Mushrooms: coming soon to a burger near you(nature.com)
nature.com
Mushrooms: coming soon to a burger near you
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03855-5
87 comments
There are a number of things you can forage for in the United States, but edible mushroom hunting is generally pretty difficult because of the identification component as well as the time investment. I pick Bolete Mushrooms when I am out, sometimes, depending on where I am. Those are generally easy to pick, but there are poisonous look-a-likes you need to be aware of depending on where you are. I've also had luck with Chanterelles. It's hard, where I live (Southern California), because it is very dry in the mountains here, and even in the Sierra Nevadas. When I was in Oregon a few years ago, we stopped on our way home and picked 5 or 6 lbs. of Warabi from just off of the road at higher elevations.
I think the reason it's not more common is also that you tend to need to always go a little bit deeper in to the mountains or forest than you expected to find what you're looking for, which can turn off the more risk-averse among us.
I think the reason it's not more common is also that you tend to need to always go a little bit deeper in to the mountains or forest than you expected to find what you're looking for, which can turn off the more risk-averse among us.
Morels are essentially foolproof. There are things called "false morels", but they really don't look that much alike (certainly not to anyone who's ever seen the two in real life, or even seen good photographs).
I think I'll pass on letting anyone do it: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mushroom-sicknes...
Absolutely! And please, bring someone who has mushrooming experience, don't take chances on unknown shrooms.
Come si direbbe in Italiano? Fungicaccia?
Mushrooms are tasty, nutritious, very simple to grow, and they grow fast. The claims made in the article about the supposed fussiness of mushrooms does not fit with my experience.
We should all eat more mushrooms, not necessarily as a meat substitute, just in general. They can bring their own fantastic richness and flavor to so many dishes, if you venture beyond the boring white button mushrooms. At least go for portobellos or something, they're so much more interesting.
We should all eat more mushrooms, not necessarily as a meat substitute, just in general. They can bring their own fantastic richness and flavor to so many dishes, if you venture beyond the boring white button mushrooms. At least go for portobellos or something, they're so much more interesting.
Mushrooms aren't all that nutritious. They don't have many vitamins and don't have many calories.
They do have nice flavor and a good mix of calories though.
They do have nice flavor and a good mix of calories though.
In addition to vitamins/minerals/calories, mushrooms contain other chemicals which may impact human health.
This study found increased immune system activity after the consumption of white button mushrooms for 1 week:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22113068
This study suggests that certain chemicals found in mushrooms might be helpful in combatting cardiovascular disease:
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1475-...
This study found increased immune system activity after the consumption of white button mushrooms for 1 week:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22113068
This study suggests that certain chemicals found in mushrooms might be helpful in combatting cardiovascular disease:
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1475-...
>Mushrooms aren't all that nutritious. They don't have many vitamins and don't have many calories
The first part is not exactly right, and the second part is a pro.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/278858.php
The first part is not exactly right, and the second part is a pro.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/278858.php
They really aren't high in vitamins and minerals. They have moderate levels of a couple of them.
And not having calories might be a good thing, but it doesn't make a food "nutritious".
And not having calories might be a good thing, but it doesn't make a food "nutritious".
>They really aren't high in vitamins and minerals. They have moderate levels of a couple of them
That's true for most plants too. It's not like anyone advices eating only or mostly mushrooms, so that getting 100% of your vitamins from them becomes essential.
Plus, nutritional value is relative. Mushrooms are more nutritious than many of the kind of foods they can replace.
That's true for most plants too. It's not like anyone advices eating only or mostly mushrooms, so that getting 100% of your vitamins from them becomes essential.
Plus, nutritional value is relative. Mushrooms are more nutritious than many of the kind of foods they can replace.
Considering how most people eat to a calorie surplus on a daily basis, fewer calories is a good thing.
dh89(1)
> The claims made in the article about the supposed fussiness of mushrooms does not fit with my experience.
Growing mushrooms indoors on a commercial scale is very different than order an oyster kit or having a couple shiitake logs in your backyard. IMHO the mushroom that pairs best with beef is ishnoderma resinosum, and I'm not sure anyone even knows how to cultivate that.
Growing mushrooms indoors on a commercial scale is very different than order an oyster kit or having a couple shiitake logs in your backyard. IMHO the mushroom that pairs best with beef is ishnoderma resinosum, and I'm not sure anyone even knows how to cultivate that.
