Pink Slime

[Belz...]

So I was biased the burger changed before I ever knew it actually had?

I'm just saying your personal experience is not a statistic.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I am reminded of "discussions" with antivaxers who insist the MMR caused their child's autism...

 

[Furcifer]

I am reminded of "discussions" with antivaxers who insist the MMR caused their child's autism...

That is a good example of where "observations" aren't a substitute for actual scientific analysis and where fitting a theory to a faulty "observation" yields a faulty conclusion.

 

[Marcus]

I am reminded of "discussions" with antivaxers who insist the MMR caused their child's autism...

It's one of the most persistent fallacies, this idea that if two events happened at the same time they must be related.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am reminded of "discussions" with antivaxers who insist the MMR caused their child's autism...

There are many differences. The biggest one is the number of possible causes or variables. With vaccines and autism the number of possible causes in addition to vaccines was nearly infinite. All the suggested alternative hypotheses offered here only address single observations. There hasn't been a single alternative hypothesis that accounts for the 5 different observations.

The second difference is after clear evidence against vaccines as a cause of autism anti-vaxers cling to their beliefs.

The only evidence against my hypothesis is there are only a small number of people in the survey who have also noted the texture change. But last I checked there were 4 other people besides myself. That's not zero.

Just what is it you think is analogous to anti-vaxers? I'm sure I observed the texture change. They are sure the kids had autism. I find that LBT explains my observation. They believe vaccines explain their observation. No one has an alternative hypothesis that explains the changed burger texture observation (other than denying I actually observed the change). There are thousands of alternative hypotheses for the cause of autism and in fact, vaccines don't fit the observed autism after all. Turns out kids show evidence of autism before the suspect vaccines are given.

I'm really disappointed in the knee jerk rather than scientific process based replies in this thread. I plan to test the hypothesis. No one else has offered to test the positions they insist on.

Furcifer just declares he believes all hamburger texture varies and he ignores the university analysis which provided clear evidence LBT was significantly different from ground chuck. Who is questioning his claim here? No one except me and maybe others who aren't speaking up.

Dipayan and Ryokan insist the force to cut a burger is a reliable measure of chewing texture and can't accept what we know as communicators that I could be describing an unfamiliar texture as rubbery or gristly even if the pressure to cut said burger in half was less than regular burger.

Joey McGee asserts false analogies as arguments, yet still offers no alternative hypotheses.

tyr_13 claims that my taste in burgers changing with age explains all the observations, but it doesn't explain why the burger that happened not to have LBT in it still tastes fine. And now I've compared prepackaged corn-fed with fresh ground grass-fed both without LBT in it and both tasted fine.

Rustypouch complains shouting wasn't necessary while the point, "all" observations, continues to go unaddressed with the exception of tyr_13 whose hypothesis didn't really address all the observations.

Belz... claims with no explanation that I could have observation bias before any bias could have possibly occurred.


I am following the scientific process all the while being accused of not doing so by people who themselves are the ones who are not. In the end all people have here are knee jerk responses that I must not be a reliable observer because said skeptics have learned some slogans about anecdotal evidence. There have been a few legitimate citations and arguments but when I ask for an alternative hypothesis the answer is lacking.

I'm sorry to say, because I expect more from you, that I believe you are not looking at the evidence here, but rather being influenced by the loudest voices in the thread. I've done nothing that wasn't following the scientific process and critical thinking. I can be more confident since I have the advantage of trusting my own observations. I may be in the minority of people having noticed the changed burger texture but it was a really big issue for me. It wasn't something I recalled after hearing about "Pink Slime".

I should stop wasting my time in this thread but I'm going to continue because I think there are important lessons here for critical thinkers who have to respond to pressure against rather than for critical thinking. And that is what is going on here.

 

[Ryokan]

Dipayan and Ryokan insist the force to cut a burger is a reliable measure of chewing texture and can't accept what we know as communicators that I could be describing an unfamiliar texture as rubbery or gristly even if the pressure to cut said burger in half was less than regular burger.

Where did I ever say that?

All I noted is that you claimed your burgers had become more gristly, and blamed this on the LBT - and when a test suggested the opposite is more likely true, you promptly added this to your list of evidence for your observation.

