coloring.

I have had ostrich burgers before, and it was pretty good. I do like buffalo and will take it over beef anytime. And I was born and raised in Texas where, "Beef, it's what for dinner" is just normal.

 

[Mike Smith]

We are talking about two entirely different things. I'm not talking about thermic effects at all.

Ok, what are you talking about?

 

[RyanB]

Anyone try the beyond burger? I was pleasantly surprised.

That's a negative.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Ok, what are you talking about?

I am talking about the differences in how the body processes different foods. Everything has to be broken down in to glucose (glycogen) in order for the body to be able to use it for either energy or internal fat storage. The closer you are to that, the quicker it is broken down to glycogen, and either burned off by sustaining your BMR, or by exercise. Complex carbohydrates are slower to absorb that sugars. The first use of proteins as they are broken down in to aminos, is muscular and cellular replenishment, and then they are further broken down in to starches, and ultimately glucose. The higher up the protein/fat scale, the more slowly and less efficiently the body absorbs calories. TEF calculations do not account for that.

 

[Mike Smith]

I am talking about the differences in how the body processes different foods. Everything has to be broken down in to glucose (glycogen) in order for the body to be able to use it for either energy or internal fat storage. The closer you are to that, the quicker it is broken down to glycogen, and either burned off by sustaining your BMR, or by exercise. Complex carbohydrates are slower to absorb that sugars. The first use of proteins as they are broken down in to aminos, is muscular and cellular replenishment, and then they are further broken down in to starches, and ultimately glucose. The higher up the protein/fat scale, the more slowly and less efficiently the body absorbs calories. TEF calculations do not account for that.

I agree that different macronutrients are metabolized in different ways. Where I disagree is that a surplus of one macronutrient would cause more fat storage than another. If I consume 3500 too many calories from carbohydrates, I will gain @ 1 pound. If I consume 3500 too many calories from protein, I will gain @ 1 pound. Conversely, if I consume 3500 calories less than my TDEE over a given period of time, I will lose @ 1 pound regardless of the macronutrient composition of my diet. I admit to not being completely on top of metabolic processes, but what am I missing? If any nutrient isn't absorbed its voided, but digestive efficiency is in the high 90% range in most people without a medical condition.

ETA, sorry I hijacked your thread OP.
ETA2, I enjoy a good debate SAC, I mean no disrespect and I don't claim to know it all. I am learning as much as I am debating.

 

[denverpilot]

I agree that different macronutrients are metabolized in different ways. Where I disagree is that a surplus of one macronutrient would cause more fat storage than another. If I consume 3500 too many calories from carbohydrates, I will gain @ 1 pound. If I consume 3500 too many calories from protein, I will gain @ 1 pound. Conversely, if I consume 3500 calories less than my TDEE over a given period of time, I will lose @ 1 pound regardless of the macronutrient composition of my diet. I admit to not being completely on top of metabolic processes, but what am I missing? If any nutrient isn't absorbed its voided, but digestive efficiency is in the high 90% range in most people without a medical condition.

ETA, sorry I hijacked your thread OP.
ETA2, I enjoy a good debate SAC, I mean no disrespect and I don't claim to know it all. I am learning as much as I am debating.

In an incredibly fat rich diet, some fat will pass all the way through without being absorbed. Frankly, that'd be a very nasty diet, but some people do have conditions where they just don't process some things as well as others.

I wouldn't recommend trying that though. More foods with plenty of natural fiber is probably a much better idea. ;-)

All that said, I'm dying for a burger today and have no idea why, but I'm going to go have one now. Ha. With bun. Sorry Sac. ;-)

 

[denverpilot]

Sonic. Double bacon cheeseburger, lettuce, pickle, mustard. Tater tots. Big Coke Zero. Happy Nate.

 

[RalphInCA]

Put enough garbage on top of it and you can kill the bad taste of anything including trash hamburgers from Five Guys, Mickey D's, or the fast food joint of your choice.

BTW, ketchup is for French Fries. It does not belong on hot dogs or hamburgers.

Careful there dude - there's a commandment that says (and I paraphrase) "Thou shalt not take the name of the Five Guys burgers in vain." I think there's another that says "Remember the Five Guys and keep it holy."

I love Five Guys.

