The food industry’s new favorite protein source: peas(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
The food industry’s new favorite protein source: peas
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/the-mighty-pea-is-everybody-s-new-favorite-plant-based-protein
180 comments
The tone and content of your post are both unhelpful and needlessly dismissive.
American has a rich, diverse, and passionate food culture that includes many whole foods and innovations created there. A lot of processed food is eaten, but so are a huge variety of unprocessed foods.
Replacing animal products with plant protein (beyond burger, impossible burger, many others) is an excellent trend for many reasons, with the potential environmental impact being the foremost benefit in my opinion. I look forward to the day where lab grown and/or plant protein sources are much more mainstream.
And lastly, "Monsanto soy and chemistry" is a ludicrous implication that plant based protein sources are somehow inherently scary or even that they're worse than mass-agriculture raised animal products.
American has a rich, diverse, and passionate food culture that includes many whole foods and innovations created there. A lot of processed food is eaten, but so are a huge variety of unprocessed foods.
Replacing animal products with plant protein (beyond burger, impossible burger, many others) is an excellent trend for many reasons, with the potential environmental impact being the foremost benefit in my opinion. I look forward to the day where lab grown and/or plant protein sources are much more mainstream.
And lastly, "Monsanto soy and chemistry" is a ludicrous implication that plant based protein sources are somehow inherently scary or even that they're worse than mass-agriculture raised animal products.
I never intended to imply that there is no rich american food culture there certainly is.
The point still stands. Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process? Especially if there are concerns regarding the health implications this might entail.
An yes those genetically modified plants are somewhat scary not only for the plants themselves but the awful business practices of the companies producing them. I never said that antibiotics laden mass animal production is any better.
I hope that the eating habits would change towards less animal products. Which would make much more sense then replacing those with artificial products for basically no reason other than habit.
The point still stands. Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process? Especially if there are concerns regarding the health implications this might entail.
An yes those genetically modified plants are somewhat scary not only for the plants themselves but the awful business practices of the companies producing them. I never said that antibiotics laden mass animal production is any better.
I hope that the eating habits would change towards less animal products. Which would make much more sense then replacing those with artificial products for basically no reason other than habit.
The word 'artificial' is, well, basically bullshit. There's no such thing as 'artificial' (or 'natural'). It all boils down to molecules and atoms, in the end.
What matters is (lack of) toxicity, harmful, LD50, food safety. 'Artificial' however does not and should not imply any of that.
As for
> Is it only me or is this whole preprocessed food stuff the most American thing ever?
I wouldn't say so. There's innovation regarding this throughout the world.
On top of that, cutting down on meat saves the environment. Is saving the environment an American thing...?
I'd wager that fast food is mostly an American invention, but it got picked up throughout the rest of the world. Like preprocessed food it isn't good or bad per definition.
What matters is (lack of) toxicity, harmful, LD50, food safety. 'Artificial' however does not and should not imply any of that.
As for
> Is it only me or is this whole preprocessed food stuff the most American thing ever?
I wouldn't say so. There's innovation regarding this throughout the world.
On top of that, cutting down on meat saves the environment. Is saving the environment an American thing...?
I'd wager that fast food is mostly an American invention, but it got picked up throughout the rest of the world. Like preprocessed food it isn't good or bad per definition.
The difference between natural and artificial is the difference between substances we've been exposed to, and thus evolved to deal with, for millions of years, and ones which are completely new to us, and we are essentially beta-testing on our bodies.
Of course, the official meaning of the world "natural", as it relates to the list of ingredients on a package, has been diluted to be meaningless, as you say.
Of course, the official meaning of the world "natural", as it relates to the list of ingredients on a package, has been diluted to be meaningless, as you say.
> Of course, the official meaning of the world "natural", as it relates to the list of ingredients on a package, has been diluted to be meaningless, as you say.
It's been restricted to be meaningless, IMO. If we go by your definition of artificial, then a lot of what doesn't qualify as "natural" on food labels isn't artificial either. Many "chemicals" added to food are substances that we've evolved to deal with. GMOs in particular aren't artificial by this definition, as they're mostly about making some food contain stuff that was previously found in other food.
It's been restricted to be meaningless, IMO. If we go by your definition of artificial, then a lot of what doesn't qualify as "natural" on food labels isn't artificial either. Many "chemicals" added to food are substances that we've evolved to deal with. GMOs in particular aren't artificial by this definition, as they're mostly about making some food contain stuff that was previously found in other food.
Basically, everything man-made which did not previously exist in nature is artificial. As for naturally occuring substances, everything that is synthesized is artificial as well.
> Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process?
Convenience. I use my blender twice a day. I need 3000 calories a day to maintain a BMI of 22 and to get that from all plants would be lots of work. I’ve eaten 2000 calories of lentils in a day - not pretty.
Convenience. I use my blender twice a day. I need 3000 calories a day to maintain a BMI of 22 and to get that from all plants would be lots of work. I’ve eaten 2000 calories of lentils in a day - not pretty.
> Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process?
Doesn’t that basically apply to any sort of cooking process at all? It’s all an artificial transformation of food.
Doesn’t that basically apply to any sort of cooking process at all? It’s all an artificial transformation of food.
Artifical products are not bad in general.
Everything we eat is chemical, the only difference is that somethings are created over a thousand years and some things are done in a few months/years in a lab.
Extracting ingredients and creating new flavors or products is not a bad idea, especially if you can replace a hard to make product(meat).
Of course, there should and will be testing if it is for safe consumption.
> Why would you replace a meal made out of plants with basically the same plants run through a blender and their ingredients extracted by some odd process?
Well I first heard of pea protein from vegan bodybuilders. Bodybuilders need extra protein. Protein without the carbs is useful. I think whey is probably a better idea, since it's been around long enough Galen recommends it for weak constitutions, but I'm not a vegan.
I have no idea what the "food industry" uses it for; presumably a replacement for soy meal, which really shouldn't be fed to people. Then again, pea protein soaked in glophosate probably shouldn't be either.
Well I first heard of pea protein from vegan bodybuilders. Bodybuilders need extra protein. Protein without the carbs is useful. I think whey is probably a better idea, since it's been around long enough Galen recommends it for weak constitutions, but I'm not a vegan.
I have no idea what the "food industry" uses it for; presumably a replacement for soy meal, which really shouldn't be fed to people. Then again, pea protein soaked in glophosate probably shouldn't be either.
> yes those genetically modified plants are somewhat scary
I have a question about this. Aren't all vegetables that we eat now are 'genetically modified' by humans. There were no ancient tomatoes or ancient okra.
Is there implication that GMO's that were made in lab are more scary?
I have a question about this. Aren't all vegetables that we eat now are 'genetically modified' by humans. There were no ancient tomatoes or ancient okra.
Is there implication that GMO's that were made in lab are more scary?
I think it's intellectually dishonest to compare artificial selection through selective breeding to genetic modification. You simply can't insert an anti-freeze gene from a fish into a tomato through artificial selection.
I don't even really have an issue with GMO, but I find the arguments promoting it are often conflating different issues which just seems to muddy the debate and in my opinion seems to create more distrust.
I don't even really have an issue with GMO, but I find the arguments promoting it are often conflating different issues which just seems to muddy the debate and in my opinion seems to create more distrust.
sorry it wasn't a gotcha point. I've heard ppl say that but I could never get a good answer what exactly makes 'genetic modification' more dangerous method vs 'breeding' method.
Mass production.
I would say that at least as American as processed food, are our various peculiar forms of "low religion" surrounding food. Sugar is bad for you, salt is bad for you, meat is bad for you, wheat is bad for you. Last week coffee was bad for you; today it's great for you. Every few days do a juice cleanse to flush out all the toxins inside you. Check out this new superfood from the swamps of Elbonia, loaded with antioxidants and a guaranteed cancer fighter! Et cetera.
A Native American friend put it thus: Veganism is a choice we can afford to make in modern society. If you were a Lakota living on the plains 500 or 1000 years ago, your choices were to eat buffalo or starve.
The USA is, indeed, one of the most prosperous countries in the history of ever, and one of the boons of that is we get a smörgåsbord laid out before us every day, a veritable cornucopia of foods from different sources of varying quality. It has turned us into picky eaters indeed, a luxury virtually unaffordable for most of human history.
A Native American friend put it thus: Veganism is a choice we can afford to make in modern society. If you were a Lakota living on the plains 500 or 1000 years ago, your choices were to eat buffalo or starve.
The USA is, indeed, one of the most prosperous countries in the history of ever, and one of the boons of that is we get a smörgåsbord laid out before us every day, a veritable cornucopia of foods from different sources of varying quality. It has turned us into picky eaters indeed, a luxury virtually unaffordable for most of human history.
> plant based protein sources are [...] worse than mass-agriculture raised animal products.
Plant-based protein is no better, from the health and nutrition context, than animal-based protein. They can even be worse; for example, plant nutrients often suffer from low “bioavailability”—which means that they are hard for us to extract, absorb, and utilize[1].
