Pink Slime

[Furcifer]

All of those variables were the same before and after pink slime yet the problem never surfaced until LBT was added to burger.

No. Are you reading the thread at all or are you just out to prove yourself right? All the variables aren't the same because as has been explained NUMEROUS times they change from minute to minute, hour to hour and day to day.

Your premise is flawed but you continue to blatantly ignore this. Seriously, at least try to look objective.

Ground beef is a potpourri of fat, trim and lean beef. IT'S NEVER THE SAME TWICE. I repeat, the variables were not the same before and after pink slime.

There's no consistency in ground beef. None. It's not the same every time you buy it. That's a fact. Everyone knows this. If you buy a t-bone every day it's different, and that's the same cut of meat. Ground beef is made of different cuts of meat so it's that much more "different".

If you think you bought the same ground beef and it tasted the same every time before LBT you are wrong. It's not possible. It was different every time you bought it. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Still avoiding the key issue I see, Fur.

You need an hypothesis besides LBT that fits ALL the observations.

Is that concept in the scientific process not clicking with you for some reason?

 

[Furcifer]

Still avoiding the key issue I see, Fur.

You need an hypothesis besides LBT that fits ALL the observations.

Is that concept in the scientific process not clicking with you for some reason?

A change in fat content fits the hypothesis. That's been shown. I've explained several times how a change in processing fits the hypothesis. That's been proven by citing the studies as well. Then there's the change due to preparation, that hasn't been "proven" but it's a viable hypothesis as well. (try cooking two burgers, one for 5 minutes and one for 20 and tell me which one is "chewy" )

I'm going to MDC your next post, you're going to say "why are you repeating yourself?". Because you keep making the same erroneous claim, that's why.

(still nothing from the USDA fyi)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A change in fat content fits the hypothesis.

Geese, if anything that the least likely. Not only is fat content listed on packaging, I typically choose low fat burger and that hasn't changed in 30 years or more.

That's been shown. I've explained several times how a change in processing fits the hypothesis. That's been proven by citing the studies as well. Then there's the change due to preparation, that hasn't been "proven" but it's a viable hypothesis as well. (try cooking two burgers, one for 5 minutes and one for 20 and tell me which one is "chewy" )

No, you haven't shown this explains the timing of the changed texture. I've eaten burger of every kind and quality my whole life. Until LBT entered the market I've never had the texture problem.

I'm pretty sure nothing about LBT fits the MDC challenge.

 

[Dipayan]

I'm not ignoring rebuttals. None of them have addressed the evidence in it's entirety. You guys cherry pick and ignore the contradictions. And just offering alternative hypotheses to each individual point, without offering an alternative hypothesis that fits all the evidence in it's entirety doesn't cut it.

Don't you realize how whacked out you sound right now?

Let me recap: You need an hypothesis besides LBT that fits ALL the observations.

First, I made the texture change observation before I ever heard of LBT.

Second, the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation.

Third, in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture.

Fourth, there is still burger that I found OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it.

Fifth, the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture observation.

4 out of 5 of the above are subjective assertions based only on your experience. We don't even know if these assertions are accurate or not - for example, you don't know when LFTB was added to burgers around your neighbourhood, and I'm sure you don't remember exactly when you started noticing this 'texture change'. However, in this thread you seem absolutely convinced that these two things happened at exactly the same time!

The only factual statement you keep making is a half-truth. The university analysis says that texture is changed for the better.

Texture evaluation of the frankfurters showed the products with LFTB to be softer and more tender

This result was reached through an objective standard. Again you want to get rid of this and impose a subjective standard on it - namely your chewing.

So basically you want people to provide you evidence against your personal experiences, and also want them to refute a study that concludes the opposite of what you are claiming. Do you not see any problem with this?

 

[Dipayan]

Substituting for absurdity.

Let me recap: You need a hypothesis besides 'There are aliens' that fits ALL the observations.

First, I made the UFO observation before I ever heard of Roswell.

