Derek wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 10:14:06 -0400, Lewis Perin wrote:

crymad writes:
White Brown
-------------------------
[...other nutrients...]
Folate - Total (mcg)58.00 4.00
Food - Folate (mcg) 3.00 4.00
Folate - DFE (mcg) 97.00 4.00

Looks as if the white stuff in this comparison was doped with folate,
which raises questions about the other nutrients as well.

Perhaps it is the "enriched" variety.

No, they have stats for enriched rice, but I quoted the ones for "rice,
white, long-grain, regular, cooked". See the "Cereal, Grains, & Pasta"
charts he

http://www.nutritionanalyser.com/foo...nd+Pasta&food=

or he http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

What spurred me on this investigation was the nutritional comparison of
white rice with that Tamaki haiga Lew and I were talking about:

http://www.tamakimai.com/nutrients.html

Now granted, the haiga outperforms white. But when you get right down
to it, the nutrition of either is quite nominal, hardly boast worthy.
Quite frankly, I'm willing to grant that white rice is not a nutritional
powerhouse. But can anyone provide stats that show brown rice is?

--crymad

Derek wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 10:14:06 -0400, Lewis Perin wrote:

crymad writes:
White Brown
-------------------------
[...other nutrients...]
Folate - Total (mcg)58.00 4.00
Food - Folate (mcg) 3.00 4.00
Folate - DFE (mcg) 97.00 4.00

Looks as if the white stuff in this comparison was doped with folate,
which raises questions about the other nutrients as well.

Perhaps it is the "enriched" variety.

No, they have stats for enriched rice, but I quoted the ones for "rice,
white, long-grain, regular, cooked". See the "Cereal, Grains, & Pasta"
charts he

http://www.nutritionanalyser.com/foo...nd+Pasta&food=

or he http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

What spurred me on this investigation was the nutritional comparison of
white rice with that Tamaki haiga Lew and I were talking about:

http://www.tamakimai.com/nutrients.html

Now granted, the haiga outperforms white. But when you get right down
to it, the nutrition of either is quite nominal, hardly boast worthy.
Quite frankly, I'm willing to grant that white rice is not a nutritional
powerhouse. But can anyone provide stats that show brown rice is?

--crymad

Derek wrote:


Here's a website that compares different types of rice. The Lundberg facts
seem to be comparable to the brown rice listed.

http://www.pechsiam.com/allabout_nutrition.htm


Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

White rice isn't bad for you, brown rice simply has more of what's good for
you.

And what is this, exactly? Fiber, I'll grant you. But everything else
looks like just quibbling over trace nothings.

--crymad

Derek wrote:


Here's a website that compares different types of rice. The Lundberg facts
seem to be comparable to the brown rice listed.

http://www.pechsiam.com/allabout_nutrition.htm


Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

White rice isn't bad for you, brown rice simply has more of what's good for
you.

And what is this, exactly? Fiber, I'll grant you. But everything else
looks like just quibbling over trace nothings.

--crymad

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:04 -0700, crymad wrote:

Now granted, the haiga outperforms white. But when you get right down
to it, the nutrition of either is quite nominal, hardly boast worthy.
Quite frankly, I'm willing to grant that white rice is not a nutritional
powerhouse. But can anyone provide stats that show brown rice is?

Did anyone actually say brown rice is a nutritional powerhouse?

It's better for you than white rice, but it's no "cure all."

--
Derek

"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." -- G.K.
Chesterton

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:04 -0700, crymad wrote:

Now granted, the haiga outperforms white. But when you get right down
to it, the nutrition of either is quite nominal, hardly boast worthy.
Quite frankly, I'm willing to grant that white rice is not a nutritional
powerhouse. But can anyone provide stats that show brown rice is?

Did anyone actually say brown rice is a nutritional powerhouse?

It's better for you than white rice, but it's no "cure all."

--
Derek

"Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons
exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten." -- G.K.
Chesterton

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:04:01 -0700, crymad wrote:

Derek wrote:


Here's a website that compares different types of rice. The Lundberg facts
seem to be comparable to the brown rice listed.

http://www.pechsiam.com/allabout_nutrition.htm


Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

White rice isn't bad for you, brown rice simply has more of what's good for
you.

And what is this, exactly? Fiber, I'll grant you. But everything else
looks like just quibbling over trace nothings.

