The curiosity got me to do some more reading. I now understand that brown rice has much more fiber than white rice.
I somehow never realized mochi was made from rice…
It’s just as well. In my experience, the dry, sawdust-like texture and flavor of brown rice is a sufficiently undesirable direct effect that adding undesirable side effects would be gilding the lily.
I like brown rice in Spanish Rice or in a burrito!
Yeah, it’s a weird question, but I’ll play anyway: beans.
I’d feel sad about giving up rice (black rice, red rice, brown rice, jasmine rice … so many delicious things you can make with them), but beans not only come in many delicious varieties, they form the basis - as has been already pointed out - of hummus, tofu, soy sauce, peanut butter, and all kinds of good stuff that does not immediately scream “beans!”
Plus you can make potent booze from rice.
I don’t even want to think about booze from beans.
Since when are all legumes beans? If you’re putting Peanuts, Lentils and Peas as beans, then I guess giving up rice means giving up all cereal grains.
Thank you. Seeing peanuts twice had me utterly confused, more so than the lentils and peas, even.
That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t actually negate what I said, which was just to counter the OP’s ridiculous assertion that “Beans are what they are, and that’s it.”
Rice *also *being somewhat versatile was never in doubt, and I had no intention of starting a versatility war…
…that rice would lose.
I’m putting this post into a spoiler because it will almost certainly be far too boring for anyone unless they are extremely concerned with the current problems facing this planet as a result of the way we produce food - specifically concerning eating proteins based from meat products versus proteins based from plant products.
If you consider vegetarianism to be an extremely important topic, you may want to examine the info in this spoiler. But for most people, I would think it will just be too boring.
For a very long time, many people believed that there was a problem with eating protein from plants instead of from animals.
The thinking was that protein consists of a number of - gosh! - I forget what they are called (maybe enzymes?) and protein from an animal source contained the complete number required. But protein from plants were lacking in a few such enzymes. It was many years ago. But I seem to recall the number required was around 23 but there was only about 18 found in proteins from plants. Of course, all of this was eventually discovered to be incorrect (hence “old wives tale”). I may have confused the number 23 with the number of chromosomes that determines gender.
I recall hearing the following argument so many times from new parents about the harm in feeding children vegetarian diets. Many people believed they were doing serious harm to their kids (infants) by feeding them protein derived from plants instead of from animals. So much debate! So much research! And in the end, it all turned out to be a terrible waste of time.
But that is where the controversy came from regarding eating rice or beans. People thought that neither one contained enough enzymes and that people needed to combine both rice and beans in order to get a healthy meal. It turned out to be terribly wrong and resulted in a huge amount of wasted time.
The author of Diet for a Small Planet (see one of my posts in this thread for details) eventually retracted her writing on this point and said that plant protein was just as complete as animal protein.
I found this to be a very good life lesson insofar as for many years, people were spending time cooking both rice and beans and combining them in order to get a “quality protein”. Ultimatily it all just seemed so foolish. That’s what I mean by a good life lesson.
I finally just chalked it all up to the point that if something feels right it may well be right. I also found it very interesting that people would waste so much time on the opinion of someone who didn’t have any evidence to back up their opinion.
It was kind of sad. But it was a good lesson.
After it was all said and done, the lesson was that when people select a diet, it can be based both on what is good for their bodies as well as what is good for the planet.
Currently, it seems to me that a great number of people obsess about the terrible destruction of this planet due to the rampant consumption of beef and meat products. It is worth knowing about the underlying facts. But the bottom line would seem to be that it just may be kind of nuts to spend hours every day pursuing some kind of special diet because it is good for the panet - even though it may be harmful to the human body.
“The Bean Cookbook” by Tess Mallos - a standard in my kitchen - includes chick peas, several kinds of lentils, and green and yellow peas. For me, “bean” is just a vernacular way of saying “legume” and I suspect that, whether or not that’s botanically correct, it’s not an uncommon way to define “bean.” The OP didn’t define terms, so it seemed logical (to me) to include a wide variety of legumes.