 

[Hank S]

I thought "beyond burger" was steak. That's why my wife just asked to have for her Birthday Dinner this weekend.

Yep, got a good one. She likes to ride along in the plane, too, which she encouraged me to buy. And no, you can't have her . . .

 

[Cooter]

I agree that different macronutrients are metabolized in different ways. Where I disagree is that a surplus of one macronutrient would cause more fat storage than another. If I consume 3500 too many calories from carbohydrates, I will gain @ 1 pound. If I consume 3500 too many calories from protein, I will gain @ 1 pound. Conversely, if I consume 3500 calories less than my TDEE over a given period of time, I will lose @ 1 pound regardless of the macronutrient composition of my diet. I admit to not being completely on top of metabolic processes, but what am I missing? If any nutrient isn't absorbed its voided, but digestive efficiency is in the high 90% range in most people without a medical condition.

ETA, sorry I hijacked your thread OP.
ETA2, I enjoy a good debate SAC, I mean no disrespect and I don't claim to know it all. I am learning as much as I am debating.

The thing that makes it not quite so simple is that you have to consider where your body goes to burn that energy. It is not all consumed the same way. Different horomones switch off and on in order to direct where the body will look for its energy. That's why this new fasting fad and ketogenic diet has caught on.

What I forgot to include initially is that your body will be less efficient at processing the food taken in. It is kind of like the Atkins diet being turned on and off each day. The Atkins diet manipulates the presence of glucagon so that your body thinks it is fasting when it isn't. If I understand it correctly, then this means your body will be ignoring the food that passes through. So it's not the efficiency of the fat storage, it is that your body will continue to pull energy from storage even though there is food present in the stomach.

 

[Mike Smith]

You said it right, FAD. You can't trick or fool the body into doing something. You lose weight by consuming fewer calories than you burn. Things can make small differences, like so small that outside a controlled study the average person won't notice. Thermic effect of food, metabolic or digestive efficiency, non-exercise activity thermogenesis etc. People have gotten rich off of gullible people trying to take a short cut, there is no short cut. The latest is the ketogenic diet which is similar to the paleo diet, neither of which is superior to any other way of eating in terms of weight loss. It may or may not be a better choice based on medical issues. Weight loss----CI<CO, overall health----a balanced diet and some exercise.

 

[Cooter]

I agre with you about the fads. There is a guy a work that I've watched enthusiastically adopt every single diet that has come along. Paleo, Mediterranean, Atkins, South Beach, ketogenic, and has combined it with every exercise program, PX90, cross fit, etc. He's had blood work done, DNA tested, thyroid and hormones tested and considered testosterone replacement therapy all because he wants to lose 20-30 lbs.!
So yeah, eat less and exercise more. My pet peeve is these weekend long radio programs that are selling you some miracle vitamin or supplement that will change your life. Or some doctor that has discovered the secret to more energy and feeling better.
But I think the body can be "tricked", at least somewhat. That was the controversy behind the Atkins diet.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I agree that different macronutrients are metabolized in different ways. Where I disagree is that a surplus of one macronutrient would cause more fat storage than another. If I consume 3500 too many calories from carbohydrates, I will gain @ 1 pound. If I consume 3500 too many calories from protein, I will gain @ 1 pound. Conversely, if I consume 3500 calories less than my TDEE over a given period of time, I will lose @ 1 pound regardless of the macronutrient composition of my diet. I admit to not being completely on top of metabolic processes, but what am I missing? If any nutrient isn't absorbed its voided, but digestive efficiency is in the high 90% range in most people without a medical condition.

ETA, sorry I hijacked your thread OP.
ETA2, I enjoy a good debate SAC, I mean no disrespect and I don't claim to know it all. I am learning as much as I am debating.

Starches are absorbed pretty much with 100% efficiency, and they go straight to glycogen. Even if we ignore a lower digestion efficiency for fats and proteins, remember that protein calories are stripped out as aminos for bodily replenishment purposes before they are further broken down in to starches and then ultimately glycogen. So, if you eat 3500 calories of starch, you will have 3500 calories available for energy consumption, or as fat storage (weight gain.) If you eat 3500 calories of protein, you have somewhat less than 3500 calories available for energy consumption, or as fat storage after the body has taken the amino acids that it needs.