More on animal protein: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/
[1] https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/
Plant-based protein is no better, from the health and nutrition context, than animal-based protein. They can even be worse; for example, plant nutrients often suffer from low “bioavailability”—which means that they are hard for us to extract, absorb, and utilize[1].
More on animal protein: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/food/meats/
[1] https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/micronutrients-mental-health/
Do you think the bucketized bean protein powder extracted from peas might be bad for you? Well eat the freaking peas I bet those taste better as well.
That's like telling folks to simply eat wheat instead of bread or to eat oatmeal instead of the cereal flakes made from it. These aren't things that you can simply substitute: Pea protein gives variety of texture and allows folks to eat food they grew up with even though they no longer subscribe to that diet. Yes, there is room in the diet for both things, just like there is room for both bread and cracked wheat and other whole grains. There is more to food than simply nutrition and glossing over this is a fault that needs addressed.
And it is obvious that you've not eaten it.
If you disagree with these things... don't eat them. Simple as that.
That's like telling folks to simply eat wheat instead of bread or to eat oatmeal instead of the cereal flakes made from it. These aren't things that you can simply substitute: Pea protein gives variety of texture and allows folks to eat food they grew up with even though they no longer subscribe to that diet. Yes, there is room in the diet for both things, just like there is room for both bread and cracked wheat and other whole grains. There is more to food than simply nutrition and glossing over this is a fault that needs addressed.
And it is obvious that you've not eaten it.
If you disagree with these things... don't eat them. Simple as that.
Monsanto soy and chemistry... What do you think cows or chicken eat? Freshly grown grass from Switzerland?
Having worked for an accounting shop specialised in cow farms I can assure you that one of the main bills is antibiotics and food supplements. Also cow food is usually highly specialised.
Having worked for an accounting shop specialised in cow farms I can assure you that one of the main bills is antibiotics and food supplements. Also cow food is usually highly specialised.
Out here we have cows grazing on grass. Both on private dairy farms and on government land (ostensibly to keep the invasive grasses in check).
I live in Ireland, we have those too. I think that most of the meat is not like that though.
More like this https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3265/3239157183_91c5fbc582_z.j...
More like this https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3265/3239157183_91c5fbc582_z.j...
>Why has everything to be some powder in a bucket or some goop in a tube?
Highly processed foodstuffs have:
1) longer shelf life,
2) more easily controllable composition,
3) fewer ingredients, which lessens risk of lawsuits,
4) more flexibility to allow for addition to other foods.
Those four advantages combine to help producer recoup costs and avoid negative publicity. Maximize profits, minimize risks; whatever comes out as a result is the "food" product.
Highly processed foodstuffs have:
1) longer shelf life,
2) more easily controllable composition,
3) fewer ingredients, which lessens risk of lawsuits,
4) more flexibility to allow for addition to other foods.
Those four advantages combine to help producer recoup costs and avoid negative publicity. Maximize profits, minimize risks; whatever comes out as a result is the "food" product.
and I would add "5) Higher density of nutrients"
I can't imagine how many peas you'd have to eat to get the same amount of protein that you would with the powder solution.
You get more protein but you get less of everything else. What do you replace that with? For example it appears that peas have a decent amount of vit K in them. Also what do you do with the carbs taken out? Do you replace them with sugar? Because that's an inferior source. Or do you just add sugar to the powder in the first place to make it's taste bearable?
Pea (powder) protein is intended for supplementing protein, not carbs. If you wanted carbs you'd just eat the peas.
Counterpoint: I care about reducing animal suffering.
I do not care about vague, unspecified concerns regarding what is "natural" or "processed".
Bring on the processed pea-mush that doesn't suffer as it dies.
I do not care about vague, unspecified concerns regarding what is "natural" or "processed".
Bring on the processed pea-mush that doesn't suffer as it dies.
How do you know plants don't suffer as they die? That seems like a pretty bold assertion.
Sure they don't really have muscles, so they don't thrash around like animals, and they don't make noise or cry out when they are killed.
On the other hand, when they are wounded they do make chemical compounds to resist predation and to signal to nearby plants that predators are present (e.g. salicylate). This seems vaguely parallel.
Is the moral worth of plant suffering lower because it isn't close enough in form to human suffering?
If we were to encounter a truly alien species, how would you know whether or not it experienced suffering?
Sure they don't really have muscles, so they don't thrash around like animals, and they don't make noise or cry out when they are killed.
On the other hand, when they are wounded they do make chemical compounds to resist predation and to signal to nearby plants that predators are present (e.g. salicylate). This seems vaguely parallel.
Is the moral worth of plant suffering lower because it isn't close enough in form to human suffering?
If we were to encounter a truly alien species, how would you know whether or not it experienced suffering?
If this were an argument made in good faith, you would have done the absolutely mediocre amount of required thinking about what it is animals eat. Given that you evidently did not, this reads as empty contrarian posturing. Not very useful for anyone, except maybe for your pleasure.
A question isn't an argument. I'm genuinely curious about how people have decided what suffers and what does not.
The tone and content of your post are both unhelpful and needlessly cynical.
When someone is curious about something it is most appropriate to just respond to what they asked instead of second-guessing their motives.
When someone is curious about something it is most appropriate to just respond to what they asked instead of second-guessing their motives.
If you really care about the suffering of plants, which I strongly doubt, you should still eat them because the alternative is feeding ten times as many of them to an animal and then also eating the animal.
I'll admit to being wildly inconsistent on this, since I do care about what I perceive as the suffering of some of my favorite individual plants and animals, but not enough about the suffering of plants or animals in general to stop eating them or building things out of wood and leather, or what have you.
I could imagine other alternatives. I knew a fruitarian once (before Notting Hill came out). I suppose you could try and engineer auxotrophy into human cells. I went to a conference once where some people earnestly (but naively) proposed it.
I could imagine other alternatives. I knew a fruitarian once (before Notting Hill came out). I suppose you could try and engineer auxotrophy into human cells. I went to a conference once where some people earnestly (but naively) proposed it.
If plants suffer this is actually an argument FOR plant-based diets, since less plants/sentient beings suffer. Meat is a super in-efficient (land/water/energy consumption) way of turning plants, which are already food, into food.
Unless you consider that those grasses and rainwater used by the cow would’ve been completely ignored if the cow wasn’t there. And no, humans wouldn’t be able to get energy from those grasses without the cow.
I think you are underestimating the scale of our cattle. The majority of deforestation is due to cattle [1].
The world is basically dominated by us and our cattle [2] leading to massive losses in biodiversity [3].
If everyone in the world would eat the recommended USDA diet (mostly backed by industry and totally not healthy for you) we'd need another Canada to sustain us all [4]. By the way, most of the grasslands are man-made and we should try and reforest those areas to combat losses in biodiversity and climate collapse. Furthermore about a third of all fresh drinking water (not rainwater) is used for cattle [5].
[1]: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm / https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=defor...
[2]: http://peakoilbarrel.com/carrying-capacity-overshoot-and-spe...
[3]: https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment
[4]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[5]: http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-...
If everyone in the world would eat the recommended USDA diet (mostly backed by industry and totally not healthy for you) we'd need another Canada to sustain us all [4]. By the way, most of the grasslands are man-made and we should try and reforest those areas to combat losses in biodiversity and climate collapse. Furthermore about a third of all fresh drinking water (not rainwater) is used for cattle [5].
[1]: https://rainforests.mongabay.com/0812.htm / https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=defor...
[2]: http://peakoilbarrel.com/carrying-capacity-overshoot-and-spe...
[3]: https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment
[4]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
[5]: http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/02/18/4-billion-people-...
I think you should look into the accounting of those sources. So much of what you posted is totally irrelevant to cattle ranching, particularly in the United States. You’re just throwing a bunch of spaghetti at the wall, “look, muh data”
> On the other hand, when they are wounded they do make chemical compounds to resist predation and to signal to nearby plants that predators are present (e.g. salicylate). This seems vaguely parallel.
When a fighter jet is hit by a bullet, it releases chemical compounds to stop its fuel from exploding, and signals nearby forces that threats are present.
The reaction to damage alone does not suggest something is capable of suffering. There are other considerations, and there's little suggesting plants are capable of experiencing suffering (or experiencing anything at all).
When a fighter jet is hit by a bullet, it releases chemical compounds to stop its fuel from exploding, and signals nearby forces that threats are present.
The reaction to damage alone does not suggest something is capable of suffering. There are other considerations, and there's little suggesting plants are capable of experiencing suffering (or experiencing anything at all).
>there's little suggesting plants are capable of experiencing suffering (or experiencing anything at all).
So walk me through this, I'm curious how you know whether or not plants have experiences? How would you know whether any arbitrary life form (or object, since you brought up fighter planes) has experiences? What method allows you to make this determination?