Well, the unsaturated fats (which are comparable in quantity to oatmeal)
are good for lowering cholesterol.

--
Derek

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:04:01 -0700, crymad wrote:

Derek wrote:


Here's a website that compares different types of rice. The Lundberg facts
seem to be comparable to the brown rice listed.

http://www.pechsiam.com/allabout_nutrition.htm


Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

http://tinyurl.com/6xkox

White rice isn't bad for you, brown rice simply has more of what's good for
you.

And what is this, exactly? Fiber, I'll grant you. But everything else
looks like just quibbling over trace nothings.

Well, the unsaturated fats (which are comparable in quantity to oatmeal)
are good for lowering cholesterol.

--
Derek

Quitters never win. Winners never quit.
But those who never win and never quit are idiots.

Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

Since minerals like that are non-volatile, cannot be decomposed and are
unlikely to be irreversibly chelated, and assuming that the rice isn't
boiled and drained, they must be comparing equal weights of raw and cooked
rice w/o compensating for water.

-DM

Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

Since minerals like that are non-volatile, cannot be decomposed and are
unlikely to be irreversibly chelated, and assuming that the rice isn't
boiled and drained, they must be comparing equal weights of raw and cooked
rice w/o compensating for water.

-DM

Brown rice has more fiber. White rice also is enriched by law in the US,
so your comparison is not really fair.
But the amount of fiber in a cup of beans pretty much dwarfs the amount you
are going to find in rice, anyways.

I eat both kinds of rice. Medium-grain brown rice is harder to get
sometimes, so I'll either eat short-grain brown from the health food store,
or medium-grain white rice I pick up in the Hispanic section (Goya, for
instance). Long grain rice is just not authentic for many kinds of food.

Brown rice has more fiber. White rice also is enriched by law in the US,
so your comparison is not really fair.
But the amount of fiber in a cup of beans pretty much dwarfs the amount you
are going to find in rice, anyways.

I eat both kinds of rice. Medium-grain brown rice is harder to get
sometimes, so I'll either eat short-grain brown from the health food store,
or medium-grain white rice I pick up in the Hispanic section (Goya, for
instance). Long grain rice is just not authentic for many kinds of food.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:54:06 GMT, Dog Ma 1 wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

Since minerals like that are non-volatile, cannot be decomposed and are
unlikely to be irreversibly chelated, and assuming that the rice isn't
boiled and drained, they must be comparing equal weights of raw and cooked
rice w/o compensating for water.

-DM

Good point. Unless the minerals evaporate with the steam, they've got to
remain in the pot unless, as you say, the rice is boiled and drained. I
hadn't thought about that.

--
Derek

Mediocrity takes a lot less time and most people won't notice the
difference until it's too late.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 02:54:06 GMT, Dog Ma 1 wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looking at the phosphorus and potassium numbers,
it appears they are analyzing the nutrition of _raw_ rice. Check out
the differences between raw and cooked brown rice at the site I
mentioned earlier, and you'll see that phosphorus, magnesium, and
potassium drop to about one-fourth in cooked:

Since minerals like that are non-volatile, cannot be decomposed and are
unlikely to be irreversibly chelated, and assuming that the rice isn't
boiled and drained, they must be comparing equal weights of raw and cooked
rice w/o compensating for water.

-DM

Good point. Unless the minerals evaporate with the steam, they've got to
remain in the pot unless, as you say, the rice is boiled and drained. I
hadn't thought about that.

--
Derek

Mediocrity takes a lot less time and most people won't notice the
difference until it's too late.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 06:04:41 -0400, magnulus wrote:

Brown rice has more fiber. White rice also is enriched by law in the US,
so your comparison is not really fair.

Enriched grains do not get the healthy fats added back. They get vitamins
and minerals. So it's more than just fiber.

But the amount of fiber in a cup of beans pretty much dwarfs the amount you
are going to find in rice, anyways.

Yeah, but...well, you know what they say about beans.

I eat both kinds of rice. Medium-grain brown rice is harder to get
sometimes, so I'll either eat short-grain brown from the health food store,
or medium-grain white rice I pick up in the Hispanic section (Goya, for
instance). Long grain rice is just not authentic for many kinds of food.

I find that the "natural foods" section, or even a natural foods co-op,
often has what I'm looking for.
--
Derek

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.