Peanuts, though … on reflection, that is a stretch. I guess I wouldn’t consider a peanut a bean.
I don’t think I provided a good answer above. So, as I understand it now …
The current thinking is that beans and rice are both pretty much OK. I don’t know of any evidence that one is clearly better than the other. The one method of thinking that I prefer is derived from the Theory of Evolution. The nature of rice and the nature of beans were developed over many years as a result of evolution. So, people living in South Central Asia primarily ate rice because that is the food that grew in that region whereas people who lived in the Americas and also Europe (I think but I could be wrong) primarily grew beans because that is the food that grew best in that region. Over many years, it seems to me that people and the food they ate both grew and changed in such a way they both evolved so that the food they grew provided the nutrition they required.
It’s just my opinion but, I would conclude that rice and beans are both pretty much acceptable. Some people may do better with one or the other depending on their ancestry. I would guess that if someone is descended from people in South Central Asia, they may do a little better with rice and vice versa for people who may do better with beans. But overall, I would guess that both rice and beans are acceptable for most everyone.
The most important issue may well be which one you can obtain. For many years some people were only able to get rice while others were only able to get beans. So, I would guess that both rice and beans are pretty much equally acceptable - perhaps with the proviso that it may depend to a small degree on the nature of your ancestry.
I guess i can see it that way, I just didn’t think that is as interesting of a comparison. In my mind, one genus Oryza vs one genus Phaseolus was the question.
From culinary perspective, rice, but alas, for blood sugar’s sake, beans.
Chick Peas are wonderful. The best hummus I’ve ever tasted was made from Chick Peas. In fact, I’m not sure if people make hummus from any other kind of legume.
Someone once taught me how to make a “Three Bean Salad”. The three beans were: 1) Garbanzo Beans (aka Chick Peas), 2) Kidney Beans (aka Red Beans), 3) Green Beans. As I recall, the secret to a delicious “Three Bean Salad” is the dressing. A great Apple Cider Vinegar makes that salad stand up and sing.
I’ve spent some romantic evenings getting to know someone while making hummus or salads together. It takes a long time and you can spend much of that time getting to know someone and either teaching them how to prepare Chick Peas or learning from them how they prepare various foods using Chick Peas.
If I was King of the World, I would rename Chick Peas and call them, “The Love Bean” or “The Love Legume”. Wouldn’t that make for a great introduction? Instead of asking someone to come and see your “etchings”, you could invite them to come over to your kitchen and make some food using the “Love Legume”. Eventually, they are bound to ask you why they are called, “The Love Legume” and when that happens you can show them.
Even then, only O. sativa and O. glaberrima are edible while there multiple edible species of Phaseolus, including P. vulgaris (common/green/kidney/pinto beans) and P. lunatus (lima beans). Then there are all the other species that are also called beans but aren’t Phaseolus like Vicia faba (fava beans), Vigna radiata (mung beans), and Glycine max (soybeans). Plus all the other legumes that aren’t commonly referred to as “beans”, like Pisum sativum (peas), Lens culinaris (lentils), and Arachis hypogea (peanuts). Finally there are things that are called “beans” but really aren’t, like Coffea arabica and C. robusta (coffee), Vanilla planifolia (vanilla), and Ricinus communis (castor).
If you want a fairer comparison, then you should compare the entire family Graminae (aka Poaceae) - that includes wheat, barley, oats, rye, and maize, as well as rice - versus the family Leguminosae (aka Fabaceae).
Well if you check post 68; That is in essence the basis of my bewilderment, but I was suggesting it mostly in jest over surprise what the threads definition of “bean” had become.
Although I would happily contribute to a cereal.v.legume thread .
Even if coffee beans were real beans, you would not be eating them but rather drinking a processed liquid from them.
I like both, but if I had to choose, I’d go with rice. You can do more with 'em - more versatile and useful, I think.