So walk me through this, I'm curious how you know whether or not plants have experiences? How would you know whether any arbitrary life form (or object, since you brought up fighter planes) has experiences? What method allows you to make this determination?
I can't be 100% certain because we don't understand consciousness yet, but I believe we can derive some logical conclusions.
Starting from the basics: life is just complex, carbon-based nanotechnology. There's nothing we know that suggests cells are anything more than complex machines. There's nothing suggesting that if you put a bunch of cells together, you get something more than a complex machine. From the other end, we're only sure that conscious experience happens in human brains, though through structural and behavioral similarity, we may assume some degree of conscious experience in a lot of animals. Going this route, around smaller insects you may start to wonder whether what you're looking for is more like a machine, or more like a feeling thing capable of experiencing emotions. Plants are biologically less complex than insects, and have no identifiable "locus of cognition".
I mean, you have to note that when guessing whether or not something can experience emotions, we're projecting our own mental states based on that thing's phenotype. Look how works of fictions - pictures, movies, even textual descriptions in books - can make you feel compassion towards a rock, or a car. A skilled writer could rephrase my fighter jet example in a way that would make you actually feel sorry for it. This means our intuition is not a good judge here. Past that, the best we have (AFAIK) is heuristics, like "has no brain/brain-level complexity = probably can't have experiences".
Starting from the basics: life is just complex, carbon-based nanotechnology. There's nothing we know that suggests cells are anything more than complex machines. There's nothing suggesting that if you put a bunch of cells together, you get something more than a complex machine. From the other end, we're only sure that conscious experience happens in human brains, though through structural and behavioral similarity, we may assume some degree of conscious experience in a lot of animals. Going this route, around smaller insects you may start to wonder whether what you're looking for is more like a machine, or more like a feeling thing capable of experiencing emotions. Plants are biologically less complex than insects, and have no identifiable "locus of cognition".
I mean, you have to note that when guessing whether or not something can experience emotions, we're projecting our own mental states based on that thing's phenotype. Look how works of fictions - pictures, movies, even textual descriptions in books - can make you feel compassion towards a rock, or a car. A skilled writer could rephrase my fighter jet example in a way that would make you actually feel sorry for it. This means our intuition is not a good judge here. Past that, the best we have (AFAIK) is heuristics, like "has no brain/brain-level complexity = probably can't have experiences".
Is human suffering part of what you consider to be animal suffering? If so, do you not care to know how nutritious (or not) this pea-mush is in relation to whole foods (plant or animal)?
Processed foods started becoming a major thing in the 1950s, when memories of the Depression and the Dust Bowl still loomed large in the minds of American citizens. Processed foods are designed to keep for longer, ship over long distances, and be manufactured in bulk, allowing for people in famine-affected regions to still be able to purchase food from elsewhere affordably.
It's fine to restrict yourself to a diet consisting only of locally grown, organic, whole foods, and to never eat meat from a chicken whose résumé you can't review first. Just be aware that you are making your food security dependent on the conditions of your region.
It's fine to restrict yourself to a diet consisting only of locally grown, organic, whole foods, and to never eat meat from a chicken whose résumé you can't review first. Just be aware that you are making your food security dependent on the conditions of your region.
Late reply but you might appreciate: America is a big country, and population centers are often a long distance/inconvenient to access from the food supply.
This applies to both cities and remote towns in the countryside. Ensuring safety and stability is often a larger priority than freshness.
I.e. The remote town of 500 people 6 hours away from Salt Lake City won’t have the scale or shelf life to accept fresh kale from the California Coast. Processing helps bring these people food safely and conveniently.
This applies to both cities and remote towns in the countryside. Ensuring safety and stability is often a larger priority than freshness.
I.e. The remote town of 500 people 6 hours away from Salt Lake City won’t have the scale or shelf life to accept fresh kale from the California Coast. Processing helps bring these people food safely and conveniently.
Some people prefer to chug on Soylent Green (and maybe even force others to do the same) just to be able to boast how green they are.
If by most American thing ever you mean the most awesome idea ever, I would say no, but it is still up there.
Everything does not have to powder in a bucket, but if say 80% of what was sold in a grocery store was, the world would be a much better place.
You are free to buy your old fashion food, and I will enjoy my Huel.
Everything does not have to powder in a bucket, but if say 80% of what was sold in a grocery store was, the world would be a much better place.
You are free to buy your old fashion food, and I will enjoy my Huel.
Why eat bread when you can just eat boiled wheat grains?
I think it is to do with the culture of consumerism and capitalism, in conjunction with taking of moral stances against one's own health, than American culture per se:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
apatters(1)
Thank you for pointing this out.
My family has been trialling various alternative meats recently, and one we liked was the Sunfed chicken-free chicken, made here in NZ. Pea protein is the main ingredient. Their advertising claims that people can't tell the difference between it and real chicken, which I find hard to believe, but it's not bad and it basically serves an equivalent function to chicken for me - it soaks up whatever tasty thing I'm covering it with and gives me a bunch of protein (much more than real chicken, actually). It's not like actual chicken is really super tasty unless you smother it in something yummy.
I cook whole chickens frequently. People make the mistake of cooking boneless chicken breasts, which are the most flavorless in every way possible. If I eat some white meat at about 3-4 hours of simmering it’s fairly dull, but other parts are more flavorful. Then after about 12 hours it all becomes quite rich tasting. Only seasoning needed is salt.
Serious Eats disagrees with you - apparently chicken breast makes for the most chicken-tasting stock (though thinner than using bones or wings). Unless of course you meat "cooking" as in just chicken breast (not soup).
> Instead of tasting flavorless and washed out, the chicken breast produced the cleanest-tasting stock, with the most intense chicken flavor. But it also produced the thinnest stock in terms of body.
> The thigh meat also produced a light-colored stock, but it had a muddier, less clean flavor than the breast stock.
> The wings produced the stock with the most body, which makes sense, given the number of cartilage-rich joints in each wing. But the flavor was also not as chicken-y as that of the breast stock.
> Bones also made a stock with a less distinct chicken flavor, but they contributed some bass notes that were pleasant.
> The whole chicken produced a middle-of-the-road stock: not as tasty as the chicken breast stock, but not as muddy as some of the others.
https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/10/how-to-make-rich-flavorf...
> Instead of tasting flavorless and washed out, the chicken breast produced the cleanest-tasting stock, with the most intense chicken flavor. But it also produced the thinnest stock in terms of body.
> The thigh meat also produced a light-colored stock, but it had a muddier, less clean flavor than the breast stock.
> The wings produced the stock with the most body, which makes sense, given the number of cartilage-rich joints in each wing. But the flavor was also not as chicken-y as that of the breast stock.
> Bones also made a stock with a less distinct chicken flavor, but they contributed some bass notes that were pleasant.
> The whole chicken produced a middle-of-the-road stock: not as tasty as the chicken breast stock, but not as muddy as some of the others.
https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/10/how-to-make-rich-flavorf...
But what is a chickeny flavor? I think the article refers to quality of flavor, and I’m referring to intensity and richness. Their conclusion makes sense, that stewing a whole chicken would be like an average of all the parts. The article uses a pressure cooker, which I haven’t tried.
I read some articles like this when I started out making bone broth. Wing broth is this way, thighs are another, they said, etcetera. Since my goal was bone broth I didn’t consider boneless breasts - turkey breasts are great, though. Since my goal was health and allergy avoidance, I went for whole chickens as they’re my ally processed.
I’m mainly now basing my analysis on plucking parts of that whole chicken at different times. Sometimes when I’m hungry I’ve bought a breast or two, boiled it, and compared to the normal stew I make, it was rather flavorless. I haven’t tried extended simmering, I admit.
Surely this is opinion-based, but my belief is that making soups or saucey dishes from chopped up chicken breast with no bones is much less rich than from a whole chicken stewed overnight. Countless grandmothers through history would likely agree.
I read some articles like this when I started out making bone broth. Wing broth is this way, thighs are another, they said, etcetera. Since my goal was bone broth I didn’t consider boneless breasts - turkey breasts are great, though. Since my goal was health and allergy avoidance, I went for whole chickens as they’re my ally processed.
I’m mainly now basing my analysis on plucking parts of that whole chicken at different times. Sometimes when I’m hungry I’ve bought a breast or two, boiled it, and compared to the normal stew I make, it was rather flavorless. I haven’t tried extended simmering, I admit.
Surely this is opinion-based, but my belief is that making soups or saucey dishes from chopped up chicken breast with no bones is much less rich than from a whole chicken stewed overnight. Countless grandmothers through history would likely agree.
mistake of cooking boneless chicken breasts
This depends very much on the chicken. If you get good quality chicken breasts (ideally skin on) then they can be very tasty with just some brining and a pinch of salt and pepper.
And whatever you do, don't overcook the chicken breasts as they are much more sensitive to overcooking than other parts of the chicken. Many people cook their chicken breasts to an internal temperature of over 72 deg c (165 F), which can really dry out the chicken, when really don't want to go much over 65 c (150 F).