When confronted with this, you dismiss an industry standard test in favour of your observations. Hardly the behaviour of a sceptic.

There have been a few legitimate citations and arguments but when I ask for an alternative hypothesis the answer is lacking.

One great thing about sceptics is that they have the ability to say 'I don't know' about things we don't know. You may be right, but your line of reasoning sure doesn't lead us there. I don't know. And you don't really, either.

 

[Furcifer]

Furcifer just declares he believes all hamburger texture varies and he ignores the university analysis which provided clear evidence LBT was significantly different from ground chuck. Who is questioning his claim here? No one except me and maybe others who aren't speaking up.

Yes but ground chuck is different from ground chuck. That means if it's "different", as you claim, it could be LBT because it's "different" or it could be ground chuck, because it is also "different". "Different" does not prove LBT, but that's what you're premise seems to be. Then you're saying "different" at a certain time means LBT, but without accurate times your claim of "different" is no more than coincidence. If ground beef was consistent the claim of "different" would be more valid. But the fact is "different" has no value as an observation when it comes to ground beef, it's supposed to be "different".

Does that make sense? If you were talking about eggs it would be a different story. They're highly uniform in appearance, a little less so in taste. But if you "observed" a difference in color, and it corresponded to a change in feed from wheat to corn, it would be infintely more valuable than your observation the texture of ground beef changed 8 years ago.

You don't want to acknowledge your "observation" isn't the eureka moment you think it is. I think that's what people are trying to convey to you, but you're taking it a bit personally.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did I ever say that?

All I noted is that you claimed your burgers had become more gristly, and blamed this on the LBT - and when a test suggested the opposite is more likely true, you promptly added this to your list of evidence for your observation.

When confronted with this, you dismiss an industry standard test in favour of your observations. Hardly the behaviour of a sceptic.

I'm confused. How does, "the force to cut a burger is a reliable measure of chewing texture", differ from "a test suggested the opposite is more likely true"? You are saying that the test of cutting pressure suggested a chewing texture outcome. I'm saying they don't measure the same things.

One great thing about sceptics is that they have the ability to say 'I don't know' about things we don't know. You may be right, but your line of reasoning sure doesn't lead us there. I don't know. And you don't really, either.

I have no issue with, "that hypothesis fits the observations and no other hypothesis has been offered, I'll wait for the test." But that's not what people are saying here. They are saying they have presented evidence the hypothesis couldn't be true because of [X]. It is the other thread contributers who have made unsupported claims.


For the record, my claim is: I hypothesize that LBT explains my observations. Like any scientific investigation, one collects evidence, suggests hypotheses that explain the evidence then tests the hypothesis. That is exactly what I'm doing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes but ground chuck is different from ground chuck. That means if it's "different", as you claim, it could be LBT because it's "different" or it could be ground chuck, because it is also "different". "Different" does not prove LBT, but that's what you're premise seems to be. Then you're saying "different" at a certain time means LBT, but without accurate times your claim of "different" is no more than coincidence. If ground beef was consistent the claim of "different" would be more valid. But the fact is "different" has no value as an observation when it comes to ground beef, it's supposed to be "different".

Does that make sense? If you were talking about eggs it would be a different story. They're highly uniform in appearance, a little less so in taste. But if you "observed" a difference in color, and it corresponded to a change in feed from wheat to corn, it would be infintely more valuable than your observation the texture of ground beef changed 8 years ago.

You don't want to acknowledge your "observation" isn't the eureka moment you think it is. I think that's what people are trying to convey to you, but you're taking it a bit personally.

You haven't said anything new here. You are making a claim that doesn't explain ALL the observations. In addition, you are claiming the actual analysis of LBT doesn't mean anything because you believe it does not.

Where's your analysis of other cuts of ground beef? You don't have any. You only have your claim that there must be cuts that match LBT because you believe it to make sense.


As for the wheat/corn claim, I've now compared grass fed with corn fed and neither had the texture problem. Where's your evidence that a different diet change in SOME cattle that happens to coincide with prepackaged grocery burger and not with in store ground burger is a fact? I posted links to the fact LBT was ubiquitous in the store burger I found distasteful and not in the store ground stuff I'd been buying that was OK.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's one of the most persistent fallacies, this idea that if two events happened at the same time they must be related.

