Still waiting for the recipe inspiration to hit. In the meantime, I've been scheming.
If you ask any health-conscious vegan why they avoid fake meats, I bet one or more of these reasons will turn up in their explanations:
-Egg protein and/or casein (dairy protein) are found in a lot of these meats, rendering them very much NOT VEGAN. (In my head I'm imagining the NOT VEGAN sound byte from Vegan Freak Radio.)
-Soy protein isolate. Vegan, but extremely unhealthy. In the words of Dr. John McDougall, "You may as well eat meat." Here's why. (Scroll to the section titled "Calcium Loss and Cancer Growth from Protein Concentrates".)
-Isolated wheat gluten is used as a binder and a texture enhancer in a lot of commercially available fake meats. Wheat gluten may very well be the most potent and common food allergen, and it can cause unpleasant digestive and skin conditions for sensitive people. Along with casein, it is also thought to enhance the symptoms of autistic spectrum disorders. (I'm not going to provide a link for this one, but google "wheat gluten autism" and witness the debate for yourself.)
-Fat. Some fake meats are loaded with any and every kind of oil you can imagine just to simulate the feeling of biting into a 30% fat ground chuck burger.
While there are many reasons to avoid commercially available fake meats, that doesn't make fake meats out of the question. There are perfectly good replacements for the proteins, texture enhancers, binders, and fats listed above.
For protein: Instead of relying on soy protein isolate, use enzymatically processed rice protein powder (available at health food stores and gyms). You can mix it into baked goods, and use it in lentil balls and lentil loaf. Rice protein is a perfect compliment to bean and lentil proteins, therefore adding rice protein will not only increase the amount of protein in otherwise grain-free meats, it will enhance the quality of the protein already present. Enzymatically processed rice protein producers tout their low-temperature production method as not destroying any of the amino acids in the finished product, but uncooked rice also contains higher levels of lectins, which are proteins apparently capable of causing stomach upset, and possibly inhibiting nutrient absorption, among other nasty things. So, baking this stuff might actually be the better bet.
For binders and texture enhancers: Use xanthan gum and flax "gluten". Xanthan gum is something that is commonly used to replace wheat gluten in gluten-free baking. It is GRAS (generally recognized as safe) but I don't want to make a habit of using it in large amounts. A little will go a long way to provide a (I hate using this adjective) meaty texture. Flax "gluten" is not only a great binder, but it also provides omega-3 fatty acids even post-baking. Flax is also a very highly anti-inflammatory food.
For fats: Instead of adding isolated fats, grind up whole, raw pumpkin seeds in a coffee grinder, and add the meal to a fake meat mix. Pumpkin seeds are very rich in iron, vitamin K, and protein. Pumpkin seed meal also adds a rich, (I don't want to use that adjective again) flavor to any fake meat.
(In case you're wondering why using the word "meaty" bothers me, but talking about fake meats does not, I am wondering that as well. I think that there's some latent guilt present for even wanting something so close to the "original", animal carcass that it is...)
So, there you have it: Fake meats to feel good about. I guess I should write some recipes about now...
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
An argument that makes me want to tear out my hair...
...and then braid it into an effigy of the arguer and set it on fire.
I don't mean to offend or scare anyone with any implications of homicidal thoughts for bad arguments. Even for the most baseless, radical, and disgustingly stupid arguments I stop at thoughts of effigies. Granted, there is also quite a bit of rage involved.
I also hate to sound like I'm putting myself significantly above anyone trying to argue one point or another. I usually don't like to participate in vegan vs. omnivore arguments because I've been in far more than my share, most in which neither side came away the wiser. But, I respect people who do argue their side of any issue, no matter what their side or the issue is.
However, I cannot respect people who present an argument which makes completely obvious the fact that they have taken no time whatsoever to find any evidence to back up such an argument, or to simply examine the world around them and spend a little time deconstructing this -thing- that they pulled out of their ass and mistook for a legitimate viewpoint because they either liked the sound of it, or it helped them to forget that what they may have been considering before was a real issue worth a little more mental CPU time than deciding whether to make their toast before or after they take a crap in the morning.
This blog entry is dedicated to one argument from the omnivorous side of the fence that I feel fits the above description, and I hear it far too often for how absurdly weak it is. It has its so-called basis in physiology, and perhaps evolutionary theory if you want to give it that much credit. For anyone playing at home, I'm not referring to the hunter-gatherer argument, or the theory that eating meat somehow made our brains larger and more complex. Those are also both common arguments from the omni crowd -- the former being one that I do respect somewhat, while the latter is treading thin ice over the frozen lake of easily debunked mindless banter. The argument that I am thinking of would actually be taking a stroll with the latter, but what makes it break the ice and sink (but not die, strangely) is the undue gusto and pride with which it is usually presented, sometimes as though it is the end-all be-all of pro-meat-eating propaganda. It is (drumroll.......) this:
Can you see it? It took me a while to find it, too. Here I've marked it:
The red arrow in the above image is pointing to a human canine tooth. I hope I marked it right. I had to identify it by counting teeth rather than by sight. Supposedly, even though it can't be immediately identified as something that is supposed to tear through flesh, this little tooth is a prime marker for our omnivorous nature. It is there expressly to tear through flesh according to some omnivores I've spoken to, who all seem to be either overly proud or overly confident in their assertions. I've even been told to go to a dentist, who I guess would be an expert in the field of teeth, and ask him or her "what my teeth are for" after telling an omnivore that I was a vegan. I guess he assumed that a dentist would tell me that my canine teeth are for tearing into meat.