This depends very much on the chicken. If you get good quality chicken breasts (ideally skin on) then they can be very tasty with just some brining and a pinch of salt and pepper.
And whatever you do, don't overcook the chicken breasts as they are much more sensitive to overcooking than other parts of the chicken. Many people cook their chicken breasts to an internal temperature of over 72 deg c (165 F), which can really dry out the chicken, when really don't want to go much over 65 c (150 F).
My perspective on this is a bit odd. I’m speaking from my experience of simmering a whole chicken in a crockpot. If I’m hungry early on, I may blend a chicken breast, cooked ~4 hours, with water in a Nutribullet and drink it. Usually, I’d consume whole chicken parts mixed with the broth, cooked for 12+ hours. To me, the white meat cooked minimally tastes somewhat eggy. Cooked longer, and with other parts it has a richer flavor. By that time a lot of gelatin has been released, too.
I am absolutely overlooking by your standards as I prefer it all stewed for about 16 hours! I don’t enjoy the broth cooked longer than 36 hours.
Grilling and other methods of preparation would be totally different. I’m mainly speaking of soups.
I am absolutely overlooking by your standards as I prefer it all stewed for about 16 hours! I don’t enjoy the broth cooked longer than 36 hours.
Grilling and other methods of preparation would be totally different. I’m mainly speaking of soups.
How do you cook chickens this way if you don't mind my asking? Is this roasting at very low heat or something else?
In a crockpot. My original goal was making bone broth, and I started out roasting them with herbs in an oven, then transferring to the crockpot. This turned into roasting in a crockpot crock for efficiency. Then I found out you could just cook the entire thing in a crockpot and it was equivalent for those purposes. Since then I’ve cooked 2-4 chickens a week, sometimes turkey parts, and I’ve experimented with countless cooking times.
Chicken can be quite tasty without much else if cooked properly.
It's fairly cheap, so it's the default for overcooked, dried-out protein. And sure, lots of things can be a substitute for that.
It's fairly cheap, so it's the default for overcooked, dried-out protein. And sure, lots of things can be a substitute for that.
The average chicken is bland because we prioritise yield over flavour.
Industrially-raised chicken: Bred for extreme fast growth. Slaughtered young. Fed on straight grain. Bland flavour.
Old-world chicken: Grow at a more "natural" pace. Slaughtered when mature. Permitted to forage and eat various food scraps. Rich flavour.
Industrially-raised chicken: Bred for extreme fast growth. Slaughtered young. Fed on straight grain. Bland flavour.
Old-world chicken: Grow at a more "natural" pace. Slaughtered when mature. Permitted to forage and eat various food scraps. Rich flavour.
This comment just made me remember my grandmother's roast chicken, which was delicious and flavorful without being smothered in anything. I haven't had properly cooked chicken in years!
I tried "pea chicken" and it consistently made me nauseous when I ate it (as in after I ate it).
I don't have a weak stomach, almost nothing makes me feel sick, but that did it to me every time.
I don't have a weak stomach, almost nothing makes me feel sick, but that did it to me every time.
If pea protein is the main ingredient shouldn't it be "meat alternative" rather than "alternative meat".
"Meat" is not exclusive to animal tissue, it's also used for plants (meat of the fruit, nut meat, etc)
It can be but in this context i would say it's referring to animal tissue.
[deleted]
Were they broilers from a chicken factory? Try some of the heirloom varieties for more flavor.
A real chicken that eats bugs, roasted whole is delicious as-is.
Pea protein is incredibly chalky and earthy. It's a tough one to stomach. The other thing that people don't realize is that peas are incredibly high in iron. So much so that you actually need to watch your intake or you'll get way too much iron. As an example, 1 scoop of pea protein powder, roughly 20-25g of protein, will also provide 40% of your RDA of iron. An 8oz ribeye steak (something people generally think is very high in iron) only has 20% of your RDA of iron with 40g of protein.
> scoop [...] g [...] oz
Argh! Don't mix your units, or you'll crash into the surface of Mars [1]. Let's convert that to SI-based values:
Argh! Don't mix your units, or you'll crash into the surface of Mars [1]. Let's convert that to SI-based values:
8 oz = 227 g
RDA of iron = varies; 8 mg for adult males,
18 mg for adult females before menopause
1 scoop = who knows, maybe 30 g?
That sounds like a criticism of whatever your particular product is (sounds like a raw flour to me) and not of "pea protein" per se, which is neither chalky nor earthy and has no iron inherently.
I mean, ground up soy beans are probably mealy too. Tofu certainly isn't. I don't know exactly what the products being discussed in the linked article are, but if they're targetted at meat replacement products they're rather more likely to be on the tofu end of the spectrum than the supplement you bought.
I mean, ground up soy beans are probably mealy too. Tofu certainly isn't. I don't know exactly what the products being discussed in the linked article are, but if they're targetted at meat replacement products they're rather more likely to be on the tofu end of the spectrum than the supplement you bought.
"...and has no iron inherently."
According to the nutritional labels 1 cup of peas has 11% of your RDA of iron. Take away the water weight and I can see that being a problem in large servings.
According to the nutritional labels 1 cup of peas has 11% of your RDA of iron. Take away the water weight and I can see that being a problem in large servings.
I'm not sure how large you think the servings are likely to get, but a quick look indicates 1 cup of cooked and drained peas has 35% DV of dietary fiber. Before you eat yourself into some kind of iron-related jeopardy your digestive tract is going to raise some warnings of its own, I think.
Serving Size: 1/4 cup (27g) has 35% of RDA of Iron.
I'm not the OP, just gave it a quick search. That's for pea protein. Further down-thread absorption is brought into play, which is likely why the risk is less than it would appear.
Edited for clarity and formatting.
I'm not the OP, just gave it a quick search. That's for pea protein. Further down-thread absorption is brought into play, which is likely why the risk is less than it would appear.
Edited for clarity and formatting.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Also 21g of carbohydrates, most of which will likely not end up in the end product. Peas contain iron, the protein in peas doesn't.
"peas" and "pea protein" are not the same thing, though.
Pea protein appears to be cleaned, hulled, and milled peas with the starch and fiber removed.
That's a flour, and applies to the Bob's Red Mill product you linked elsewhere. Food industry products are very often significantly processed. Again, think tofu, not soybean flour. Your soyburgers don't taste at all like edamame, either.
presumably the process of creating protein powder from peas removes most of the iron, along with other nutrients.
Several results in a quick search would refute that.
Sticking to a single brand[1] shows it's significantly high in iron. It's the only brand I recognized, but several other brands have similar nutritional content.
[1]https://www.bobsredmill.com/pea-protein-powder.html#nutritio...
Sticking to a single brand[1] shows it's significantly high in iron. It's the only brand I recognized, but several other brands have similar nutritional content.
[1]https://www.bobsredmill.com/pea-protein-powder.html#nutritio...
Try some of the products from Ripple Foods. Whatever their process is, it works - taste is very smooth and neutral. The chocolate premix shake is very close to dairy for me.
As far as iron content goes, it looks like the RDA is around 10 mg daily with a tolerable upper limit of 40 mg per dose. It's not clear how much daily intake you need for a person without hemochromatosis to experience negative side effects, but exceeding the RDA by several times doesn't seem like a major problem. Notably, the recommended intake is 1.8x higher for vegetarians vs non-vegetarians.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional
As far as iron content goes, it looks like the RDA is around 10 mg daily with a tolerable upper limit of 40 mg per dose. It's not clear how much daily intake you need for a person without hemochromatosis to experience negative side effects, but exceeding the RDA by several times doesn't seem like a major problem. Notably, the recommended intake is 1.8x higher for vegetarians vs non-vegetarians.
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional
The iron comparison is slightly misleading since the steak contains ~40% of heme iron vs. none in the pea protein.
Heme iron is more readily absorbed (20% - 30% absorbed) than non heme iron (5% - 12% absorbed).
Heme iron is more readily absorbed (20% - 30% absorbed) than non heme iron (5% - 12% absorbed).
I think that perhaps this is the fault of the product you had. The stuff I buy tends to be nice and chewy textured. I don't think the iron is an issue if I'm not eating it daily (which I don't).
Soy products tend to be similar: I've bought some that were seriously disgusting both in taste and texture, but other things are absolutely delicious. A few simply depend on use.
Soy products tend to be similar: I've bought some that were seriously disgusting both in taste and texture, but other things are absolutely delicious. A few simply depend on use.
I ate a lot of pure, unflavored isolate and it seemed very mild to me. Slight bean-like flavor, sort of creamy. Pea protein and hot water with salt seemed fine.
I like Ripple's plain un-sweetened pea milk. It's got a thick consistency and while not actually tasting like milk, doesn't have the "off" plant flavors like soy or almond milk.
I use it as a milk substitute in coffee/tea/hot chocolate and it tastes pretty good.