I (and a few of my friends) picked mushrooms at farms as a part-time job while studying.
Maybe it depends on the climate, here in the humid northern Europe, it's relatively simple to grow mushrooms on a commercial scale.
Maybe it depends on the climate, here in the humid northern Europe, it's relatively simple to grow mushrooms on a commercial scale.
Well, there are mushrooms and mushrooms.
The common commercial white and brown button/portobello mushrooms (Agaricus campestris and Agaricus bisporus) are pretty easy to grow -- they've been cultivated at scale since the 1700s.
Others (such as oyster mushrooms and shiitake) aren't too much harder.
Unfortunately, the most prized species (truffles, morels) are more tricky. Commercial truffle cultivation does exist, but it's a roll of the dice. You inoculate your trees, then you pray. It's nothing like the large-scale factory model used for the Agaricus species.
With respect to morels, while several people over the years have claimed to have a process for cultivating them, no one (to my knowledge) has ever been successful at producing them on a commercial scale.
Virtually all morels are still harvested in the wild. That's a real pity, because they are worlds better than the Agaricus species.
The common commercial white and brown button/portobello mushrooms (Agaricus campestris and Agaricus bisporus) are pretty easy to grow -- they've been cultivated at scale since the 1700s.
Others (such as oyster mushrooms and shiitake) aren't too much harder.
Unfortunately, the most prized species (truffles, morels) are more tricky. Commercial truffle cultivation does exist, but it's a roll of the dice. You inoculate your trees, then you pray. It's nothing like the large-scale factory model used for the Agaricus species.
With respect to morels, while several people over the years have claimed to have a process for cultivating them, no one (to my knowledge) has ever been successful at producing them on a commercial scale.
Virtually all morels are still harvested in the wild. That's a real pity, because they are worlds better than the Agaricus species.
[deleted]
Emphasis on tasty! The savory “umami” nature of mushrooms complements and enhances meat wonderfully. I’ve blitzed up some dried mushrooms in a blender and mixed it into panko breadcrumbs, and it works like MSG only better. Mushrooms are basically culinary magic, and criminally underused (other than as you say, those nasty white ones) in this country.
No really, I love mushrooms.
No really, I love mushrooms.
My new favorite mushrooms are ennoki. Local Asian food store has them insanely cheap and they're amazing pan fried with some garlic, bok choy and pepper.
I much prefer mushrooms to tofu as a meat substitute, or as the umami component in stews or soups.
You may like nutritional yeast.
I started putting a tablespoon in my bowls of soups and stews. I liked the taste enough to keep putting on more until I put in a cup or two to the whole stew.
I started putting a tablespoon in my bowls of soups and stews. I liked the taste enough to keep putting on more until I put in a cup or two to the whole stew.
Sure! I got introduced to it through a friend who's lactose intolerant, but loves the taste of cheese. It does add an almost cheese-like umami component.
You can also use it to jack up the flavor of cheese! I love adding a little bit to dehydrated cheese, and using the mixture on popcorn. It’s more cheesy than cheese (if you know what I mean).
Since we're mostly geeks here, I'll indulge in sharing that the term "plant-based" leaves out mushrooms, yeast, and other fungi. They're a whole other kingdom.
> "Still, mushroom cultivation is not a green panacea."
For one thing, they don't photosynthesize.
> "Still, mushroom cultivation is not a green panacea."
For one thing, they don't photosynthesize.
While the relationship isn't very close, fungi are actually more closely related to animals than they are to plants.
You're technically correct, the best kind of correct.
FTA: "research has shown that substituting one-quarter of the beef in meals with mushrooms decreases caloric intake by about one-third"
So what am I missing here? Substituting 1/4 of a burger with air shouldn't reduce calories by 1/3.
(maybe they are talking about the entire sandwich, in which case meat had a relatively lesser quantity of calories anyway?)
So what am I missing here? Substituting 1/4 of a burger with air shouldn't reduce calories by 1/3.
(maybe they are talking about the entire sandwich, in which case meat had a relatively lesser quantity of calories anyway?)
Perhaps people don't finish a mushroom-burger? :-)
Yeah that doesn't make sense. Other articles mention the 25-30% mushroom but not the other claim.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40539024/now-you-can-get-sonics-...
...so if you substitute all of the beef, you get negative caloric intake?
