On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:57:34 -0700, crymad wrote:

Derek wrote:

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:32:03 -0700, crymad wrote:


Only because in its natural form, rice doesn't seem to have much to
offer to begin with. The reputation of brown rice is quite out of
proportion of its actual nutritional merits.

Again, I'll ask you "what reputation?" (third times a charm, maybe)

Are you old enough to remember the "health food" movement of the 60's &
70's? This is when brown rice and tofu were popularized in US. And
these two formed the exalted foundation for all that was good for you,
to the point of parody, even.

Um, no. Sorry. But I know enough about the 1970s to believe you.

But you probably want hard science, not history, right? How's this for
an example of brown rice's esteem in American minds:

"In a 1996 survey, however, when 1,009 Americans were asked which of
five foods--lettuce, asparagus, navy beans, brown rice, and
oatmeal--provided the best source of cholesterol-fighting soluble fiber,
many missed the mark. Brown rice was incorrectly chosen by 64 percent,
lettuce by 46 percent, and asparagus by 48 percent. In fact, only navy
beans (chosen by 60 percent) and oatmeal (chosen by 75 percent) are rich
sources of soluble fiber"

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/597_fiber.html

Ah. Ok. I'll buy that.

But then, I tend *not* to listen to the general public and prefer to listen
to what my "nutrition and health" instructor taught us in my college class.

Same reason I go back to my nutrition class for information and not the
latest fad diet book. Although...The Southbeach Diet book has some pretty
tasty recipes.

Actually, you need to look no further than yourself when asking about
the reputation of brown rice. When I asked what exactly was so good
about brown rice, you replied that it had cholesterol-lowering
unsaturated fats. This claim appears to be bunk, a product of the power
of myth.

Sorry, Crymad, but the above paragraph is just wrong.

Even your own links have listed monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats as
components of brown rice. So how can the claim be "bunk"? Are you going to
discount the very references you've been using?

The claim isn't bunk, it's just not particularly meaningful when brown rice
has only 3% of the recommended daily values of each type. But that doesn't
mean that they aren't there and that they aren't the "good" types of fats.
And it doesn't mean that there are more of them in brown than in white
rice.

Remember, I never said that brown rice had enough to make a significant
difference. I said it had more than white rice. I've never disagreed with
the assertion that it's not a "nutritional powerhouse."


I'm serious in this. I simply have never read or heard anyone claim that
brown rice is a nutritional power house. The only realistic claim I've
heard is that it is better for us than processed white rice which has lost
much of its nutrient value. So why eat "empty calories"?

Why harbor a suspicion that food is an enemy and that only the most
healthful -- and least palatable -- can be swallowed with a clean
conscious? I take in empty calories all the time, simple because I'm
fit, eat healthy, and so can afford to. To throw your question back,
why eat brown rice when less-caloric fruits and vegetables offer better
nutrition?

Because "red beans and apples" just doesn't appeal to me.

Again, my points have been about choosing brown rice over white when
appropriate, not about choosing brown rice over other foods.

It's the same claim made when we're admonished to eat whole-grain bread
rather than white, and whole-grain cereals rather than processed.

But the assumption that white rice has no place in a sound diet is pure
folly.

As is the assumption that switching from white to brown will fix a body's
ills.

--
Derek

"So.....I was having dinner with world chess champion Garry Kasporov and
there was a checkered tablecloth. It took him two hours to pass me the
salt." -- Peter Kay