If a dentist did tell me that my canine teeth are for tearing into meat, I think it would be just another symptom of we as a society forgetting what exactly meat is, and where meat comes from. Meat is not something that originates cured in plastic packaging, sliced between deli paper, or baked, boiled, broiled, or cooked in any way. It is flesh from a living creature which billions of years of evolution have made tough enough to withstand harsh elements and some predator encounters. It does not "fall off the bone" or "melt in your mouth" naturally. The thought that a human being could rip through the flesh of a cow like a real predator with our "canine" teeth is absurd. On the other hand, these teeth look like they may be able to accomplish such a feat:
Pictured above are real canine teeth, as the skull is that of a real canine. In this picture you can easily identify the teeth which would make this animal capable of taking down and eating live prey. If we were a modern society of dogs the pro-meat canine teeth argument might actually hold some water, until you consider that despite their dental configuration even dogs are omnivorous and can live happy, long vegan lives if given the proper nutrition.
Humans do have a long history of being able to eat almost any plant or creature in sight, but that trait is surely not due to the configuration of our puny teeth. Instead, it was our brains which became complex enough which allowed us to hunt, farm, cook, and to make use of any food source, plant or animal, and consequently spread all over the globe. Now that we no longer need to kill animals to sustain ourselves, I hope that we can use our brains to figure out a way to live humanely and sustainably for the sake of all creatures on this planet.
Whether or not this blog convinces anyone to adopt a vegan lifestyle, I hope that I've at least accomplished something worthwhile by making the Appeal to Dental Anomaly argument for omnivorism sound fittingly absurd. I felt it was about time somebody did so in short-essay format. However, I feel one cannot truly appreciate the absurdity of this argument until one hears or reads it from the horse's mouth or keyboard, with all of it's accompanying fervor and gusto. I present to you the segment of the Amazon.com review which inspired this blog post:
Why argue from nature alone when you can bring God into this silly, silly picture? You'd think that if God had intended us to be obligate omnivores he (or whatever pronoun designation you prefer) would have set us up with the real canine tooth model. In defense of the Biblical God's design, in Genesis "He" gives Adam and Eve permission to eat "every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed". Hey, that sounds like God's original intention for Adam and Eve was that they be vegan. Sounds like somebody's a little mixed up on their religious views, but maybe I've discounted this Amazon reviewer too soon. Perhaps the day will come when somebody can point me to the Bible verse, "For God did giveth man his tiny canine teeth so that he could tear into some tasty MEAT," and all will be forgiven.
I don't mean to offend or scare anyone with any implications of homicidal thoughts for bad arguments. Even for the most baseless, radical, and disgustingly stupid arguments I stop at thoughts of effigies. Granted, there is also quite a bit of rage involved.
I also hate to sound like I'm putting myself significantly above anyone trying to argue one point or another. I usually don't like to participate in vegan vs. omnivore arguments because I've been in far more than my share, most in which neither side came away the wiser. But, I respect people who do argue their side of any issue, no matter what their side or the issue is.
However, I cannot respect people who present an argument which makes completely obvious the fact that they have taken no time whatsoever to find any evidence to back up such an argument, or to simply examine the world around them and spend a little time deconstructing this -thing- that they pulled out of their ass and mistook for a legitimate viewpoint because they either liked the sound of it, or it helped them to forget that what they may have been considering before was a real issue worth a little more mental CPU time than deciding whether to make their toast before or after they take a crap in the morning.
This blog entry is dedicated to one argument from the omnivorous side of the fence that I feel fits the above description, and I hear it far too often for how absurdly weak it is. It has its so-called basis in physiology, and perhaps evolutionary theory if you want to give it that much credit. For anyone playing at home, I'm not referring to the hunter-gatherer argument, or the theory that eating meat somehow made our brains larger and more complex. Those are also both common arguments from the omni crowd -- the former being one that I do respect somewhat, while the latter is treading thin ice over the frozen lake of easily debunked mindless banter. The argument that I am thinking of would actually be taking a stroll with the latter, but what makes it break the ice and sink (but not die, strangely) is the undue gusto and pride with which it is usually presented, sometimes as though it is the end-all be-all of pro-meat-eating propaganda. It is (drumroll.......) this:
Can you see it? It took me a while to find it, too. Here I've marked it:
The red arrow in the above image is pointing to a human canine tooth. I hope I marked it right. I had to identify it by counting teeth rather than by sight. Supposedly, even though it can't be immediately identified as something that is supposed to tear through flesh, this little tooth is a prime marker for our omnivorous nature. It is there expressly to tear through flesh according to some omnivores I've spoken to, who all seem to be either overly proud or overly confident in their assertions. I've even been told to go to a dentist, who I guess would be an expert in the field of teeth, and ask him or her "what my teeth are for" after telling an omnivore that I was a vegan. I guess he assumed that a dentist would tell me that my canine teeth are for tearing into meat.
