The ingredients of that product are “MUSHROOMS, EXTRA VIRGIN OLIVE-OIL, SUNFLOWER OIL, PORCINI MUSHROOMS, SUMMER TRUFFLES, SALT, TRUFFLE FLAVOR, GRANA PADANO CHEESE MILK, ENZYME, SALT, EGG WHITE LYSOZYME [PRESERVATIVE]), PARSLEY, GARLIC, CORNSTARCH, LEMON JUICE, BLACK PEPPER.”
So how can you conclude anything about the nutritional content of truffles by themselves based on that?
You are absolutely right. STRIKE THAT CITATION. Jeez, it’s summer truffles in that mess to boot, not even the good ones (of course since its some godawful preparation).
New rule: :smack:
Use USDA nutrition database in OP unless you come up with a better one.
So: the USDA one is all over the map on mushrooms, but has none for that lovely tuber. Either we pick a different food mushroom and consider them all the same, or leave it open for further research. (I’ll check the French language sources; surely they are out there.)
In the meantime, here’s the site of the International Society for Mushroom Science to explore, and a bunch of individual citations from mushroominfo on nutrition science research. Their overview on “benefits.”
Just to be clear, are you saying a zero-carb diet?
Here is USDA nutritional data for truffles.
Well, no foods high in carbs. Salads are a mainstay, but sure, there are a few incidental carbs.
Look at the Eskimos diet- yes a few berries and what-not for vitamin C. Fresh meat does have a few incidental carbs too.
Traditional Inuit diets derive approximately 50% of their calories from fat, 30–35% from protein and 15–20% of their calories from carbohydrates, largely in the form of glycogen from the raw meat they consumed.[22][23] …Vitamins and minerals which are typically derived from plant sources are nonetheless present in most Inuit diets. Vitamins A and D are present in the oils and livers of cold-water fishes and mammals. Vitamin C is obtained through sources such as caribou liver, kelp, whale skin, and seal brain; because these foods are typically eaten raw or frozen, the vitamin C they contain, which would be destroyed by cooking, is instead preserved.[31]
http://www.theiflife.com/the-inuit-paradox-high-fat-lower-heart-disease-and-cancer/
So they appear to contain 1mg of vitamin C per kg of truffles. it’s going to be hard to get even a minimally-useful intake that way.
I’m not talking about an Eskimo diet. I’m talking about a diet of nothing but caviar and water; a diet with no carbohydrates. Are you still saying such a diet is sustainable?
And if you can find enough area of land between there and the edge of the water (say, an acre) then you’ll be able to get some herbs to go with your orange and caviar, too.
This thread reminds me of a classic tale of ancient China, involving men of a certain self-sacrificial bent, who would begin turning themselves into medicine by ingesting only honey:
*"…the mellification process would ideally start before death. The donor would stop eating any food other than honey, going as far as to bathe in the substance. Shortly, his feces (and even his sweat, according to legend) would consist of honey. When this diet finally proved fatal, the donor’s body would be placed in a stone coffin filled with honey.
After a century or so, the contents would have turned into a sort of confection reputedly capable of healing broken limbs and other ailments. This confection would then be sold in street markets as a hard to find item with a hefty price."*
If a person restricted their diet only to caviar, champagne, truffles and foie gras for a long enough time (whether or not it killed them), one surmises they would become the ultimate in cannibal luxury food.
As far as carbs go, yes. But there’s a severe shortage of vitamins, etc.
You gotta (truly) love it.
Foie gras nutrition numbers vary slightly (discarding figures for pates or other preparations), but from the French site i-dietetique, with this useless to me and unecessary for our purposes Linked-in [cite of cites](Compilation A.G (https://fr.linkedin.com/pub/alexandr...off/38/2a9/582) 2010 (d’après SU.VI.MAX, INCA 2, SOUCI, CIQUAL 2008, FCEN 2010, NUBEL).
Knock yourself out. Translation is probably unnecessary. The link might be pass-protected.
For 1 gram:
Valeur énergétique : 4.5 Cal
% Eau [water] : 0.4 g
% Protéines : 0.1 g
% Lipides : 0.4 g
dont Acides Gras [fatty acids] Saturés : 0.1 g
% Glucides : 0 g
dont Sucres totaux : 0 g
% Fibres alimentaires : 0 g
% Sel [salt] : 0 g
% Calcium : 0.1 mg
% Fer [iron]: 0.06 mg
% Magnésium : 0.15 mg
% Phosphore : 1.9 mg
% Potassium : 1.7 mg
% Sodium : 7.4 mg
% Vitamine A : 9.5 μg
% Vitamine D : 0 μg
% Vitamine E : 0 mg
% Vitamine C : 0.07 mg
% Vitamine B1 : 0 mg
% Vitamine B2 : 0.01 mg
% Vitamine B6 : 0 mg
% Vitamine B9 : 5.66 μg
% Vitamine B12 : 0.18 μg
% Acides Gras MonoInsaturés : 0.25 g
% Acides Gras PolyInsaturés : 0.05 g
% Acide Linoleïque : 0.04 g
% Acide Arachidonique : 0.003 g
% Acide α-Linolénique : 0.002 g
% DHA : 0.001 g
% EPA : 0.001 g
% DPA : 0.001 g
% Cholestérol : 3.8 mg
ETA: Arachnide is Peanut (as in oil) not spidery, I have no idea why, and as a class of oil in nutrition data I’ve never seen myself, but what do I know.
Choking on it. Beginning data gathering.
Anyone with access?
Food Hydrocolloids
Volume 25, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 325–332
“The determining role of bolus rheology in triggering a swallowing”
Jianshe Chen, , Laetitia Lolivret
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.06.010
Abstract
Swallowing is the final stage of an eating process. Even though individuals know exactly when and how to swallow, the controlling mechanisms and the determining criteria of bolus swallowing are still not yet clear. One hypothesis is that bolus rheology, i.e. its flow-ability and stretch-ability, determines the triggering of a swallowing and the main aim of this work was to test this hypothesis. A wide range of fluid foods, including 18 commercial products and 10 lab-constituted foods, were examined for easiness of swallowing by a panel of 19 subjects. Oral residence time, defined as the time from the ingestion till the completion of swallowing, was determined for each eating process.
It was observed that the oral residence time had a linear relationship with the sensed difficulty of swallowing. That is a food sensed difficult-to-swallow tends to stay longer in the oral cavity. Rheological properties (both shear and stretching flow) of these foods and their simulated boluses (mixture of food and simulated saliva) have also been determined at body temperature. The apparent shear viscosity showed a positive correlation with the sensed difficult of swallowing. However, the stretching behaviour of a fluid food, characterised by the maximum stretching force and the work of stretching showed much improved correlation to the sensory perceived easiness of swallowing. It was concluded that bolus rheology, in particular its extensional stretch-ability, had the most important influence on the ease of swallowing.
The main author there also co-wrote "Food oral management: physiology and objective assessment"last year for the same journal.
The main reason it’s not spidery is that there’s no ‘n’ in the version on the list, although I must admit I read it that way myself at first.