I also like the Just egg free mayonnaise, that one really tastes just like mayo.
I use it as a milk substitute in coffee/tea/hot chocolate and it tastes pretty good.
I also like the Just egg free mayonnaise, that one really tastes just like mayo.
The science seems to point in the direction of whole plant foods, without any processing.
As an example, peas themselves are likely very healthy, but pea extracts like protein powder and pea-based fake meats are likely not.
This reductionistic nutritional approach where we are trying to extract from a food the one compound that makes it healthy simply does not work.
The food has thousands of compounds, that interact with each other in thousands of different ways. It's not the fiber either, that is another reductionist view, it's the whole food.
Just take a bunch of veggies, put them in the microwave for 10 minutes without any water and add your favorite seasoning: balsamic vinegar, tahini, miso paste, something sweet, and eat the whole food as it comes from the grocery, as fresh as possible.
You can do this to carrots, onions, broccoli, potatoes, onions, garlic, eggplant, pumpkin, butternut squash, almost any vegetable will steam in the microwave without any added water.
You can do this to pears and apples also, they are delicious in the microwave. Add beans, lentils, seeds, oats with red fruits for breakfast, and you are good to go.
The move to consuming more plant-based foods is a step in the right direction in terms of public health, but I'm a bit afraid of the backlash that will inevitably come when studies start coming out saying that these highly processed plant foods are not exactly healthy either.
As an example, peas themselves are likely very healthy, but pea extracts like protein powder and pea-based fake meats are likely not.
This reductionistic nutritional approach where we are trying to extract from a food the one compound that makes it healthy simply does not work.
The food has thousands of compounds, that interact with each other in thousands of different ways. It's not the fiber either, that is another reductionist view, it's the whole food.
Just take a bunch of veggies, put them in the microwave for 10 minutes without any water and add your favorite seasoning: balsamic vinegar, tahini, miso paste, something sweet, and eat the whole food as it comes from the grocery, as fresh as possible.
You can do this to carrots, onions, broccoli, potatoes, onions, garlic, eggplant, pumpkin, butternut squash, almost any vegetable will steam in the microwave without any added water.
You can do this to pears and apples also, they are delicious in the microwave. Add beans, lentils, seeds, oats with red fruits for breakfast, and you are good to go.
The move to consuming more plant-based foods is a step in the right direction in terms of public health, but I'm a bit afraid of the backlash that will inevitably come when studies start coming out saying that these highly processed plant foods are not exactly healthy either.
What evolutionary advantage would plants have to be healthy for humans when eaten as a whole food? Even agriculture, the start of which is a mere blip on an evolutionary time scale, would be enough to destroy any symbiotic relationship (which, AFAIK has never been tested let alone proven). Agriculture tends to select for flavor/taste and not long term health benefits.
Also, are tahini and miso paste not processed foods? Does heating food not modify a food's chemical makeup?
Also, are tahini and miso paste not processed foods? Does heating food not modify a food's chemical makeup?
Peoples ancestors have been heating food for 1.9 million years https://www.livescience.com/15688-man-cooking-homo-erectus.h... so we've adapted to it by now, though theirs evidence that smoking or charing food contains carcinogens.
There is a scale of processed foods from minimally processed to ultra processed https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-proces... less processing is best.
There is a scale of processed foods from minimally processed to ultra processed https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-proces... less processing is best.
Those are just examples of condiments used in very small amounts to give the food a better taste. Thaini is blended sesame seeds, miso is fermented soy and rice.
They have been made for thousands of years and are an example of minimally processed tasty condiments with high nutritional value, but 95% of the caloric value of the meal is the veggies not the condiments.
Pea protein extract is in comparison a much more heavily processed food.
Heating does impact the bioavailability (ease of absorption) of the nutrition in food, for some things it increases it while for others it decreases the nutrition.
We have evolved to eat cooked food for about 2 million years, our gut and teeth/jaw is adapted to cooked food.
Grains are also OK, but veggies and fruit are even better, the best cooking method is steaming to avoid forming carcinogenic compounds, that can be produced also by roasting in dry heat.
They have been made for thousands of years and are an example of minimally processed tasty condiments with high nutritional value, but 95% of the caloric value of the meal is the veggies not the condiments.
Pea protein extract is in comparison a much more heavily processed food.
Heating does impact the bioavailability (ease of absorption) of the nutrition in food, for some things it increases it while for others it decreases the nutrition.
We have evolved to eat cooked food for about 2 million years, our gut and teeth/jaw is adapted to cooked food.
Grains are also OK, but veggies and fruit are even better, the best cooking method is steaming to avoid forming carcinogenic compounds, that can be produced also by roasting in dry heat.
Well, tahini is just blended sesame seeds and miso paste is just fermented soybeans and rice. Hardly what I would call processed in a modern sense.
Would you consider these more or less processed than butter, yoghurt, cheese, peanut butter, pickles, or chocolate? Why?
The same or similar. Well, chocolate is probably more. The point OP is trying to make is that yogurt has most of the stuff found in milk( different yogurts vary of course). But e.g. eating greek yogurt is way better than whey isolate.
> As an example, peas themselves are likely very healthy, but pea extracts like protein powder and pea-based fake meats are likely not.
That's an awfully strong statement. Do you have any evidence or cite?
That's an awfully strong statement. Do you have any evidence or cite?
I don't think that's all that strong. It's reasonably well-known that processes such as heating, drying, canning, and so on tend to reduce the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables - such as vitamin B and C, sulfurophane in broccoli, antioxidants in blueberries, etc. A quick google should reveal a ton of studies. So it might not be surprising that extracts have these kinds of issues as well.
I think OP is probably right that these meat substitutes are less healthy than eating veg in its raw form, but perhaps the question should be how they stack up nutritionally against the red meat they're replacing.
I think OP is probably right that these meat substitutes are less healthy than eating veg in its raw form, but perhaps the question should be how they stack up nutritionally against the red meat they're replacing.
Yes, but not all processes destroy nutrients. Frozen vegetables are just as healthy as fresh (possibly more so). And it appears whey protein (in essence, protein extracted from dairy sources) is very healthy; again arguably healthier than an equivalent amount of protein obtained directly from "raw" dairy sources (cheese, milk, etc.).
Obviously pea protein will be missing out on some nutrients found in the parts of the pea which were discarded, so may not be as healthy as raw peas, but I understood OP to be saying that pea protein may be actively unhealthy, and indeed, that anything but unprocessed "whole" vegetables is unhealthy. That's seems unsupported by current science.
Obviously pea protein will be missing out on some nutrients found in the parts of the pea which were discarded, so may not be as healthy as raw peas, but I understood OP to be saying that pea protein may be actively unhealthy, and indeed, that anything but unprocessed "whole" vegetables is unhealthy. That's seems unsupported by current science.
> pea extracts like protein powder and pea-based fake meats are likely not
>> That's an awfully strong statement. Do you have any evidence or cite?
It depends. Peas belong to the Fabaceae family or Leguminosae that is a big family of creatures expert in alkaloid's design.
Sweet Peas are in the genus Pisum, that is closely related with the wild peas Lathyrus. Lathyrism is a well known neurological disease. Is a permanent damage triggered by eating too many peas from Lathyrus and related genuses. For survivalism and foraging purposes, wild peas must be put in the "not edible thing unless really fainting" category. And only in small quantitites. Not even cooked.
Thus, flour of raw peas should be a little poisonous also until cooked. Workers should have been provided with accurate protection against breathing accidentally the raw stuff day after day (and should assure to wear it). Neurological damages are permanent and not funny.
By the same reason, even if seems convenient and fast to just make a smoothie with raw pea flour you must assure to cook it before to eat it (OR that was yet cooken by the maker before to sell it).
>> That's an awfully strong statement. Do you have any evidence or cite?
It depends. Peas belong to the Fabaceae family or Leguminosae that is a big family of creatures expert in alkaloid's design.
Sweet Peas are in the genus Pisum, that is closely related with the wild peas Lathyrus. Lathyrism is a well known neurological disease. Is a permanent damage triggered by eating too many peas from Lathyrus and related genuses. For survivalism and foraging purposes, wild peas must be put in the "not edible thing unless really fainting" category. And only in small quantitites. Not even cooked.
Thus, flour of raw peas should be a little poisonous also until cooked. Workers should have been provided with accurate protection against breathing accidentally the raw stuff day after day (and should assure to wear it). Neurological damages are permanent and not funny.
By the same reason, even if seems convenient and fast to just make a smoothie with raw pea flour you must assure to cook it before to eat it (OR that was yet cooken by the maker before to sell it).
No nutritionist here (& it's way too early to think in any depth) but the fruit juice +/- fiber issue comes to mind...
https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=orange%20juice%20sugar%20pulp%...
https://duckduckgo.com/html?q=orange%20juice%20sugar%20pulp%...