Second, the timing of Roswell introduction into the media coincides with the UFO observation.

Third, in all my decades of looking at the sky, until Roswell happened, I never saw a UFO.

Fourth, there are still areas in the world where I don't see any UFOs, and this was true even before I heard of Roswell. It turns out these places don't have UFOs.

Fifth, the 1965 statement of the AIAA shows a mechanism explaining the UFO observation.

What alternative hypothesis has been offered that satisfies all of the above observations? You guys don't have one. I'm following the scientific process here. My hypothesis fits ALL the evidence.

 

[Ryokan]

The only factual statement you keep making is a half-truth. The university analysis says that texture is changed for the better.

Yeah, Skeptic Ginger claimed her ground beef has become more gristly, yet the study cited suggests LFTB actually does the opposite... And she still counts this as evidence for her observation!

It's almost beyond belief.

Folks, this is not how you apply scepticism. Watch and learn.

 

[Beerina]

Still avoiding the key issue I see, Fur.

You need an hypothesis besides LBT that fits ALL the observations.

Is that concept in the scientific process not clicking with you for some reason?

Your observation noting a texture change before hearing about LBT suggests there is something here.

Therefore I would like to see a double-blind study of 100 people to see if:

1. They can tell a difference.
2. Which one do they prefer, not knowing which is which.

And don't tell them that they're testing "pink slime" as they might be inclined to decide gross one of the two.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, Skeptic Ginger claimed her ground beef has become more gristly, yet the study cited suggests LFTB actually does the opposite... And she still counts this as evidence for her observation!

It's almost beyond belief.

Folks, this is not how you apply scepticism. Watch and learn.

Your arguing about my description and the adjective I chose. But you are not applying objectivity.

It doesn't take much force to cut a piece of paper. What does that say about the texture when you chew paper?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your observation noting a texture change before hearing about LBT suggests there is something here.

Therefore I would like to see a double-blind study of 100 people to see if:

1. They can tell a difference.
2. Which one do they prefer, not knowing which is which.

And don't tell them that they're testing "pink slime" as they might be inclined to decide gross one of the two.

We won't have 100 people for the test. Our pub room only holds 40 and it's expensive to buy burger for 100 people.

Noting a difference is my primary question. I'll be asking whether the difference is texture or something else but I intend to ask in a way that texture does not stand out.

Are the samples different?
Is there a difference in flavor?
A difference in texture?
A difference in moisture?
A difference in tenderness?

Preference isn't going to tell us the same thing but I'll ask anyway.

I don't plan to mention LBT but some people in the group are going to be aware of the controversy. There are news junkies among us. No one, including myself will know which samples are which until after the test. I plan to label the samples with a hidden label, put them all in identical containers and will have another member mix them up so I won't know which is which.

Working out these details is still ongoing. I did find prepackaged burger at whole foods that doesn't have LBT in it. I still need to find burger that has it and those distributers don't want to put it on the labels.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't you realize how whacked out you sound right now?....

No. Frankly I'm positive I've been rational and systematic in looking at the evidence and my hypothesis while a number of you are being surprisingly dogmatic and less than objective.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

A number of us have been dogmatic about applying the scientific method, while you've been insisting that your observations are superior and above question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A number of us have been dogmatic about applying the scientific method, while you've been insisting that your observations are superior and above question.

What was that alternative hypothesis you offered that fit all the observations? I missed it. Could you sum it up in a sentence or two?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

A factor other than pink slime.

One sentence, how's that? Why are you so certain that pink slime and only pink slime is and can be responsible for the change in texture that you noticed?

This applies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A factor other than pink slime.

One sentence, how's that? Why are you so certain that pink slime and only pink slime is and can be responsible for the change in texture that you noticed?

This applies.

Two words, Occam's razor. You're essentially saying the hypothesis that does fit all the observation is less likely than an unknown hypothesis.

I'm certain LBT fits the observations and explains the problematic burger texture change I've been troubled by for a number of years. I can think of no other explanation and apparently neither can you.

