Jtotheb
@Jtotheb@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon saves up 3 days ago:
United States Postal Service, 440 hours (55 days) max accumulation of annual, temporarily increased to 520 hours/65 days since the pandemic, and unlimited sick leave rollover. Accumulated at a rate of 13 annual days and 13 sick days per year once you’re a career employee, and 20/13 after 3 years.
- Comment on Magic Rocks 4 days ago:
I’d frame going to CBT as “making your trips outdoors more enjoyable” rather than “compromising your stance on worms.” It could radically improve your average day.
- Comment on kingdom come 2 weeks ago:
That’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 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.
- Comment on kingdom come 2 weeks ago:
They’re (mushrooms) also constantly listed on American menus as a “protein” option despite a dire lack of the stuff
- Comment on I'm a 6'1" man with size 3 feet which means every they measure my feet at a shoe store, the Brannock device gatekeeps my gender 3 months ago:
I have also worked shoe retail. US household name brands makes single widths for the majority of their available shoes. If you have narrow feet try the equivalent size in the women’s model. If you have wide feet try the men’s options. The lasts are different. I’m aware you can do better than what is available in a standard retail setting. I’m generalizing.
- Comment on I'm a 6'1" man with size 3 feet which means every they measure my feet at a shoe store, the Brannock device gatekeeps my gender 3 months ago:
Just like in the US
The letters denoting widths exist, but they’re not used. Very few US shoe brands offer different widths on the same size shoe. Some offer two. A handful three, and now you’re talking about workwear, not trainers or anything else. Generally, US shoe widths are decided by whether it’s a mens or womens model.
- Comment on Poor guy 4 months ago:
I don’t know that there are many white capitalists in South Africa who deserve their money more than any black individual living there
- Comment on Poor guy 5 months ago:
Thank you for the clarification.
- Comment on Poor guy 5 months ago:
In what sense is he correct? It’s not because he’s not black, you’ve just cited the workaround—and it’s not like he’s a guy who takes a principled stand against nepotism.
- Comment on nets 5 months ago:
It’s a quick win if it leads to further progress. It’s a distraction if it’s not part of a larger plan that includes real change. That’s my fear. Banning plastic straws was all we talked about for two straight years. That’s wasted time, and it didn’t really lead to anything else.
- Comment on nets 5 months ago:
It’s not bad, and I didn’t claim it to be bad. It’s not relevant in the same way Dr Thunder and Pibb Xtra aren’t leading to a soft drink crisis in the USA—they’re a small part of a much bigger problem.
To carry on with this dumbass analogy, it would be misleading to argue for a ban on off-brand sodas while continuing to mass produce Sprite, Pepsi, and Diet Coke, and it lets big businesses off the hook for their destruction. Same with letting industries shovel untold plastic waste into the oceans behind our backs while making more visible efforts to ban much smaller amounts back on land.
Also, we’re not just worried about plastic because it ends up on beaches. That is, again, missing the bigger picture. It’s also missing why those items in particular end up on beaches, which is because of local littering.
If you ban plastic straws from European beaches and say job well done, the planet will never notice.
- Comment on nets 5 months ago:
This is a list of end-consumer items put together by a government body beholden to fishing and other industries. And it’s not even about pollution levels, it’s specifically about beach pollution. Plastic lids on cartons of heavy cream are “also a problem” if we focus only on reducing plastic waste in the kitchen, but implying it’s even relevant compared to industrial plastic waste is disingenuous
- Comment on Honey 9 months ago:
Bee point taken, I should have said something like ‘a drop in the bucket’, the point I intended to convey is that they don’t really advance the argument that there are many such animal products. Nor does saying oh and some goat milk. That statement of yours is what I specifically disagreed with.
The point about quantities, that’s my point too. Farmers in the Patagonia region may be able to sustainably eat meat, drink ethical milk, whatever. Not people in the US, not in most of Europe. Yeah, so I actually just bought a huge container of local honey from our local grocer, maybe two hours ago. I don’t cut honey out. But that’s not grounds for me to claim there are a bunch of other animal products that are also better than eating some nuts and beans for protein
- Comment on Honey 9 months ago:
many animal products that do less harm than plant products
Can you cite some other than honey? Most animal products require animals which require, well, plants. Plants that cause harm in the exact way you described. And more of them than just humans eating the crops directly.
- Comment on Installation 10 months ago:
- Comment on Peer review 11 months ago:
They thought the review process was more arduous than looking at some newly discovered scientific fact that no one had ever known before and saying “yeah that seems self-evident.”
If you feel like that’s reductive, now you know why I felt like responding
- Comment on Kids 11 months ago:
Reminded me of his story All Summer in a Day, actually.
- Comment on Anon orders pizza 1 year ago:
In both senses of the word!
- Comment on The Nature of Nature 1 year ago:
Nature wants you to live to 50. Anything less than that is brought to you by Blackwater
- Comment on math checks out 1 year ago:
As opposed to the company, which cares so much that they don’t bother taking your call directly
- Comment on The American People 1 year ago:
Sorry, but two disagreements—good food is trivial to find when you travel in Italy lol and American bread is bad without question
- Comment on I mean have they seen our stipends 1 year ago:
They used to be the poorest age group in the United States. Senior discounts made a lot more sense when something like 30% of seniors lived in poverty in [1960? 70? Can’t recall]