I don't disagree with you that it's probably a really good thing to eat whole plant foods...but when you bring up something like miso, or vinegar...what are these but a further processing of whole plant foods? And why are these OK, but something like a pea extract or a pea-based protein not healthy (and I have no idea if they are or aren't).
You could even make miso from peas...
You could even make miso from peas...
Those are condiments, used in minimal amounts to give more flavor to the food. They do not make the bulk of the calories, maybe 1 to 5% of a meal.
This is unlike a pea protein isolate burger, which makes a huge part of the meal. Also, there is the level of processing, pea protein isolate is much more processed than fermented condiments like vinegar or mison.
This is unlike a pea protein isolate burger, which makes a huge part of the meal. Also, there is the level of processing, pea protein isolate is much more processed than fermented condiments like vinegar or mison.
Yes, veggies taste great once you learn how to treat them. As you say all the science points to eating veggies whole, and they're so cheap! I have bags of frozen veggies for whenever I'm feeling lazy, chuck in a can of beans, or a bit of meat if you're so inclined, maybe a bit of rice. Add some sauce, done.
Yes, it's so simple. Frozen is also very healthy, but fresh is also very simple with the microwave. I'm yet to find a veggie that I can't throw in the microwave for 5 to 12 minutes and it's cooked perfectly even without added water.
Yet, somehow this is not common knowledge. People think that veggies need to be roasted in the oven for 45 minutes, or boiled to 20 minutes and it's just not true.
Yet, somehow this is not common knowledge. People think that veggies need to be roasted in the oven for 45 minutes, or boiled to 20 minutes and it's just not true.
Split green peas are a big element of survival in my dirtbag mountaineer diet along with oats, eggs and peanut butter.They kick ass.
When you say 'dirtbag mountaineer diet', do you mean it's the diet you observe when you're climbing a multi-day mountain? Oats, eggs, PB, and SGP is what you take in your bag, to cook, when you are climbing?
Dirtbagging refers to those who are usually living in a van or something similar in and around climbing areas. So no, not up on the wall.
Not necessarily true. Split peas, peanut butter, rice, oats, chocolate chips and powdered milk are awesome food, whether on the ground or on the wall. They don't freeze in winter, they don't go bad when its hot, you don't need to wash your pot with soap, you can soak them for hours so you need only cook them for a few minutes. These make for ideal characteristics when on a multi-day climb. They're also cheap so dirtbags eat that same stuff when they're not on a big climb. Saves a lot of money.
Split peas kick ass indeed! I figured I was the only dirtbag eating them. Never seen anyone else in Canada or US doing it. Did you grow up eating split peas?
Serious question for healthcare/nutrition/chemistry experts: how healthy, or not healthy, are milks based on alternative protein and fat sources? e.g. Ripple's pea milk.
Is there any good, easy way for a consumer to know that a particular alternative milk has been produced in an ethical, healthy way?
Is there any good, easy way for a consumer to know that a particular alternative milk has been produced in an ethical, healthy way?
I learned, I'm allergic to plants so I looked it up. All this anti meat stuff is kinda scary to me and I'm afraid of depression and anxiety comming back so I might be biased.
There is something called anti-nutrients, they prevent you from absorbing minerals or if allergic use up your vitamins to battle inflammation. There are lectins in peas. I don't know how much of the lectins will still be in there after the processing, but I'd avoid plant protein for that reason, exception might be avocado protein, but they're a waste of global resources if you can buy animal protein pasture raised locally. Or if you care for the animals, insect protein might still be healthier, although it might require the supplementation of chitinase.
There is something called anti-nutrients, they prevent you from absorbing minerals or if allergic use up your vitamins to battle inflammation. There are lectins in peas. I don't know how much of the lectins will still be in there after the processing, but I'd avoid plant protein for that reason, exception might be avocado protein, but they're a waste of global resources if you can buy animal protein pasture raised locally. Or if you care for the animals, insect protein might still be healthier, although it might require the supplementation of chitinase.
I was a vegetarian for a long time and then was forced to start eating primarily meat by food allergies, intolerance and celiac disease. I know what you mean - lack of availability of fresh chickens to cook would render life very difficult for me. Surviving on vegetable sources is difficult because almost everything gets contaminated with wheat/barley/rye and if not that, tree nuts.
I had to cut out almost all grains and the foods that make me feel best overlap with the paleo and AIP diets.
I had to cut out almost all grains and the foods that make me feel best overlap with the paleo and AIP diets.
Yeah, my wife is allergic to legumes so this explosion of pea protein in everything is worrying to us, too. It's easy enough to avoid peas themselves, since people generally know what they are and if they're in dishes they're making, but people are pretty clueless about what goes into their fancy, whole foods flours or whatever. Pea protein, for instance, is in a lot of almond milk these days.
also gmo mixing up between different plant species
Truth be told pea based proteins are heavily processed. To keep costs down they (generic) use produce from China and often will change one step so it can be called US made.
Some of the processing techniques use some pretty nasty hydrocarbon solvents, which are largely filtered out.
Just like renewable energy though, it’s not nearly as clean as it seems at first glance. But as in both cases, it’s still progress.
Some of the processing techniques use some pretty nasty hydrocarbon solvents, which are largely filtered out.
Just like renewable energy though, it’s not nearly as clean as it seems at first glance. But as in both cases, it’s still progress.
Some plant proteins become more allergenic after cooking/processing. Peanut, another legume, is one example of such plant.
These alternative milks are mostly water though. I'd say things like pea-based burgers and chicken are more likely to have issues.
But, as you say, it's still progress.
But, as you say, it's still progress.
It depends. Legumes have risks for some people for blood pressure, vitamin absorption and a few other things.
End of the day, all of the not-milk, not-meat stuff is a fad, just like oat bran, low fat and whole grain. You're best to ignore it. If you don't want to drink milk, drink water. Cloudy water drinks are usually a place where you pick up alot of sugar.
The best approach is an omnivore diet that's mostly plant based. By using 3-4oz of meat or fish in a meal you can afford to buy humane, quality meats.
End of the day, all of the not-milk, not-meat stuff is a fad, just like oat bran, low fat and whole grain. You're best to ignore it. If you don't want to drink milk, drink water. Cloudy water drinks are usually a place where you pick up alot of sugar.
The best approach is an omnivore diet that's mostly plant based. By using 3-4oz of meat or fish in a meal you can afford to buy humane, quality meats.
I haven't dived into plant-based milks and health risks/benefits too much. What I can tell you is that Animal based Milk in general is not healthy, they are high in saturated fats, have a too high calcium and estrogen concentrations and increase the risk to prostate cancer[1], ovarian cancer [2], uteri cancer [2] and other health risks.
Do note that a lot of pro-milk studies are industry backed. The new Canadian food guide has discarded all industry backed studies and based on science created a new food guide [3]. This food guide removed the "recommended" glass of milk based on these studies with water.
[1]:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008823601897
[2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328?dopt=Citation
[3]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/canadians-would-rather...
Do note that a lot of pro-milk studies are industry backed. The new Canadian food guide has discarded all industry backed studies and based on science created a new food guide [3]. This food guide removed the "recommended" glass of milk based on these studies with water.
[1]:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008823601897
[2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125328?dopt=Citation
[3]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/canadians-would-rather...
Most allergens are plants. There is even a fruit-vegetable syndrome. LTP syndromes are from proteins that are heat resistant and at times become even more allergenic after processing/cooking. Allergies to nuts are often life threatening.
But nobody is allergic to meat.
Buy the stock in whoever is making EpiPens.
But nobody is allergic to meat.
Buy the stock in whoever is making EpiPens.
People can definitely be allergic to meat (animal protein):
https://allergyfacts.org.au/allergy-anaphylaxis/food-allerge...
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/ConditionsAndTrea...
https://allergyfacts.org.au/allergy-anaphylaxis/food-allerge...
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/ConditionsAndTrea...
There are even people who are literally allergic to water. However, the number of such people in practical terms is zero.
People bitten by certain ticks can become allergic to meat.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/25/621080751/re...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/25/621080751/re...
alpha gal is only allergy to very specific types of meat - not all meat.
It is certainly possible to be allergic to animals and rating meat. Fish and seafood is common. Some people are allergic to pork, mainly people with cat allergies for some reason. Specific tick bites can cause allergy to beef and pork. One can be allergic to chicken as well.
> But nobody is allergic to meat.
Except from Lyme's Disease, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_allergy
Except from Lyme's Disease, perhaps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_allergy
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It’s become a hot commodity, but is there enough of it to meet demand?
Come on Bloomberg, you know the answer to that question is yes. It doesn't take a decade to ramp up garden pea production, the plants grow readily from seed.
Come on Bloomberg, you know the answer to that question is yes. It doesn't take a decade to ramp up garden pea production, the plants grow readily from seed.
oh god it's the most disgusting of all proteins. can anyone really consume it without any additives? I thought hemp protein was pretty bad, but oh boy does pea take the crown.