Yeah, but that's not what I'm claiming here. Of course if people just categorize any suggested hypothesis as 'must be making the causation/correlation fallacy' without actually looking at the observations and hypothesis and the lack of alternative hypotheses and the fact a test is planned to confirm or refute the hypothesis.... well maybe you see where I'm going here with a poorly thought out dismissal of an analysis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is a good example of where "observations" aren't a substitute for actual scientific analysis and where fitting a theory to a faulty "observation" yields a faulty conclusion.

What "faulty observation" is that? Are you still confusing the observations with the hypothesis or are you now just claiming you know I haven't noticed a real texture issue with burger because you haven't noticed?

Are you perhaps suggesting you have this knowledge by remote imaging and mind reading?

 

[Furcifer]

Where's your analysis of other cuts of ground beef? You don't have any. You only have your claim that there must be cuts that match LBT because you believe it to make sense.

That's not true, the studies have been cited in this thread. The change in fat content as it affects flavor, texture and of course "chewiness" has been cited. It's just a matter of critical thinking to see how it applies to cuts of meat. A round steak has very little fat, and very little connective tissue. Ground round is less flavorful and drier than regular ground by comparison. The studies support this, despite many people feeling ground round is better because it's higher quality.

All the information is here, it just hasn't been spoonfed to you as per your demand.

As for the wheat/corn claim, I've now compared grass fed with corn fed and neither had the texture problem. Where's your evidence that a different diet change in SOME cattle that happens to coincide with prepackaged grocery burger and not with in store ground burger is a fact? I posted links to the fact LBT was ubiquitous in the store burger I found distasteful and not in the store ground stuff I'd been buying that was OK.

Chicken eggs, I was talking about chicken eggs.

I don't know how corn or wheat fed beef changes the ground specifically, but I know how milk fed changes it. It's bland.

 

[Marcus]

Yeah, but that's not what I'm claiming here. Of course if people just categorize any suggested hypothesis as 'must be making the causation/correlation fallacy' without actually looking at the observations and hypothesis and the lack of alternative hypotheses and the fact a test is planned to confirm or refute the hypothesis.... well maybe you see where I'm going here with a poorly thought out dismissal of an analysis.

A key element of your hypothesis is that LFTB came into use at the same time as you started noticing a texture difference, the two were linked. I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the two events are linked, especially since it appears that there could actually be a decade seperating the two.

I'm not at all surprised you are planning a test, I already know you are a skeptic . I just think you might have made some hasty assumptions on this one with regards to correlation and the value of your own anecdotes.

Since this seems to be a skeptics thread, not a woo in sight, I also believe that everyone here, including yourself, will accept the results of a properly designed test.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

My mistake, it's not necessarily confirmation bias at play here. It's correlation and causation.

You have correlated bad texture with LBTB, but that's as far as you can take it-----causation is not something you can claim.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's not true, the studies have been cited in this thread. The change in fat content as it affects flavor, texture and of course "chewiness" has been cited. It's just a matter of critical thinking to see how it applies to cuts of meat. A round steak has very little fat, and very little connective tissue. Ground round is less flavorful and drier than regular ground by comparison. The studies support this, despite many people feeling ground round is better because it's higher quality.

You are not addressing what I said.

Where is an analysis comparing LBT to other ground cuts of burger? Where is an analysis of any other cut of burger at all showing something similar to LBT?

All you are doing is claiming because some things differ from ground burger to ground burger they therefore also include some ground cuts that are the same or close to LBT. But you only have your insistence. You have no analysis.

Both your 'burger just differs' and 'it's a cattle diet change' are not hypotheses supported with anything but your declarations. In addition, neither hypothesis explains the timing of the texture change nor the fact burgers known to be without LBT tastes fine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My mistake, it's not necessarily confirmation bias at play here. It's correlation and causation.

You have correlated bad texture with LBTB, but that's as far as you can take it-----causation is not something you can claim.