If a dentist did tell me that my canine teeth are for tearing into meat, I think it would be just another symptom of we as a society forgetting what exactly meat is, and where meat comes from. Meat is not something that originates cured in plastic packaging, sliced between deli paper, or baked, boiled, broiled, or cooked in any way. It is flesh from a living creature which billions of years of evolution have made tough enough to withstand harsh elements and some predator encounters. It does not "fall off the bone" or "melt in your mouth" naturally. The thought that a human being could rip through the flesh of a cow like a real predator with our "canine" teeth is absurd. On the other hand, these teeth look like they may be able to accomplish such a feat:
Pictured above are real canine teeth, as the skull is that of a real canine. In this picture you can easily identify the teeth which would make this animal capable of taking down and eating live prey. If we were a modern society of dogs the pro-meat canine teeth argument might actually hold some water, until you consider that despite their dental configuration even dogs are omnivorous and can live happy, long vegan lives if given the proper nutrition.
Humans do have a long history of being able to eat almost any plant or creature in sight, but that trait is surely not due to the configuration of our puny teeth. Instead, it was our brains which became complex enough which allowed us to hunt, farm, cook, and to make use of any food source, plant or animal, and consequently spread all over the globe. Now that we no longer need to kill animals to sustain ourselves, I hope that we can use our brains to figure out a way to live humanely and sustainably for the sake of all creatures on this planet.
Whether or not this blog convinces anyone to adopt a vegan lifestyle, I hope that I've at least accomplished something worthwhile by making the Appeal to Dental Anomaly argument for omnivorism sound fittingly absurd. I felt it was about time somebody did so in short-essay format. However, I feel one cannot truly appreciate the absurdity of this argument until one hears or reads it from the horse's mouth or keyboard, with all of it's accompanying fervor and gusto. I present to you the segment of the Amazon.com review which inspired this blog post:
"I do NOT buy into the argument that the human body is able to be sustained by eating massive quantities of grains and veggies. God gave us canine teeth for a good reason - to tear into some tasty MEAT!" |
Why argue from nature alone when you can bring God into this silly, silly picture? You'd think that if God had intended us to be obligate omnivores he (or whatever pronoun designation you prefer) would have set us up with the real canine tooth model. In defense of the Biblical God's design, in Genesis "He" gives Adam and Eve permission to eat "every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed". Hey, that sounds like God's original intention for Adam and Eve was that they be vegan. Sounds like somebody's a little mixed up on their religious views, but maybe I've discounted this Amazon reviewer too soon. Perhaps the day will come when somebody can point me to the Bible verse, "For God did giveth man his tiny canine teeth so that he could tear into some tasty MEAT," and all will be forgiven.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Baking with Omega-3's
Since most of my grain-free and vegan bread experiments have flaxseed as a major ingredient, I had to do some homework to ensure that I wasn't going to be eating something potentially harmful by breaking down the omega-3 ALA in the flaxseed during baking. From everything I've read and heard so far, from references to studies (see links below) to talks given by prominent vegan physicians, flaxseed meal is stable at temperatures well above those needed for baking things like muffins and bread. In fact, the effects of consuming flaxseed meal in baked goods the effects of consuming raw flaxseed meal have been shown to be very similar in humans.[1] The recommended dose of flaxseed meal to take in order to see the benefits of the omega-3's is one tablespoon. The spice muffin recipe I posted yesterday contains sufficient flaxseed meal to provide 1 tablespoon per muffin.
Here are a couple of links to documents containing information about flaxseed meal stability at room temperatures and baking temperatures that I found very helpful:
http://www.flaxrd.com/Documents/Flax%20Stability.pdf
http://www.flaxcouncil.ca/english/pdf/FlxPrmr_4ed_appdx.pdf
Granted, they both seem to be from sources that might be biased, I've heard similar reassurance about baking flaxseed meal from Dr. Michael Greger, who is well known in vegan circles for his thorough investigation and skeptical inquiry of various vegan health issues and claims.
References:
1. Cunnane SC, et al. British J Nutr. 1993; 69:443-453.
Here are a couple of links to documents containing information about flaxseed meal stability at room temperatures and baking temperatures that I found very helpful:
http://www.flaxrd.com/Documents/Flax%20Stability.pdf
http://www.flaxcouncil.ca/english/pdf/FlxPrmr_4ed_appdx.pdf
Granted, they both seem to be from sources that might be biased, I've heard similar reassurance about baking flaxseed meal from Dr. Michael Greger, who is well known in vegan circles for his thorough investigation and skeptical inquiry of various vegan health issues and claims.
References:
1. Cunnane SC, et al. British J Nutr. 1993; 69:443-453.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
