I read one of Michael Pollen's books on food a few years back and the argument is something along the lines of: "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants. Avoid 'edible food-like substances'." To my mind that is an argument against something like "impossible burger" as a regular food.
A breakfast of a super-processed, vegan, organic waffle, soy egg replacement and faux bacon is not much better for you than the pancake house originals. If at all. Sometimes it is a fun social thing to get fast food or something off a grease truck. More than once a week or so its not doing you very much good.
There is variety in diet - I find the whole genetic diet idea intriguing. Though right now it is rife with pseudoscience. (I did geno-palate and found it thought provoking.) Different things work for different people - but I would bet Pollen's dicta are a pretty good base to start with and they experiment from.
The cynical side of me things the BK campaign is probably bs. They will figure out another way to give us cancer, heart disease and diabetes. But it is very good to get us to think about what we all are putting in our mouths. Is it really real?
A breakfast of a super-processed, vegan, organic waffle, soy egg replacement and faux bacon is not much better for you than the pancake house originals. If at all. Sometimes it is a fun social thing to get fast food or something off a grease truck. More than once a week or so its not doing you very much good.
There is variety in diet - I find the whole genetic diet idea intriguing. Though right now it is rife with pseudoscience. (I did geno-palate and found it thought provoking.) Different things work for different people - but I would bet Pollen's dicta are a pretty good base to start with and they experiment from.
The cynical side of me things the BK campaign is probably bs. They will figure out another way to give us cancer, heart disease and diabetes. But it is very good to get us to think about what we all are putting in our mouths. Is it really real?