Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:45:02 UTC No. 16452045

>>16452039
>I argued that it is structurally identical to its natural reared counterpart
that is physically imopssible

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:46:35 UTC No. 16452047

>>16452045
Please explain?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:49:24 UTC No. 16452054

>>16452039
Really hard to find info about this as its buried beneath 2030 tonnes of greenwashing

Looks like lab grown cpuld have its nutritional content fine tuned, but others have doubt about decreased bioavailability of said nutrients.

Ill finish by reminding nitrition is highly personalized im the end, so id say just try for yourself

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:12:08 UTC No. 16452090

>>16452054
That is interesting. By bioavaialibilty, you mean certain vitamins etc just don't get absorbed by the human body upon consumption? Surely if I bio engineered piece of meat contains, let's say, 10g of protein and 1g of fat, it should be digestible in the same way as an equivalent piece of meat with the same nutritional content?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:33:40 UTC No. 16452121

>>16452090
Indeed, from an article online (not sourced)
>However, real meat contains naturally occurring nutrients like vitamin B12, iron, and zinc that may be more readily absorbed by the human body compared to their synthetic counterparts found in lab-grown meat.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:43:06 UTC No. 16452145

>>16452039
It's going to be basically the same sans some oversights in the growth cycle but those would be ironed out before it's actually on the shelf. The primary difference would come from the fact that the muscle is both unused and young, which I suspect would alter the nutrition in some way, cells inevitably build up some substances that meat eaters would evolve to eat. I don't think those would be substantial but the taste or texture would be different for certain potentially for the better bit like lab diamonds.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:50:33 UTC No. 16452161

>>16452121
That is strange that specific nutrients are harder to absorb. What might be the reason for this? Why these nutrients?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:04:22 UTC No. 16452178

>>16452161
Seems like an open question in the literature as well

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:08:23 UTC No. 16452188

>>16452145
So it's better to compare lab grown beef to veal? If a person ate one of each presumably they would have a largely flavourless synthetic option, like a cow raised indoors in that horrid French method of rearing veal.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:20:24 UTC No. 16452203

>>16452039
Both of you are wrong.
For now structurally identical chemical meat has not been produced. If it could, you'ld be right.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 14:57:20 UTC No. 16452245

>>16452203
How does the artifical meat turn out different to the organic meat exactly?
And nutritionally speaking, is the difference substantial or are the differences in texture/flavour only?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 16:19:23 UTC No. 16452348

>>16452047
actual muscle is subject to exercise stress

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 16:31:37 UTC No. 16452369

Probably different. Actual meat is 3d growth of cells. As fas as I know we aren't able to do 3d growth in vitro, it's just a clump of suspended cells in a bioreactor. therefore it might have different proportion of connective tissues and what nots. Also labelling lab meat as cruelty free is disingenuous. All lab meat rn rely on fetal bovine serum.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:49:28 UTC No. 16452474

>>16452348
>>16452369
Okay so in both these examples flavour and texture and "mouth feel" might be effected but is the nutritional profile changed in the slightest?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:13:01 UTC No. 16452514

always stop and think about the feedstock you are using to grow these cells and how you are protecting them from bacterial and fungal attack