Not to mention her luxury room and board, the shopping sprees, and the jewelry gifts.
I'm familiar with every large "delivery app" service, and none involve a situation where the driver fronts their personal money. That's ridiculous. The app service gives the driver a credit card for situations where in-person payment is required.
Reminds me of "The Persuaders." Great book. This comes from a Guardian review on it:
By far the most fascinating and potentially useful case study is that of Anat Shenker-Osorio, the communications strategist for progressive causes, whose tactics, pegged to the data, have exposed a lot of shortfalls in leftwing political campaigning. Shenker-Osorio points out that when people get frightened, they skew right; when they feel compassion and common cause with their fellow humans, they skew left.
Similar words, both would work. Look them up if you're interested. Exponent connotes more of a "believer" to me, whereas the proponent is an advocate.
A person who believes in and promotes the truth or benefits of an idea or theory.
I'm going to relentlessly spam your podcast with spelling and grammar corrections so the ridiculous and unfeasible crimes pale in comparison to the word crimes I've exposed.
Everything you're quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I've already said in other comments. I'm proud of you for reading the information.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don't understand. I'll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn't differentiate between those foods in that "range of ultra-processed foods (UPF)," so that means data coming from "sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery" is getting all mixed in with the data of the "‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers," which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we're talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I'll quote the user above:
that category contains "soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes." This gives you no information on Impossible burgers' impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
And?
Your wikipedia links don't make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of "ultra-processed foods" as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn't be about definitions, but the relative "healthiness" of vegan food products.
It's clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as "junk food," and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren't as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
No, it does not.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of "Ultra-Processed Foods" is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you're using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we're discussing don't, as they are "processed" to include those constituents.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are not well-informed about what "processed" food constitutes, to begin with.
According to the Department of Agriculture, processed food are any raw agricultural commodities that have been washed, cleaned, milled, cut, chopped, heated, pasteurized, blanched, cooked, canned, frozen, dried, dehydrated, mixed or packaged.
As such, most of our diet is processed food, and there's nothing wrong with that. If there are particular ingredients that have been added in the processing of any consumer product that are themselves bad for your health, I would definitely encourage abstinence from that product.
While vaping is monumentally safer for one's health than cigarette smoking, both are still a needless introduction of potential harm to one's health, I agree.
But we must eat food, and the harm from that food being vaguely "processed" versus the harm from it containing ingredients certainly known to contribute to stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes just isn't a worthwhile comparison.
They have more protein, fiber, and iron than beef.
Red meat consumption has been shown to increase risks of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer, full stop.
I don't know what a "health food" would be, but I would probably classify them as foods that are healthier alternatives to foods that are proven bad for your health. Which is what "Impossible" etc. are.