Sorry, bulimia doesn't sound fun to me.
Sorry, bulimia doesn't sound fun to me.
My son regularly cooks up a meatless dish of squash, mushrooms, zucchini, and enhancers like worcestershire that is crazy good.
So Nature, the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in science, might now be running paid articles for Sonic
I don't mean to detract from the scientific discussion, but would like to note that this is a wonderful example of the "submarine piece" as described by Paul Graham:
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Astute observation, and the cyclical nature of news reporting makes it even more common.
The most unhealthy part of a burger is the bun. This does nothing to help that.
No, that would still be the red meat and saturated fat (cancer risk increase and calories).
Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation.
Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation.
Saturated fat got a bad rap because of butter. More recently studies have brought it into question how bad it is, and as it turns out, replacing saturated fats with carbs increases your risk of heart disease. Unsaturated fats are better, but saturated isn't necessarily bad for you. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of different types of saturated fat either. Not sure why you think carbs being bad is bro science, simple carbs are almost as bad as eating sugar. Eating carbs (preferably complex) is probably fine with a balanced diet including fats proteins and fiber and all, but most people don't do that. It's worth noting that general Mills basically makes the food pyramid (new and old) and it doesn't agree with modern science
Edit: Decided to grab a quick source online that seems pretty unbiased since this is can be a pretty heated and opinionated topic. Other more in depth sources exist, feel free to dig in https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo...
Edit: Decided to grab a quick source online that seems pretty unbiased since this is can be a pretty heated and opinionated topic. Other more in depth sources exist, feel free to dig in https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo...
Carbs have been demonized, just like fats used to be, but both are wrong.
Fats are calorie-dense, which is their primary danger (ignoring trans-fats here).
Simple carbs give you plenty of calories too, and basically nothing else.
People are quick to demonize all carbs, but it's only really the simple ones that are dangerous.
Whole carbs are generally fine in moderation, like everything else.
A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists. It's not black/white, good/bad.
Fats are calorie-dense, which is their primary danger (ignoring trans-fats here).
Simple carbs give you plenty of calories too, and basically nothing else.
People are quick to demonize all carbs, but it's only really the simple ones that are dangerous.
Whole carbs are generally fine in moderation, like everything else.
A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists. It's not black/white, good/bad.
While true about whole carbs, a lot of people are mislead on what that means. A lot of whole grain cereal (such as multi-grain cheerios) is processed enough that you don't get any of the benefits of it being whole grain and it's digested like simple carbs. I remember reading something similar about whole grain pasta as well. My opinion based on what I know is that while complex carbs are fine in moderation, the average American consumes way more simple carbs than they should because carbs in general were pushed as the healthy alternative to the "heart killing" saturated fats.
It's mostly due to the sugar (whether sucrose or HFCS) that is added to just about everything presented to the average customer in the US.
Regarding whole grain pasta, as far as I know, it's fine and healthier than normal pasta. It just tends to smell and taste like a wet burlap sack.
Regarding whole grain pasta, as far as I know, it's fine and healthier than normal pasta. It just tends to smell and taste like a wet burlap sack.
The idea is that once whole grains are processed into flour, the surface area is increased enough to make the benefits much smaller than eating actually whole grains (like rice). A little more googling shows me that whole grain pasta is definitely better for you, (has more fiber and vitamins naturally, and digests a little slower). I also learned that pasta is actually significantly lower on the glycemic index than bread. I haven't been able to find any scientific papers on this, but the general idea is that when you grind whole grains into a flour, you digest them pretty much just as fast as white flour due to the increased surface area, so although whole grain pasta/bread is better, it's not as beneficial as eating actually whole grains like brown rice. A lot of nutritionists believe this to be true, but I made the mistake of assuming scientific papers were out there to back their reasoning. In the end, it seems like portion control is still the winner here, and that it is indeed better to eat whole grain pasta over white pasta.
> "A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists."
Vegetables. Raw.
Vegetables. Raw.
I was thinking that, too, but remember that feeding babies excess carrots actually changes skin color from the beta carotene, and then there are issues with gas and bloating from cruciferous vegetables.
Sure, but people want something satisfying, not 50lbs of kale. Especially not raw.
I love veggies, but eating only raw veggies is absolute nonsense.
I love veggies, but eating only raw veggies is absolute nonsense.
