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.

Of course "rice paddies". This post is making me revisit my
childhood. It's been close too four decades since I've had any
crawdad rice croquettes. The biggest harvest of the rice fields was
crayfish. I'd usually find them in the brackish water of a back bay
swamp. Actually crabbing was easier on the piers. I don't think any
Japanese ate any more fish and rice than I did growing up. We never
cooked eels.

Jim

(Space Cowboy) wrote in message . com...
All I know is stay away from refined and bleached rice which
automatically eliminates Uncle Ben. The Asian markets have the bags
which looks like they came directly from the rice patties side by side
with the rice cookers so it doesn't turn out as porridge. I grew up
on red beans and rice usually with rice pudding as desert. Making
good rice is like making good fudge.

Jim

crymad wrote in message ...
This whole brown vs. white rice thing has been bothering me. I recall
researching the topic in the past, and that's probably when I stopped
fretting about eating white rice.
snipped with a weed wacker

Of course "rice paddies". This post is making me revisit my
childhood. It's been close too four decades since I've had any
crawdad rice croquettes. The biggest harvest of the rice fields was
crayfish. I'd usually find them in the brackish water of a back bay
swamp. Actually crabbing was easier on the piers. I don't think any
Japanese ate any more fish and rice than I did growing up. We never
cooked eels.

Jim

(Space Cowboy) wrote in message . com...
All I know is stay away from refined and bleached rice which
automatically eliminates Uncle Ben. The Asian markets have the bags
which looks like they came directly from the rice patties side by side
with the rice cookers so it doesn't turn out as porridge. I grew up
on red beans and rice usually with rice pudding as desert. Making
good rice is like making good fudge.

Jim

crymad wrote in message ...
This whole brown vs. white rice thing has been bothering me. I recall
researching the topic in the past, and that's probably when I stopped
fretting about eating white rice.
snipped with a weed wacker

"crymad" wrote in message

This whole brown vs. white rice thing has been bothering me.

I don't understand why that has to be "versus". I appreciate different sorts
of rice, for different dishes, different days and even seasons.

Any of you brown rice eaters
have any additional information that this comparison overlooks?

That's just a personnal observation. If I eat a several dish meal, with rice
as a side, there's no difference. But if I make a meal of only rice (or with
small side items), I eat twice the amount of white rice than of brown rice
to feel well, and I feel hungry sooner with the white one. Idem for bread,
pasta, potatoes, the "modern ones" are quicker to swallow and forget.
That difference counts for me as the 2 only diets I know when my clothes
become too tight are changing of laundry powder or a period of BLM ("Bouffe
La Moitie", Eat Half ).

Also in this season, Japanese white rice is very good as it's new and
fragrant. In a few months, it won't be that pleasant. So I'll be glad to
have brown rice, red rice, sticky rice and maybe if I can make a trip or
stopover I'll buy Thai fragrant rice, or black sticky rice, or basmati, or
arborio, or...

In addition, the important is the pleasure you have to eat it. I like myself
too much to force me
to eat stuff I don't like. If I were you and I didn't appreciate brown rice,
I wouldn't even look for reasons to eat some.

Kuri

"crymad" wrote in message

This whole brown vs. white rice thing has been bothering me.

I don't understand why that has to be "versus". I appreciate different sorts
of rice, for different dishes, different days and even seasons.

Any of you brown rice eaters
have any additional information that this comparison overlooks?

That's just a personnal observation. If I eat a several dish meal, with rice
as a side, there's no difference. But if I make a meal of only rice (or with
small side items), I eat twice the amount of white rice than of brown rice
to feel well, and I feel hungry sooner with the white one. Idem for bread,
pasta, potatoes, the "modern ones" are quicker to swallow and forget.
That difference counts for me as the 2 only diets I know when my clothes
become too tight are changing of laundry powder or a period of BLM ("Bouffe
La Moitie", Eat Half ).

Also in this season, Japanese white rice is very good as it's new and
fragrant. In a few months, it won't be that pleasant. So I'll be glad to
have brown rice, red rice, sticky rice and maybe if I can make a trip or
stopover I'll buy Thai fragrant rice, or black sticky rice, or basmati, or
arborio, or...

In addition, the important is the pleasure you have to eat it. I like myself
too much to force me
to eat stuff I don't like. If I were you and I didn't appreciate brown rice,
I wouldn't even look for reasons to eat some.

Kuri

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:

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.