Rice protein tastes ok (a bit like mushrooms), but casein and of collagen protein are the only ones that are actually tasty by themselves, just diluted with water.
I really really wanted to like pea protein, but calling it wet cardboard is really doing a disservice to the wet cardboard cuisine.
I fear with this kind of campaign behind it it will now find its way to the majority of shakes and meals and the taste will be just everywhere.
Rice protein tastes ok (a bit like mushrooms), but casein and of collagen protein are the only ones that are actually tasty by themselves, just diluted with water.
I really really wanted to like pea protein, but calling it wet cardboard is really doing a disservice to the wet cardboard cuisine.
I fear with this kind of campaign behind it it will now find its way to the majority of shakes and meals and the taste will be just everywhere.
> can anyone really consume it without any additives?
Isn't this kind of a strange complaint when you're talking about protein extract of any sort? You're not talking about food, you're talking about an ingredient.
Isn't this kind of a strange complaint when you're talking about protein extract of any sort? You're not talking about food, you're talking about an ingredient.
Good lord. I never imagined people were intended to just eat scoops of the stuff. I add a few ounces to sauces or ramen I'm making, it thickens them a bit and doesn't affect the taste. They could probably tolerate much more.
Being forced to be lactose free... I can tolerate pea protein with powdered fiber, 2/3 lactose free milk and 1/3 water.
But it took me a few weeks to 'enjoy it'. YMMV.
I mean the alternative, rice protein is absolutely :vomit_face:
On the positive side pea protein will keep you 'regular' ;)
But it took me a few weeks to 'enjoy it'. YMMV.
I mean the alternative, rice protein is absolutely :vomit_face:
On the positive side pea protein will keep you 'regular' ;)
Honest question: why don't you just eat peas and drink water?
Pea protein is in really high concentration to have that much protein in a drink. It's also so refined that the fructose in the pea won't be a problem to digest.
It’s not supposed to taste delicious on its own. Few eat pure soy or any other protein. I have and personally I feel rice is chalky. Pea seems smooth and creamy to me. It’s best mixed in with other food.
It blends well with rice protein though. 50/50 isn't bad. You might try out something like True Nutrition, where you can make your own custom blends. It's also not bad either when it's an ingredient in things. (Beyond products, etc.)
Hemp protein is pretty disgusting, I agree. It's gritty and slimy, and the texture by itself is horrible.
Hemp protein is pretty disgusting, I agree. It's gritty and slimy, and the texture by itself is horrible.
Is there a particular reason you don't just consume peas? They're pretty tasty.
I don't mind pea protein. I just mix it with water and chug it after workouts. I don't particularly care for the taste, because it truly is quite bland, but I don't mind drinking it with water at all.
I've tried half a dozen brands. The best you can do is dilute it. There are some brands I like ("Aloha" for instance) but they mostly defeat the plant protein by diluting it sufficiently with carbs.
You can have 'additives' by consuming actual peas. Tastes pretty good.
I kinda like pea protein, but you know what’s really great? Fresh peas! They’re delicious.
This protein doesn't come from the green peas that most of us are used to, they come from the yellow split pea variety. It's a while since I ate them as-is, but I recall them tasting more like lentils than green peas.
I thought yellow split peas are just dried peas? Wikipedia seems to think so too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_pea
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_pea
They're dried, but I thought they were also usually field peas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea#Field_peas). However it looks like they're actually yellow peas, which are still not the green ones that most people are used to. I don't know how different they are when they're fresh though, I've never seen fresh yellow peas or dried green ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_protein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pea_protein
Still, green peas are similarly rich in protein.
Interesting, I just typed "green peas" into Google, and what it shows me in the sidebar shows 5g of protein per 100g, which isn't very high at all. But split peas seem to have only 8.3g per 100g which isn't much higher - I guess a lot of the pea is removed in making the protein from them.
I've come across water lentils (also known as duckweed or lemna) in a growing number of products. A hydroponic solution, but interesting nutritional profile. Bringing it up due to the fact the crop doubles in size every day. Not sure if it can be used in burgers but there's no shortage of plant protein supply anywhere.
"the crop doubles in size every day"
for a brief spell, that is. otherwise it'd be jack's freakin beanstalk!
for a brief spell, that is. otherwise it'd be jack's freakin beanstalk!
Well, until it hits water surface boundary limits aka fully covered lake.
I’m not sure how new this is. I mean, people have been using yellow split peas in daals etc for, I assume, basically forever. They’re not exactly an innovative source of protein.
What’s the result of the non pea-industry sponsored studies on fart production for peas vs other protein sources ?
If cow farts contribute to greenhouse gas emission throughout the world currently [0], what would happen if humans begin to emit ever more gas as a consequence of a significant increase in gas-producing diets (e.g. pea-based, etc.)??? (Only half-joking of course!)
[0] = https://www.cattlefeeders.ca/project-clean-cow-reducing-catt...
[0] = https://www.cattlefeeders.ca/project-clean-cow-reducing-catt...
If pea protein constitutes a large portion of your protein intake, aren’t anti-nutrient phytates still a concern?
What issues do anti-nutrient phytates cause and how long does it take the effects to become apparent?
Some info: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/
"Phytates (phytic acid) in whole grains, seeds, legumes, some nuts—can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium. [2,3]"
You'll see in a few years when people with these weird supplement focused diets get older different complications. When you don't drink milk, and don't eat meat, don't eat eggs, and rely on a couple of proteins, you're going to have issues due to calcium and iron issues, especially if you are a woman.
"Phytates (phytic acid) in whole grains, seeds, legumes, some nuts—can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium. [2,3]"
You'll see in a few years when people with these weird supplement focused diets get older different complications. When you don't drink milk, and don't eat meat, don't eat eggs, and rely on a couple of proteins, you're going to have issues due to calcium and iron issues, especially if you are a woman.
Thanks for linking this, it was an interesting read. One thing that stood out to me was a paragraph towards the bottom of the article:
> "Studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc, so the body may be adapting to the presence of anti-nutrients by increasing the absorption of these minerals in the gut. [3]"
I do wonder how that differs with individuals on a vegan diet who don't eat any animal products.
> "Studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc, so the body may be adapting to the presence of anti-nutrients by increasing the absorption of these minerals in the gut. [3]"
I do wonder how that differs with individuals on a vegan diet who don't eat any animal products.
Homeostasis is really quite incredible.
> I do wonder how that differs with individuals on a vegan diet who don't eat any animal products.
It's the same for vegans, or perhaps even better, if you see the links below on cow's milk.
Your parent post talks about how you need cow's milk for calcium and meat for iron, but interestingly enough, cow's milk limits iron absorption. If you search for "cow milk iron" you get a large amount of articles stating this.[1]
Note that the example articles I linked talk about infants and toddlers, because in some societies they are most likely to drink milk. I'm Scandinavian, and here people drink milk into adulthood, but I can't quickly find studies on milk and iron for adults.
Also note that the parent's link doesn't mention cow's milk, but instead suggests you should drink it, even though it limits iron absorption, so it all depends on where you look.
There link between the calcium in milk and bone health has also been questioned. We've all learned that you should drink milk for strong bones, which means that Scandinavians shouldn't have any problems with brittle bones of older people, but it's the opposite.[2]
Another interesting factor is that vitamin c (ascorbic acid) helps iron absorption. A vegetarian or vegan will probably eat vegetables high in vitamin c with their iron sources, which helps absorption.
I've read elsewhere that when an omnivore eats heme and non-heme iron, the heme version is preferred by the body because it's easier to absorb. When you go vegetarian or vegan, you have a two-week period or so of lower iron absorption before the gut bacteria changes and improves absorption of non-heme iron, so that there's no longer an issue.
I've also read that vegetarians and vegans often have better iron values that the general omnivore population. As a single test case, my wife is also vegan. When she donates blood they measure her iron level, and it's always perfect. We eat a mix of fresh vegetables, processed soy burgers, things made from pea protein, and so on, anything that's vegan, so it doesn't seem to be a problem.
But the parent talked about "weird supplement focused diets", which may or may not include vegetarians and vegans and could be talking about people who drink a single everything-included meal-replacement drink all the time.
[1] Some examples:
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1001/p1217.html
"In infants, the introduction of cow's milk in the first year of life is the greatest dietary risk factor for the development of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia. Cow's milk is low in iron, and its iron is poorly absorbed. In addition, it decreases the absorption of iron from other dietary sources. Therefore, the strict avoidance of cow's milk in the first 12 months of life is essential in preventing iron deficiency anemia."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043881
"Consumption of cow's milk (CM) by infants and toddlers has adverse effects on their iron stores, a finding that has been well documented in many localities. [...] The high protein intake from CM may also place infants at increased risk of obesity in later childhood. It is thus recommended that unmodified, unfortified CM not be fed to infants and that it be fed to toddlers in modest amounts only."