Raw fruit can be eaten in virtually any amount. It's incredibly difficult to overeat while plant foods - not so with animal products, since a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation.
>"a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation."
Nonsense, there's plenty of nutrition. Like you said, there's 500 calories, that's nutrition. There is also protein, calcium, vitamins (including B12) and other minerals. It's also very filling and satisfying, provided you eat good cheese, and not some "processed cheese product".
Nonsense, there's plenty of nutrition. Like you said, there's 500 calories, that's nutrition. There is also protein, calcium, vitamins (including B12) and other minerals. It's also very filling and satisfying, provided you eat good cheese, and not some "processed cheese product".
Also, raw fruit is chock full of simple sugars ("refined" has nothing to do with it, by the way).
Cheese is probably one of the most satiating foods there is actually... Fat and protein keep you full.
I'm not sure where I got the "100s" number from, but wikipedia lists 36 different types of saturated fat
dh89(3)
>But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation.
What does 'bro science' mean? e.g. is the work referenced here bro science:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-car...
Btw, I think the thing that makes the meaty part of burgers a bit dodgy is the fact that the meat has been ground up which means that bacteria can grow throughout its bulk at fridge temperature. As opposed to other cuts of meat where such growth is initially confined to the surface. These organisms won't kill you but they do leave inflammatory waste products behind which are bad for the health of the consumer. Same with chopped onion and various other foodstuffs; dunno about mushrooms. Hence supermarket 'ready meals' which have been fridged for 7+ days are best avoided
UPDATE:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/febr...
What does 'bro science' mean? e.g. is the work referenced here bro science:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-car...
Btw, I think the thing that makes the meaty part of burgers a bit dodgy is the fact that the meat has been ground up which means that bacteria can grow throughout its bulk at fridge temperature. As opposed to other cuts of meat where such growth is initially confined to the surface. These organisms won't kill you but they do leave inflammatory waste products behind which are bad for the health of the consumer. Same with chopped onion and various other foodstuffs; dunno about mushrooms. Hence supermarket 'ready meals' which have been fridged for 7+ days are best avoided
UPDATE:
https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/febr...
>What does 'bro science' mean? e.g. is the work referenced here bro science
Word of mouth ideas about cause and effect, learned though informal testing in the gym rather than the lab. That's not to say there is widespread agreement about any/all of it. The contentious ideas are most likely to be called bro science. e.g. Google "brosplits."
As a rule of thumb, anytime 'bro' is used as a slight on hackernews, it's being used wrong (differently than anyone outside the computer nerd cirlce of the valley bubble uses it). I trash on bro science now and them, but the carbs thing was more of a society-wide meme that hit it's peak with the Atkins diet.
Word of mouth ideas about cause and effect, learned though informal testing in the gym rather than the lab. That's not to say there is widespread agreement about any/all of it. The contentious ideas are most likely to be called bro science. e.g. Google "brosplits."
As a rule of thumb, anytime 'bro' is used as a slight on hackernews, it's being used wrong (differently than anyone outside the computer nerd cirlce of the valley bubble uses it). I trash on bro science now and them, but the carbs thing was more of a society-wide meme that hit it's peak with the Atkins diet.
Don't get me wrong, refined carbs (sugars) are certainly bad for you, and the patty/bun comparison depends a lot on the amount of added sugar, which has been growing for decades.
But there has been a tendency to demonize all carbs, just like there was demonization of fats in earlier decades. Both are wrong.
And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
But there has been a tendency to demonize all carbs, just like there was demonization of fats in earlier decades. Both are wrong.
And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
>tendency to demonize all carbs
Yeah I would agree with that, however, I think the larger error is in ignoring people's relationship to food. Some people shows signs of addiction, some don't, and we have no idea what the difference is, because we don't understand addiction.
>And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
Heh. Whether one believes in a theory or not has no bearing on whether it's true. The proper name for those inflammatory chemicals is 'Pamps' btw. It's peer-reviewed research from a UK university. More to the point there's a plausible (to me) explanation behind it, unlike a lot of biomedical science. So worth checking out.
Yeah I would agree with that, however, I think the larger error is in ignoring people's relationship to food. Some people shows signs of addiction, some don't, and we have no idea what the difference is, because we don't understand addiction.