You want to know where brown rice really shines? Manganese! One cup of
cooked brown rice provides 50% DV. Yeah, I know -- not very glamorous.
But that's verdict at this goldmine of a nutrition site I uncovered:

http://tinyurl.com/3z8ps

This site discusses health benefits and provides nutritional profiles --
in both amount and %DV -- of all the foods listed. The other notable
nutrients in brown rice are these, with their respective %DV:

selenium -- 35%
magnesium -- 26%
phosphorus -- 23%
vitamin B6 -- 22%
vitamin B3 (niacin) -- 21%
tryptophan -- 19%
dietary fiber -- 18%
vitamin B1 (thiamin) -- 17%

But these are all present in just middling amounts, nothing really to
write home about. And that just about covers it for brown rice. If you
look at the in-depth nutritional profile for brown rice, you'll see that
good fats appear to be almost nonexistent:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=135

This site has a wealth of info. I spent about an hour flipping back and
forth between different foods, comparing nutritional profiles. For a
real shock, check out the one for romaine lettuce. Shoot, even 1 cup of
baked potato stands about equal to 1 cup of cooked brown rice. And
eating it isn't drudgery.

--crymad

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.

This makes sense. I found what appears to be a more valid comparison of
assorted long grains:

http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/rice.html

Note that regular unenriched white is the third column from the left.

--crymad

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.

This makes sense. I found what appears to be a more valid comparison of
assorted long grains:

http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/rice.html

Note that regular unenriched white is the third column from the left.

--crymad

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:55:35 -0700, crymad wrote:

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:

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.

You want to know where brown rice really shines? Manganese! One cup of
cooked brown rice provides 50% DV. Yeah, I know -- not very glamorous.
But that's verdict at this goldmine of a nutrition site I uncovered:

http://tinyurl.com/3z8ps

This site discusses health benefits and provides nutritional profiles --
in both amount and %DV -- of all the foods listed. The other notable
nutrients in brown rice are these, with their respective %DV:

selenium -- 35%
magnesium -- 26%
phosphorus -- 23%
vitamin B6 -- 22%
vitamin B3 (niacin) -- 21%
tryptophan -- 19%
dietary fiber -- 18%
vitamin B1 (thiamin) -- 17%

But these are all present in just middling amounts, nothing really to
write home about. And that just about covers it for brown rice. If you
look at the in-depth nutritional profile for brown rice, you'll see that
good fats appear to be almost nonexistent:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=135

You know, middling is such a judgmental word - especially when one can get
1/4 of one's daily recommended values from a 1 cup side dish.

Again, I ask you who claimed brown rice was a wonder food? The comments
I've read say that it's better than white.

This site has a wealth of info. I spent about an hour flipping back and
forth between different foods, comparing nutritional profiles. For a
real shock, check out the one for romaine lettuce. Shoot, even 1 cup of
baked potato stands about equal to 1 cup of cooked brown rice. And
eating it isn't drudgery.

Rather than comparing brown rice to vegetables, why don't you compare brown
rice to white? Well, a reason other than the fact that the web site you
mentioned doesn't consider white rice healthy due to all the nutrients lost
in processing.

As for being a drudgery - you must not be fixing it right. I find brown
rice to be a wonderful component as a bed for grilled chicken, as an
ingredient in red beans and rice, or in just about any place one might use
white rice.

Rice pudding, on the other hand, doesn't work with brown rice.

--
Derek

"Marriage isn't supposed to make you happy -
it's supposed to make you married." -- Frank Pittman

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:55:35 -0700, crymad wrote:

Derek wrote:

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

Derek wrote:

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.

You want to know where brown rice really shines? Manganese! One cup of
cooked brown rice provides 50% DV. Yeah, I know -- not very glamorous.
But that's verdict at this goldmine of a nutrition site I uncovered:

http://tinyurl.com/3z8ps

This site discusses health benefits and provides nutritional profiles --
in both amount and %DV -- of all the foods listed. The other notable
nutrients in brown rice are these, with their respective %DV:

selenium -- 35%
magnesium -- 26%
phosphorus -- 23%
vitamin B6 -- 22%
vitamin B3 (niacin) -- 21%
tryptophan -- 19%
dietary fiber -- 18%
vitamin B1 (thiamin) -- 17%

But these are all present in just middling amounts, nothing really to
write home about. And that just about covers it for brown rice. If you
look at the in-depth nutritional profile for brown rice, you'll see that
good fats appear to be almost nonexistent:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=135

You know, middling is such a judgmental word - especially when one can get
1/4 of one's daily recommended values from a 1 cup side dish.

Again, I ask you who claimed brown rice was a wonder food? The comments
I've read say that it's better than white.

