The beef itself is arguably one of the healthiest foods available. The burger ensemble with the fries and buns isn't great. The whole point of vegetarian burgers is so people following those diets can fit into social settings where others are eating burgers. Most vegetarians are such for ethical reasons, knowing it's harder to get adequate nutrition, and planning accordingly. Hopefully they aren't eating vegeburgers and expecting it to have the same nutrient profile as a real burger.
> Most vegetarians are such for ethical reasons, knowing it's harder to get adequate nutrition, and planning accordingly.
Getting adequate nutrition as a vegetarian isn’t difficult at all. Pick a random grain, a random legume, and a random vegetable, maybe throw in a salad, and you’ll average out to everything you need nutritionally.
It’s only a problem when you try to transform vegetables into non-vegetables. There’s nothing natural about eating massive amounts of a single part of any fruit or vegetable.
The same logic applies to explain why most juice is bad for you. It’s simply not evolutionarily sound to consume just the liquid portion of an entire bag of oranges or apples.
It applies to meat as well. A diet of only pork rinds isn’t going to work too well.
This paper is a meta-analysis of studies looking solely at iron stores among vegetarians vs omnivores. It doesn’t broadly address the claim about nutritional deficiencies among those who consume a meat-free diet more broadly. Moreover, among the studies they examined there was significant variability among cutoffs for serum ferritin as indicative of storage iron. About all I can conclude is that premenopausal vegetarian women should supplement with iron.
Exactly. This is evidence that it is hard. I'm glad the person you are replying to is able to manage a vegetarian diet successfully. It's definitely possible to get adequate nutrition, but most people don't have the understanding or discipline required.
Vegan avoids all animal products while vegetarians will eat milk products and sometimes fish. Since the vegan and vegetarian are often used interchangeably, I believe the article is really referring to the vegan lifestyle.
> The whole point of vegetarian burgers is so people following those diets can fit into social settings where others are eating burgers.
I do not think so. I eat meat, but does not go for burgers in general. I have yet to encounter social situation in which me not eating burger would in any way be an issue. It just does not happen, never. Being vegetarian poses social issues I think, but you never need a burger specifically.
It is more that people including vegetarians (excluding me I guess) like burger form and like the bun taste.
By only looking at a boolean "contains all the things your body needs", you can argue that beef patty topped with a cup of sugar is exactly as healthy.
Sure. But cooked meat also generally does not contain anything that is especially bad for you like sugar. Unprocessed meat is a healthy thing to eat. It’s not that controversial. If you’re eating meat and some vitamin c you’re not going to be deficient in anything.
There are plenty of fine vegetarian options too of course. Although some people will struggle with anemia and protein deficiency.
It's really not, though. Not any harder than in a meat eating diet. Maybe if you're following a vegan diet. Or if you have specific health concerns (like low iron absorption). But then, you should probably have to be careful if you're eating meat, as well.
This so much and to hear it often is similar annoying as those "and if they want to eat a burger/sausage then why don't they eat a real one"... People just not understanding that you do not eat no meat because of taste or disgust, but for ethical andor environmental reasons and just still like similar spice/composition or even just form or type of meal from previous times.
Hey grandposter, we even make burgers at home in many different styles without needing to fit into any social settings, but we also like to just try any offering that is out there, unimaginable!
Agreex, if the burger patty is just prime ground beef or black beans and quinoa or something it's probably ok. But people like to eat food that is nice sometimes and so it's everything else, the mayo, the ketchup, the toppings, the bun, the fries, that are part of the mise en place of the burger experience and the same goes for other vegetarian meat substitutes, e.g. sausages or bacon.
Are the patties high in iron and are they making that claim? I don't know.
Orange juice is also high in vitamin C and makes that claim so low information consumers think it's ok to have their children drink litres of the stuff since it's "healthier than soda". The problem you're highlighting has far more to do with the negative aspects of a capitalist food system (marketing and branding) and is far broader than whether these particular patties that are primarily selected on the basis their contents didn't die in terror surrounded by the stench of death with a boltgun through the skull have insufficient zinc or whatever.
Like sure proper labelling and branding is important, for all foods, but I'm reacting to the perceived broader campaign on behalf of the meat industry to single out meat replacements on the basis of them not being, I don't know, as healthy as a prime cut of wagyu beef prepared in the healthiest oil with a side salad of greens (no dressing).
A loaf of bread covered in butter is "perfectly healthy" if it satisfies your macronutrient requirements without going well beyond what your body is going to use. But that doesn't fit in with the average person's diet. Eating a 1200 calorie burger (that's high in fat) if your body burns 2000 calories a day likely isn't a healthy choice for most folks who aren't tracking what they eat, especially if they do it regularly.
Now write it a hundred times and maybe we can stop this circular discussion.