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.

Look at the data a little differently:

Nutrient Brown White % lost in
%DV %DV milling
---------------------------------------
Fiber 18% 3% 83%
Vitamin B1 17% 3% 82%
Vitamin B3 21% 4% 81%
Magnesium 26% 6% 77%
Manganese 50% 21% 58%
Phosphorus 23% 10% 57%
Vitamin B6 22% 12% 45%
Selenium 35% 22% 37%
Tryptophan 19% 16% 16%

I think it's reasonable to say that these data support the statement
that polished rice is "largely bereft of its original nutrients".

Although polished rice in the US is required to be enriched with B1,
B3 and Fe, rinsing it (which appears to be very widespread, IME), you
lose almost all of the fortification.

The intact bran also keeps the starches from hydrolyzing as much while
cooking, which reduces the speed with which eating it makes blood
sugar rise (compared to the same rice if polished).

I often prefer brown rice for white, though for biryani or Persian
chelo/polo, only polished basmati will do (and it smells HEAVENLY!).
Someone here suggested adding some gunpowder green tea to rice while
cooking it; that is really nice! (It's particularly good with brown
basmati. ;-)

For rice flour, I have never found an occassion where using brown
instead of white caused any noticeably different flavor or behavior,
so I always use brown.


N.

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.

Look at the data a little differently:

Nutrient Brown White % lost in
%DV %DV milling
---------------------------------------
Fiber 18% 3% 83%
Vitamin B1 17% 3% 82%
Vitamin B3 21% 4% 81%
Magnesium 26% 6% 77%
Manganese 50% 21% 58%
Phosphorus 23% 10% 57%
Vitamin B6 22% 12% 45%
Selenium 35% 22% 37%
Tryptophan 19% 16% 16%

I think it's reasonable to say that these data support the statement
that polished rice is "largely bereft of its original nutrients".

Although polished rice in the US is required to be enriched with B1,
B3 and Fe, rinsing it (which appears to be very widespread, IME), you
lose almost all of the fortification.

The intact bran also keeps the starches from hydrolyzing as much while
cooking, which reduces the speed with which eating it makes blood
sugar rise (compared to the same rice if polished).

I often prefer brown rice for white, though for biryani or Persian
chelo/polo, only polished basmati will do (and it smells HEAVENLY!).
Someone here suggested adding some gunpowder green tea to rice while
cooking it; that is really nice! (It's particularly good with brown
basmati. ;-)

For rice flour, I have never found an occassion where using brown
instead of white caused any noticeably different flavor or behavior,
so I always use brown.


N.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:12:34 -0700, crymad wrote:

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

Dang, man! You are obsessed! Just like "a swarm of rampaging sea lions".

LOL!

Thanks for the info.
--
Derek

Failu When your best just isn't good enough.

Derek wrote in :

Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh.

I love it :O)

--
fD, who thinks all rice is nice

Derek wrote in :

Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh.

I love it :O)

--
fD, who thinks all rice is nice

On 24 Oct 2004 06:22:02 GMT, fLameDogg wrote:

Derek wrote in :

Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh.

I love it :O)

Thanks.

--
Derek

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.

Natarajan Krishnaswami wrote:

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.

Look at the data a little differently:

Nutrient Brown White % lost in
%DV %DV milling
---------------------------------------
Fiber 18% 3% 83%
Vitamin B1 17% 3% 82%
Vitamin B3 21% 4% 81%
Magnesium 26% 6% 77%
Manganese 50% 21% 58%
Phosphorus 23% 10% 57%
Vitamin B6 22% 12% 45%
Selenium 35% 22% 37%
Tryptophan 19% 16% 16%

I think it's reasonable to say that these data support the statement
that polished rice is "largely bereft of its original nutrients".

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.

Take a multi-vitamin supplement and enjoy white rice. Or better yet,
incorporate some ground flaxseed into your diet, mixed with white rice
even. Flaxseeds -- a true nutritional powerhouse:

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...dspice&dbid=81

The intact bran also keeps the starches from hydrolyzing as much while
cooking, which reduces the speed with which eating it makes blood
sugar rise (compared to the same rice if polished).

This is a legitimate reason for dining on brown rice. For those with
concerns, that is.

--crymad

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

Natarajan Krishnaswami wrote:

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.

Look at the data a little differently:

Nutrient Brown White % lost in
%DV %DV milling
---------------------------------------
Fiber 18% 3% 83%
Vitamin B1 17% 3% 82%
Vitamin B3 21% 4% 81%
Magnesium 26% 6% 77%
Manganese 50% 21% 58%
Phosphorus 23% 10% 57%
Vitamin B6 22% 12% 45%
Selenium 35% 22% 37%
Tryptophan 19% 16% 16%

I think it's reasonable to say that these data support the statement
that polished rice is "largely bereft of its original nutrients".

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)

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"?

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.

Of course, I do know of a few "off beat" claims about brown rice helping
mental and emotional conditions. But that's a different matter.

I'm simply wondering if someone has made this claim to you or if you've
determined that it has this "wonderful" reputation on your own.

[snip]


--
Derek

"We're all given a ticket to the American freak show the day we're born and
some people, they put their ticket away. Me, I watch the show." -- George
Carlin

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

--crymad

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

--crymad

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

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

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:29:16 -0500, Derek wrote:

And it doesn't mean that there are more of them in brown than in white
rice.

Sorry. That should read "that there aren't more of them". My bad.

--
Derek

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 08:29:16 -0500, Derek wrote:

And it doesn't mean that there are more of them in brown than in white
rice.

Sorry. That should read "that there aren't more of them". My bad.

--
Derek

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.

Derek wrote:

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

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.

I took your comment to mean that brown rice was a good source of
cholesterol-lowering fats. We both seem to be in agreement that the
amount is actually insignificant.

--crymad