>And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
Heh. Whether one believes in a theory or not has no bearing on whether it's true. The proper name for those inflammatory chemicals is 'Pamps' btw. It's peer-reviewed research from a UK university. More to the point there's a plausible (to me) explanation behind it, unlike a lot of biomedical science. So worth checking out.
It's one study, one data point. I'll wait for more research.
Besides, there are plenty of reasons already for avoiding overly-processed food.
Besides, there are plenty of reasons already for avoiding overly-processed food.
dh89(2)
It appears pretty clear that if you eat only the patty to satiation vs eat only the bun to satiation, you will lose fat on the patty diet but gain fat on the bun diet. You'll also get more complete nutrition from the patty. (Not that I'd suggest either of these diets!)
Obesity is a greater health risk (death risk) in the US than colorectal cancer.
Obesity is a greater health risk (death risk) in the US than colorectal cancer.
The biggest problem is that a lot of people don't want to moderate their appetites, they just want to eat and eat, and they think there's a perfect food out there that you can just eat as much as you want.
The media feeds into to this, with the "fat bad carbs good fat good carbs bad protein superfood eat this don't eat that eat that don't eat this" nonsense.
Eat a varied diet, avoid added sugars and fats. Boom, 90% done.
The media feeds into to this, with the "fat bad carbs good fat good carbs bad protein superfood eat this don't eat that eat that don't eat this" nonsense.
Eat a varied diet, avoid added sugars and fats. Boom, 90% done.
>Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science.
Actually, deserved or not, there was nothing of "bro" about what gave them the bad rep. Actual doctors, medical organizations, and dieticians have advised so, not some "bros". Like they did against fat before.
This is not using Nature to justify some human trend or cultural practice (which would have been a fallacy).
This is merely pointing out an evolutionary development that has existed for millions of years (and in humans for hundreds of thousands).
Actually, deserved or not, there was nothing of "bro" about what gave them the bad rep. Actual doctors, medical organizations, and dieticians have advised so, not some "bros". Like they did against fat before.
This is not using Nature to justify some human trend or cultural practice (which would have been a fallacy).
This is merely pointing out an evolutionary development that has existed for millions of years (and in humans for hundreds of thousands).
Simple carbs are the bad carbs, which is what the research says. But people turn that into "all carbs are bad", which is just blatantly false.
devmunchies(1)
Adulterating food with cheap alternatives is a way to disproportionately screw over poor people. Everyone else will just add beef to their “buy organic 100%...” list of products and pay a premium. If you want to help poeple, help them, educate them, don’t patronize them. If you want to help the environment there are economic (hold companies financially responsible for externalities) and scientific ways (additives such as seaweee to cow feed to drastically reduce methane emissions).
It’s a nasty and unfair thing to assume that when someone gets a burger, they’re “overdoing it” every time. Plenty of people have an occasional burger and just want beef, not filler. For people living in food deserts, and people poorly educated or just poor, how about giving their kids healthy and edible school food? How about heavily subsidizing healthier foods for people on food assistance, and going out of our way to make those options readily available? How about bringing back Home Ec?
It’s a nasty and unfair thing to assume that when someone gets a burger, they’re “overdoing it” every time. Plenty of people have an occasional burger and just want beef, not filler. For people living in food deserts, and people poorly educated or just poor, how about giving their kids healthy and edible school food? How about heavily subsidizing healthier foods for people on food assistance, and going out of our way to make those options readily available? How about bringing back Home Ec?
Eating beef is disproportionately bad for the environment (and your health) and should accordingly be priced at a premium.
You can't fix it effectively through changing the feed or livestock farming practices, you have to replace the beef with a fundamentally less harmful alternative.
You can't fix it effectively through changing the feed or livestock farming practices, you have to replace the beef with a fundamentally less harmful alternative.
Why not both? Not everyone wants to pay a premium for a 100% beef burger when they could be eating a cheaper, healthier alternative. Having more options is better not worse.
I would certainly buy the 10% cheaper, healthier and less environmentally harmful burger, as long as it tastes as good as the all beef burger. It doesn't have to taste the same, just similarly good.
It was interesting to check out the marketing on the Sonic website: "Cheeseburgers
Prepare to be delighted with 100% pure beef..."
Coming? I think that most of chain burger places around (above McDonald's level) have some sort of burger with mushrooms, I didn't even think it was some kind of novelty.
More than eating mushrooms, I think we should all spend some time to harvest mushrooms ourselves, assuming we know what we are doing!