I plan to test the hypothesis but even if I didn't I'm still certain I'm the one following the scientific process here. And I most certainly started with the evidence before I came to a conclusion.

 

[Furcifer]

I can think of no other explanation and apparently neither can you.

This isn't true though. Numerous explanations have been given, you're just rejecting them based on an 8 year old memory. I don't have any problem with your rejecting them, but you have to at least acknowledge them. Instead you're feigning complete ignorance, it's bad form.

 

[Dipayan]

Two words, Occam's razor. You're essentially saying the hypothesis that does fit all the observation is less likely than an unknown hypothesis.

The hypothesis does not fit, it is force-fitted.

1. You don't know that LFTB was included in the meat in your neighbourhood stores around the same time that you started feeling a different texture. You cannot make that claim based on your unaided memory and a broad timeline from BPI. Yet you claim it as irrefutable fact.

2. Apparently the ground beef that you were OK with did not have LFTB. Were there any other brands that you were OK with that DID have LFTB, or brands that you weren't OK with which didn't have LFTB? Have you looked?

3. You main grouse is with the texture of meat becoming gristly. All scientific studies claim that the right percentage of LFTB makes meat more tender and soft. Hence science is against your observation that the gristly meat must have LFTB.

Your hypothesis does not fit your observations. The only way it does fit them is if you start off assuming the antecedent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This isn't true though. Numerous explanations have been given, you're just rejecting them based on an 8 year old memory. I don't have any problem with your rejecting them, but you have to at least acknowledge them. Instead you're feigning complete ignorance, it's bad form.

Which one of the alternative hypotheses fit ALL the observations? And why do you keep missing that little flaw in your thinking here?

First, I made the texture change observation before I ever heard of LBT. Rules out confirmation bias.

Second, the timing of LBT introduction into the market coincides with the texture change observation. Rules out all your arguments that the LBT isn't any different than different cuts of ground beef. If that was the case why did this problem start only a decade ago?

Third, in all my decades of eating hamburger, until LBT was added to burger, I never tasted the disagreeable texture. Rules out all your arguments that the LBT isn't any different than different cuts of ground beef. If that was the case why did this problem start only a decade ago?

Fourth, there is still burger that I found OK, again, before I ever heard of LBT. It turns out not to have LBT in it. Rules out the argument that the change I noticed was due to aging taste buds.

Fifth, the university analysis provides a mechanism explaining the changed texture observation. Doesn't support your claim all burger differs and LBT doesn't significantly differ from simply grinding different cuts of meat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The hypothesis does not fit, it is force-fitted.

1. You don't know that LFTB was included in the meat in your neighbourhood stores around the same time that you started feeling a different texture. You cannot make that claim based on your unaided memory and a broad timeline from BPI. Yet you claim it as irrefutable fact.

Yes I do. It was noted in the store brands I had bought in the news reports we read. The problem now is some of those stores, like Safeway, plan to take LBT out of their burger but they said they need time to find alternative suppliers of burger.

LBT was in most of the prepackaged hamburger in most chain grocery stores in this area. It wasn't in Costco's burger but I don't shop there.

2. Apparently the ground beef that you were OK with did not have LFTB. Were there any other brands that you were OK with that DID have LFTB, or brands that you weren't OK with which didn't have LFTB? Have you looked?

There's no reason to think so.

3. You main grouse is with the texture of meat becoming gristly. All scientific studies claim that the right percentage of LFTB makes meat more tender and soft. Hence science is against your observation that the gristly meat must have LFTB.

Paper is easy to cut but chewing it is another story. I don't see that this fact which was measured by cutting a burger with a knife rules out my hypothesis that the LBT changed the chewing texture of burger.

Your hypothesis does not fit your observations. The only way it does fit them is if you start off assuming the antecedent.

Yes it does.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a question, why is it some of you are so certain LBT doesn't change the texture of hamburger? Have any of you done your own blinded taste tests?