I can say, it is a good hypothesis, well worth testing which is planned.

 

[Daald]

SG,

Sorry but I don't want to read any more of this discussion and I would just like to ask if you ran the test and what the results were. As a matter of fact if you have not run the test yet, I would like to see a new thread or at least a PM since I will try to avoid this thread.

To the other participants in the thread:

She is going to test her hypothesis which is head and shoulders above what anyone else is doing. Let her test and then we can bicker when the results come in.....okay?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A key element of your hypothesis is that LFTB came into use at the same time as you started noticing a texture difference, the two were linked. I don't see any compelling reason to believe that the two events are linked, especially since it appears that there could actually be a decade seperating the two.

I'm not at all surprised you are planning a test, I already know you are a skeptic . I just think you might have made some hasty assumptions on this one with regards to correlation and the value of your own anecdotes.

Since this seems to be a skeptics thread, not a woo in sight, I also believe that everyone here, including yourself, will accept the results of a properly designed test.

After hearing about the LBT I looked at the timeline and history of its introduction into the hamburger market as well as which stores were using it.

Over time, after getting burger that had the bad texture (believe me the stuff unmistakably grosses me out and was noticeable) I would buy a different brand and avoid buying what had previously had the bad texture. Then another brand would have it and another until I found over a period of time that only fresh ground burger at Whole Foods was left that reliably did not have the awful texture.

In this thread there are links to the stores, like Safeway and QFC, where I shop disclosing they had been using LBT in their meat but would move to stop using it. In addition, Beef, Inc., which was responsible for more than half the LBT produced, had news reports of their growing industry. All of that coincided with which burger I had found with the texture.

The point is, there is no hasty assumption here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG,

Sorry but I don't want to read any more of this discussion and I would just like to ask if you ran the test and what the results were. As a matter of fact if you have not run the test yet, I would like to see a new thread or at least a PM since I will try to avoid this thread.

To the other participants in the thread:

She is going to test her hypothesis which is head and shoulders above what anyone else is doing. Let her test and then we can bicker when the results come in.....okay?

The leader of our Skeptic's at the Pub group agreed we could do the test at our meeting. But I am trying to work out the details.

None of the burger with LBT is labeled. I do now have a source of prepackaged burger without LBT. Someone said it might be labeled at Walmart and I've not been there yet.

Then we have the food handling issue. We meet in a pub that serves food. They'll have to agree it doesn't violate any food handling laws. I may have to serve the burger cooked but cold rather than hot since it's easier to keep food cold than hot. I'm pretty sure I can't cook it at the pub itself. But cold or hot it will still be comparable samples. I'm working on those issues.

We couldn't get it done by the April meeting. The May meeting is the 17th so I'm aiming for that date.

 

[Furcifer]

You are not addressing what I said.

Where is an analysis comparing LBT to other ground cuts of burger? Where is an analysis of any other cut of burger at all showing something similar to LBT?

Where's your data showing arsenic added to ground beef makes it bad? Are you saying because I can't cite a study showing conclusively the addition of arsenic is bad it's possible it might be good?

That's not skepticism, that's poor critical thinking.

All you are doing is claiming because some things differ from ground burger to ground burger they therefore also include some ground cuts that are the same or close to LBT. But you only have your insistence. You have no analysis.

Likewise I don't have any studies on the addition of Borax to ground beef. And yet I'm 100% certain it's not a good thing.

Both your 'burger just differs' and 'it's a cattle diet change' are not hypotheses supported with anything but your declarations. In addition, neither hypothesis explains the timing of the texture change nor the fact burgers known to be without LBT tastes fine.

The declarations are supported in logic. LBT contains high concentrations of connective tissue and fat, when mixed with lean beef and ground the product is no different than "regular" ground beef with high concentrations of fat and connective tissue, aside from the connective tissue being processed in LBT to me more tender.

Your hypothesis is accounted for in the above "observation". The above observation suggests that not only LBT can account for your own "observation".

"taste" means very little IMO because it is a highly subjective term. That being said all the studies cited clearly suggest fat is more of a determination in "taste" and increased fat, as found in LBT products, "tastes" better, contrary to your claim.