This site has a wealth of info. I spent about an hour flipping back and
forth between different foods, comparing nutritional profiles. For a
real shock, check out the one for romaine lettuce. Shoot, even 1 cup of
baked potato stands about equal to 1 cup of cooked brown rice. And
eating it isn't drudgery.

Rather than comparing brown rice to vegetables, why don't you compare brown
rice to white? Well, a reason other than the fact that the web site you
mentioned doesn't consider white rice healthy due to all the nutrients lost
in processing.

As for being a drudgery - you must not be fixing it right. I find brown
rice to be a wonderful component as a bed for grilled chicken, as an
ingredient in red beans and rice, or in just about any place one might use
white rice.

Rice pudding, on the other hand, doesn't work with brown rice.

--
Derek

"Marriage isn't supposed to make you happy -
it's supposed to make you married." -- Frank Pittman

crymad wrote:

I found what appears to be a more valid comparison of
assorted long grains:

http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/rice.html

Note that regular unenriched white is the third column from the left.

My obsessiveness is as tireless as a swarm of rampaging sea lions. I've
used the data in the above chart to come up with a nutritional %DV
comparison for one cooked cup of brown and unenriched white rice. Only
the standout nutrients are listed, as everything else appears trivial.

Nutrient Brown White
%DV %DV
------------------------------
Manganese 50% 21%
Selenium 35% 22%
Magnesium 26% 6%
Phosphorus 23% 10%
Vitamin B6 22% 12%
Vitamin B3 21% 4%
Tryptophan 19% 16%
Fiber 18% 3%
Vitamin B1 17% 3%

Though whfoods.com declares that "white rice is simply a refined starch
that is largely bereft of its original nutrients", the above stats show
that this is simply not the case. It deserves mentioning that one cup
of cooked white rice is a very small amount. In Asian meals at our
place, two cups is more like a standard serving, and eating 3 or 4 cups
is not out of the question.

--crymad

crymad wrote:

I found what appears to be a more valid comparison of
assorted long grains:

http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/rice.html

Note that regular unenriched white is the third column from the left.

My obsessiveness is as tireless as a swarm of rampaging sea lions. I've
used the data in the above chart to come up with a nutritional %DV
comparison for one cooked cup of brown and unenriched white rice. Only
the standout nutrients are listed, as everything else appears trivial.

Nutrient Brown White
%DV %DV
------------------------------
Manganese 50% 21%
Selenium 35% 22%
Magnesium 26% 6%
Phosphorus 23% 10%
Vitamin B6 22% 12%
Vitamin B3 21% 4%
Tryptophan 19% 16%
Fiber 18% 3%
Vitamin B1 17% 3%

Though whfoods.com declares that "white rice is simply a refined starch
that is largely bereft of its original nutrients", the above stats show
that this is simply not the case. It deserves mentioning that one cup
of cooked white rice is a very small amount. In Asian meals at our
place, two cups is more like a standard serving, and eating 3 or 4 cups
is not out of the question.

--crymad

Derek wrote:

Rather than comparing brown rice to vegetables, why don't you compare brown
rice to white? Well, a reason other than the fact that the web site you
mentioned doesn't consider white rice healthy due to all the nutrients lost
in processing.

Consider it done. Check my other post below.

--crymad

Derek wrote:

Rather than comparing brown rice to vegetables, why don't you compare brown
rice to white? Well, a reason other than the fact that the web site you
mentioned doesn't consider white rice healthy due to all the nutrients lost
in processing.

Consider it done. Check my other post below.

--crymad

Derek wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 17:55:35 -0700, crymad wrote:

This site has a wealth of info. I spent about an hour flipping back and
forth between different foods, comparing nutritional profiles. For a
real shock, check out the one for romaine lettuce. Shoot, even 1 cup of
baked potato stands about equal to 1 cup of cooked brown rice. And
eating it isn't drudgery.

As for being a drudgery - you must not be fixing it right. I find brown
rice to be a wonderful component as a bed for grilled chicken, as an
ingredient in red beans and rice, or in just about any place one might use
white rice.

Actually, I like brown rice in certain settings. Just not as the anchor
in Asian cuisines. My wife and I had sukiyaki the other night. We each
ate at least three cups of cooked white rice. Plus beef and tofu and
chrysanthemum leaves (shungiku) and napa cabbage and long onions and
fresh shiitake and other assorted bits. Can you manage to get down
three cups of brown rice along with the quantities of all that other
goodness? It's simply too heavy in the stomach. This is what I mean by
drudgery.

--crymad