[2] https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/20141029/is-milk-you...
"The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated.
Lots of milk did not appear to either protect against or promote broken bones in men."
It's the same for vegans, or perhaps even better, if you see the links below on cow's milk.
Your parent post talks about how you need cow's milk for calcium and meat for iron, but interestingly enough, cow's milk limits iron absorption. If you search for "cow milk iron" you get a large amount of articles stating this.[1]
Note that the example articles I linked talk about infants and toddlers, because in some societies they are most likely to drink milk. I'm Scandinavian, and here people drink milk into adulthood, but I can't quickly find studies on milk and iron for adults.
Also note that the parent's link doesn't mention cow's milk, but instead suggests you should drink it, even though it limits iron absorption, so it all depends on where you look.
There link between the calcium in milk and bone health has also been questioned. We've all learned that you should drink milk for strong bones, which means that Scandinavians shouldn't have any problems with brittle bones of older people, but it's the opposite.[2]
Another interesting factor is that vitamin c (ascorbic acid) helps iron absorption. A vegetarian or vegan will probably eat vegetables high in vitamin c with their iron sources, which helps absorption.
I've read elsewhere that when an omnivore eats heme and non-heme iron, the heme version is preferred by the body because it's easier to absorb. When you go vegetarian or vegan, you have a two-week period or so of lower iron absorption before the gut bacteria changes and improves absorption of non-heme iron, so that there's no longer an issue.
I've also read that vegetarians and vegans often have better iron values that the general omnivore population. As a single test case, my wife is also vegan. When she donates blood they measure her iron level, and it's always perfect. We eat a mix of fresh vegetables, processed soy burgers, things made from pea protein, and so on, anything that's vegan, so it doesn't seem to be a problem.
But the parent talked about "weird supplement focused diets", which may or may not include vegetarians and vegans and could be talking about people who drink a single everything-included meal-replacement drink all the time.
[1] Some examples:
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2002/1001/p1217.html
"In infants, the introduction of cow's milk in the first year of life is the greatest dietary risk factor for the development of iron deficiency and iron deficiency anemia. Cow's milk is low in iron, and its iron is poorly absorbed. In addition, it decreases the absorption of iron from other dietary sources. Therefore, the strict avoidance of cow's milk in the first 12 months of life is essential in preventing iron deficiency anemia."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043881
"Consumption of cow's milk (CM) by infants and toddlers has adverse effects on their iron stores, a finding that has been well documented in many localities. [...] The high protein intake from CM may also place infants at increased risk of obesity in later childhood. It is thus recommended that unmodified, unfortified CM not be fed to infants and that it be fed to toddlers in modest amounts only."
[2] https://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/news/20141029/is-milk-you...
"The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated.
Lots of milk did not appear to either protect against or promote broken bones in men."
>You'll see in a few years when people with these weird supplement focused diets get older different complications. When you don't drink milk, and don't eat meat, don't eat eggs, and rely on a couple of proteins, you're going to have issues due to calcium and iron issues, especially if you are a woman.
You made that up yourself like it was part of the page you linked lol.
Here's a more relevant quote from the actual page:
"It is not known how much nutrient loss occurs in our diets because of anti-nutrients, and the effects vary among individuals based on their metabolism and how the food is cooked and prepared."
Another quote from the page:
"Studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc."
OK and maybe one more:
"Keep in mind that anti-nutrients may also exert health benefits."
So basically no, anti-nutrients are not worth worrying about.
You made that up yourself like it was part of the page you linked lol.
Here's a more relevant quote from the actual page:
"It is not known how much nutrient loss occurs in our diets because of anti-nutrients, and the effects vary among individuals based on their metabolism and how the food is cooked and prepared."
Another quote from the page:
"Studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc."
OK and maybe one more:
"Keep in mind that anti-nutrients may also exert health benefits."
So basically no, anti-nutrients are not worth worrying about.
its in all high end dog foods.
that are killing dogs (degenerative cardiomyopathy).
that are killing dogs (degenerative cardiomyopathy).
What happened to peanuts? eggs? Dead cow? Those are proteins; peas are what I put in my food so my wife wont steal it.
Peanuts are legumes, like peas, but present far more problems with allergies.
Eggs are far more resource intensive to produce than peas and also present ethical problems (e.g. what to do with male chicks - throw them alive in a grinder or suffocate them?). Cow production has similar issues, like water usage.
> what to do with male chicks - throw them alive in a grinder or suffocate them?
Let them grow to adulthood and then eat them?
Let them grow to adulthood and then eat them?
Like most adult male animals, they taste terrible and stringy. Even pre-industrial societies didn't bother rearing male animals for meat.
I’m sure they could deal with it in a better way than they do, ethically - but they’re operating under the restraints of capitalism, which says compassion is too costly.
I eat some pea protein products, like "Pea Milk" and some veggie burgers, but it always tastes like peas to me. OK in a burger, but not so much in milk.
It's a shame that wheat protein has been demonized. It's a very "neutral" protein, and can substitute for meat well.
It's a shame that wheat protein has been demonized. It's a very "neutral" protein, and can substitute for meat well.
As someone with celiac, wheat protein is absolutely demonic. With 1% of the population suffering from celiac and up to 5 times as many from gluten intolerance, which can be very serious, the less wheat and barley, the better. Other proteins don’t have their very own autoimmune disease.
I'm curious if celiac and gluten intolerance are so common because grain proteins are so common? If pea protein ends up everywhere will a significant proportion of the population end up at risk from it as well?
Peas, lentils and beans are already quite common and don’t seem to pose a major allergy or immune hazard. Some people have soy allergies and intolerance, although problems with milk are far more common. Peas appear to provide many of the benefits of those foods without the drawbacks.
There is no other disorder like celiac disease. It’s the only autoimmune disease with a known trigger, which happens to be a food. There’s no way peas would begin to do that.
It is possible to have a rare allergy to soy or other foods that causes a delayed reaction with intestinal changes similar to celiac - I don’t recall if it’s type ii or iv food allergies.
There is no other disorder like celiac disease. It’s the only autoimmune disease with a known trigger, which happens to be a food. There’s no way peas would begin to do that.
It is possible to have a rare allergy to soy or other foods that causes a delayed reaction with intestinal changes similar to celiac - I don’t recall if it’s type ii or iv food allergies.
Let's cheer for the latest fad of the industry of the annual fad, who has made the planet obese, churning increasingly nutrient-less [1], and taste-less [2] food-stuff to our tables, all the while sponsoring spin research ("breakfast is the most important meal of the day", "fat is bad for you", etc).
[1] aside for injecting its products with the nutrient fad of the year, e.g. this or that vitamin, omega-3, extra fiber, etc
[2] except for the nuance-less taste buds of teenagers and teen-adults hooked on sugar and salt
[1] aside for injecting its products with the nutrient fad of the year, e.g. this or that vitamin, omega-3, extra fiber, etc
[2] except for the nuance-less taste buds of teenagers and teen-adults hooked on sugar and salt
> Let's cheer for the latest fad of the industry of the annual fad, who has made the planet obese, churning increasingly nutrient-less [1], and taste-less [2] food-stuff to our tables, all the while sponsoring spin research ("breakfast is the most important meal of the day", "fat is bad for you", etc).
Well, the industry cannot be blamed for what is ultimately the consumer's fault in uncritically adopting strange beliefs about food, as hilariously demonstrated by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
Well, the industry cannot be blamed for what is ultimately the consumer's fault in uncritically adopting strange beliefs about food, as hilariously demonstrated by this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLk5AAKRem8
>Well, the industry cannot be blamed for what is ultimately the consumer's fault
I, for one, can blame those with (a) the profit motive, (b) fake sponsored studies and articles, (c) knowingly selling bad foodstuff, over those misinformed and bombarded with ads, targeted by food chemistry to make crap more addictive, and so on, that suffer the consequences...
I, for one, can blame those with (a) the profit motive, (b) fake sponsored studies and articles, (c) knowingly selling bad foodstuff, over those misinformed and bombarded with ads, targeted by food chemistry to make crap more addictive, and so on, that suffer the consequences...
Sure, you can blame them all you want, however blaming won't change anything.
As long as consumers remain gullible -- as evidenced by even the otherwise intelligent folks here defending plant-based food (highly processed to boot) and casually demonizing meat -- so will continue them being taken advantage of by all sorts of groups.
As long as consumers remain gullible -- as evidenced by even the otherwise intelligent folks here defending plant-based food (highly processed to boot) and casually demonizing meat -- so will continue them being taken advantage of by all sorts of groups.
Why has everything to be some powder in a bucket or some goop in a tube?
It is so strange that people replace animal products with chemistry.
I can understand not to eat animal based products on moral or environmental grounds but replacing those with Monsanto soy and chemistry does not strike me as the proper way to do it.
Do you think the bucketized bean protein powder extracted from peas might be bad for you? Well eat the freaking peas I bet those taste better as well.