Actually, “mushrooms are technically meat” is a new hill I’d like to die on. Mushrooms have animal cells, ergo, definitely not a vegetable.
They don’t, they’re a distinct third thing with a distinct third type of cells
They are, however, more closely related to us animals than they are to plants. As in, our last common ancestor is less far back.
Also, unrelated to your comment, but related to the post: vegetable isn’t a botanical term, but a culinary term. So, there’s no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place, so there’s no issue with counting mushrooms among them. Sure, it’s a bit inconvenient that the word ‘fruit’ is both a culinary and a botanical term in English, and there’s overlap to it, but that doesn’t mean it’s somehow illogical that some things are culinarilu fruits but not botanically, and vice versa.
So, there’s no bioligical basis for vegetable in the first place
idk if I would go that far, I think “edible parts of plants” is a solid foundation. Sure, “edible” is kind of a social construct, but the plant part is indisputable. “Vegetarian” and “plant based diet” are near synonymous
Maybe non-animal is better than just plant, since mushrooms are part of plant based diets.
I’ve never been under the impression that any edible plant part is a vegetable. Like, an almond? An apple? Rice? Cinnamon? I could go on. All edible plant parts. I’ve never heard of them be referred to as vegetables.
What do you mean?
Fungi only got its own kingdom in 1969, before that they were a phylum in Plantae. There are tons of people still around who learned “mushrooms are plants” in school, so it’s not surprising downstream vocabulary hasn’t caught up.
They have properties from plants but also from animals, it’s an independent evolution from both.
Idk that food vernacular is necessarily downstream of rigorous taxonomies at all lol.
Fair point haha.
The controversy isn’t about what they are, it’s about what we call them and which categories we put them in on charts. It’s like arguing over silly group names - is it a murder of tomatoes or a flock?
A salsa of tomatoes.
A gazpacho of tomatoes
They’re (mushrooms) also constantly listed on American menus as a “protein” option despite a dire lack of the stuff
Hmm, is it really that little? The stats look devastating, like e.g. 3 grams per 100 grams, but mushrooms also consist out of 90+ grams of water.
For example, the button mushroom has:
100 g total - 91.8 g water - 1.7 g fiber = 6.5g nutrients
2.89 g protein / 6.5 g nutrients = 44.4% proteinComparing that to e.g. canned black beans:
100 g total - 70.8 g water - 6.69 g fiber = 22.51 g nutrients
6.91 g protein / 22.51 g nutrients = 30.9% proteinThat’s a neat site, and I was hoping your answer was in there, but they don’t have data on cooked mushrooms. We’ll have to do a bit of math.
So you’re taking the nutritional data provided and then shunting the fiber and water out of the way. Why? You can’t just eat the nutritional parts of food; you have to eat the whole thing, and that limits the amount of food, and thus nutrition, you can ingest in a day.
Were you thinking about food prep? Some water weight is lost there, certainly, but it’s not everything.
Let’s add a raw steak into the mix, and then we can instead look at how much water weight is actually lost when you prep these things to eat, by estimating it from data elsewhere.
The beans are ready to eat. They’re drained and rinsed. You don’t remove that water weight. So that’s 7 grams of protein per 100 gram serving.
The steak will lose about 25% of its weight when cooked, per multiple sources I found during a search. That means we need about 133 grams of raw beef to achieve 100 grams of cooked beef. So we can multiply its 21 grams of protein by 1.33, and we get about 29 grams of protein in a 100 gram serving. Their grilled steak averages around the same amount, so we’re on track so far.
Why is that discrepancy so great? I thought beans were supposed to be a great replacement for meat?
That comparison was done between beef and dry beans (note the 24 grams of protein, about the same as the beef). 100 grams of dry beans becomes about 370 grams of prepared beans. So in a 100 gram serving of beans you can actually eat, you get just over a quarter of that 24 grams protein: our ~7 grams from earlier. You also lose some water soluble protein when you rinse and drain them. They’re not the magic protein replacement people think they are.
Mushrooms are even worse. Per America’s Test Kitchen (and we’re gonna have to take these numbers at face value because I can’t find anything else), shiitake mushrooms lose about 14% of their weight in water when cooked, and cremini (think portobello, they’re just different stages of development) mushrooms lose about 60%. Thankfully the USDA’s site also has nutritional data listed for these two types of mushrooms: “minimally processed” shiitake and cremini mushrooms contain 2.4 and 3.1 grams of protein, respectively, per 100 gram serving. But those aren’t meal ready. To do that, we’ll cook the mushrooms, and they’ll shrink to 86 gram and 40 gram servings. So let’s start with enough raw mushrooms—119 grams of shiitake (or 119% of the original serving) and 250 grams (250%) of cremini. Multiply our proteins by 1.19 and 2.5 and we get a plausible range of between 3 and 8 grams of protein per 100g serving. So some are comparable to beans in their protein content! And some contain half, or less, of an already low amount when compared to the protein found in meat.
This quick comparison on Wolfram Alpha shows a similar story, with a less optimistic look at mushrooms’ possible protein content. Screenshot:
Now, the fact that you’re taking in so much more water when you eat 100 grams of beans or mushrooms than you are when you eat meat means you can eat more of them, and drink less fluids, but only to a point. And you’re certainly not getting 8 times more mushrooms than beef from a restaurant when they do a protein substitution. Getting enough protein in a vegetarian or vegan diet can be hard work. And restaurants are not making it easier by misleading people who may not know any better—I’m certain it’s careless, not malicious, but it is happening either way.
they don’t have data on cooked mushrooms.
Probably because there are many ways to cook a mushroom. For example dehydration would apparently increase the protein per unit.
All the protein figures you have been using for the calculations have been crude protein, i.e. a estimate based on nitrogen content.
It’s much better to use DIAAS as a measure of usable protein.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino_Acid_Score
Also a neat site. It seems like the ratio of usable protein would be a good addition to, but a lacking substitute for, the raw quantities. Especially given how incomplete the PCDAAS and DIAAS datasets are.
TIL that I been deceived my entire life.
I’ve anyway severe doubts that most American food really is food
Yeah but a mushroom’s such a fungi to be with.
He’s such a fun guy that there’s not mushroom to party.
anybody know any other mushroom puns i want free upvotes
This is neither shitposti nor shiitake
Food Plant
Technically all fruits are vegetables since a vegetable is just a plant we eat.
As said, for normal people it’s irrelevant to which family belongs what he’s eating, only interesting for botanics and biologists, maybe vegans in doubt if they can eat mushrooms or not.
I was literally saying this about the mushrooms the other day!
I don’t think I’ve ever considered a mushroom a vegetable, they’re just mushrooms
deleted by creator
maybe if it’s a really dreadfully woody bolete
I believe, that’s mostly a US thing, where the government classifies them as vegetables…
Fruits vs vegetables is an arbitrary, near-meaningless distinction. See here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E8mcTIEVKUU
No a fruit is a biologically defined thing right? On the vegetables I’m with you
The video addresses this. The biological term “fruit” is not accurate for culinary use. Lots of things we eat are biologically fruit, but you’d get weird looks for calling it a “fruit” while eating it. The video gives a lot of examples of botanical-fruit-but-not-culinary-fruit, including cucumbers, peppers, corn, eggplant, peas, pumpkins, and broccoli (specifically the buds).
No controversy, there is only edible or not edible, no need to make life more complicated as it already is.
I go by lickable and non-lickable.
deleted by creator
Leave mycelium alone
Why is it yourcelium
It’s everybody’s celium. Mycelium. Yourcelium. Ourcelium.
It’s ourcelium komrad
Better check your privilegelium
The true misconception is that there are scientific definitions and culinary definitions. No the culinary definitions don’t fit their scientific category. They’re not intended to.
deleted by creator
Or slicing it to throw on a mashed avocado for tasty guacamole
WTF… Well done steak smothered in tomato puree…
/boggle
and slathering it on a well done steak
Burn the heretic!
TBF, if your steak is well done, you’re probably gonna need some sauce since half the flavor has been cooked out of it.
My family always got well done at restaurants. Told me medium rare is for werewolves. No surprise they dumped brown sauce on it. My God what a revelation when I got medium the 1st time.
Medium is for burgers. Medium rare is where it’s at for steak.
This guy beefs like I beef, meaning it’s the correct beef!
That’s because Vegetable is not a Botanical Term. It is a culinary term. So, Tomatoes are both fruit and vegetable.
This.
All fruits are vegetables. Not all vegetables are fruit.
The definition of a vegetable is just any edible part of a plant. While a fruit is specifically the seed-bearing ovary of a flowering plant.
Is that like an official definition for vegetables from some government? Because I don’t feel like there is a particularly good definition of vegetables. People mostly wouldn’t refer to apples as vegetables, for example.
Vegetables are edible parts of plants that are consumed by humans or other animals as food. This original meaning is still commonly used, and is applied to plants collectively to refer to all edible plant matter, including flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds. An alternative definition is applied somewhat arbitrarily, often by culinary and cultural tradition; it may include savoury fruits such as tomatoes and courgettes, flowers such as broccoli, and seeds such as pulses, but exclude foods derived from some plants that are fruits, flowers, nuts, and cereal grains.
I wouldn’t call all cars a Honda Accord, either, but all Honda Accords are still cars.
The analogy doesn’t work. The apple is the narrow group, while vegetables are the wide group.
To make your analogy fit to the original statement it would be: “People mostly wouldn’t refer to a Honda Accord as a car”. Which is the opposite of what you are saying and it’s also not true, so it really doesn’t make any sense.
The actual issue at hand is that there are two definitions of the word vegetable. One is the wider meaning, where all edible parts of plants are vegetables (and then apples clearly are vegetables), while there’s the culinary definition of vegetables, where vegetables are savoury edible parts of plants, and under that definition apples are not vegetables.
You use the broader definition, while @Ephera@lemmy.ml is using the culinary definition.
I don’t think you can just use two classification systems in the same sentence. It should probably be illegal or something
The cast of Vegitales lied to me!
