Refined vs Whole Grains
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »Whole and refined grain don't have to be equal to justify eating one over the other, both work in a balanced diet and epidemiology regarding smoking was a 4000 % increase in cancer, not the less than 1% in the first quartile....where anything can happen. Epidemiology didn't work for Harvard when they were convinced that because of the 80% chance of a cancer improvement with HRT women where then placed on HRT and many deaths occured directly related to the treatment.....wonder why, because epidemiology with small %'s mean nothing, absolutely nothing........
Oddly enough, the initial studies surrounding tobacco use and cancer in 1981 concluded there was "no correlation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3861899
Later studies (a whole bunch of them) disproved this.
Like I said, Epidemiological studies aren't always instant proof of something, but they're a hint at a causal link. When multiple studies over a long period of time point to something and keep affirming the link, in my opinion its time to pay attention.
If switching my white bagel out and adding some whole grain foods means I might even have a slight chance of reducing my risk for heart disease or colon cancer why not?
0 -
No_Finish_Line wrote: »its the biggest crock of crap since the food pyramid. Whole grains are usually the same or more in calories. The only potential difference is that Glycemic Index might be significantly lower, but its not. Whole grain bread only has a marginally lower GI then white bread.
Any food that is less processed may very well be more healthy for you, but that doesn't mean it will help you lose weight faster.
And on that note:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/gi-more-bad-carb-myths.html0 -
I eat mostly whole grains because I like the flavor better.0
-
I do understand what your saying and you are right to say that making improvements to your diet will have an effect, long term. The problem is all these studies are comparing quartiles of people and drawing conclusions. Basically a quartile that consumes less refined grain have better health markers, well D'uh of course they do. What other variables, and there would be many when comparing these groups, would have an effect on health markers. Compare 2 groups that are healthy and consume both types of grains in different degrees and try and extrapolate which is healthier is beyond difficult, it's just plain redundant. The paleo diet when compared to the Mediterranean diet shows better blood glucose control, lower C reactive protein, higher HDL, improved particle size of LDL cholesterol and this is in RCT's. S o we could conclude that including grain whole or refined or both increases insulin resistance, increases C reactive protein, lowers HDL etc....basically it's less healthy.independant2406 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Whole and refined grain don't have to be equal to justify eating one over the other, both work in a balanced diet and epidemiology regarding smoking was a 4000 % increase in cancer, not the less than 1% in the first quartile....where anything can happen. Epidemiology didn't work for Harvard when they were convinced that because of the 80% chance of a cancer improvement with HRT women where then placed on HRT and many deaths occured directly related to the treatment.....wonder why, because epidemiology with small %'s mean nothing, absolutely nothing........
Oddly enough, the initial studies surrounding tobacco use and cancer in 1981 concluded there was "no correlation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3861899
Later studies (a whole bunch of them) disproved this.
Like I said, Epidemiological studies aren't always instant proof of something, but they're a hint at a causal link. When multiple studies over a long period of time point to something and keep affirming the link, in my opinion its time to pay attention.
If switching my white bagel out and adding some whole grain foods means I might even have a slight chance of reducing my risk for heart disease or colon cancer why not?
All epidemiology studies regarding refined grains are comparing the quartile with the worst health markers in American's which are obese or overweight, consume a high percentage of refined, processed and fast food, are sedentary and a large percentage have Mets........anytime this group is intervened with any food that is less refined health markers will improve and that's the basic problem....leave out the refined grain altogether and don't replace it with anything, health markers improve, so saying whole grain is better has little context especially with the paleo and med comparisons.
Just to point out also that those percentages are not actual reductions in risk but reductions in the likelihood od someone geting a particular disease. So if a person has a 2 percent chance of getting a disease from a lifestyle inclusion a 40% increase would be still under a 3% chance of getting that disease.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »"independant2406 wrote: »"Reasonable consumption" cannot be scientifically quantified. I already provided evidence that highly processed foods impact blood glucose.
Sorry, without quantities this is meaningless. Now please show me where a reasonable quantity of white flour bread, such as two slices of toast for breakfast, or two slices of white bread on a sandwich has a meaningful difference - that is, it exceeds normal tolerances - in blood sugar increase and insulin production from exactly the same meals but with brown bread substituted.
I'll save you the time: it doesn't.
I didn't say quantity was meaningless. I said "reasonable consumption" and similarly "normal tolerances" cannot be scientifically quantified in this argument because they are subjective (not defined amounts) and open to personal interpretation.
I'll put it another way. How do you determine scientifically what the "reasonable" consumption of a substance is? Science doesn't work that way. A comparison of two slices of white bread vs two slices of whole grain bread with the same caloric value and/or weight in grams would be a better example of a study, but it doesn't tell us what is "reasonable" or "normal" are.Note the use of the word 'relatively'. Also note her use of the words 'tends to' when describing wholegrains. Again, unless you have a study showing the difference between the consumption of the toast and sandwich described above, and its effect on satiety, it's meaningless.
I'd also point out that she states:
The bottom line: White, refined foods can be part of a healthy diet, but moderation is key.
Agreed. I've never said in this thread to eliminate all white bread, but making the swap more often than not seems like a healthy decision based on the evidence.
I suggest you read the full article. It also states that:
The Iowa Women’s Health Study showed no relation between the intake of sweets or desserts and risk of ischemic heart disease in 34 492 women monitored for 9 years. However, some major sources of sugar such as soft drinks were not considered.
Not sure of your point here. The study was of processed starchy foods and their impact on blood glucose, not desserts specifically. Our discussion in this thread is about bread (specifically a processed starchy form vs. whole grain form). Correct?The Scottish Heart Health Study of 10 359 men and women found that neither extrinsic nor intrinsic sugars were significant independent correlates of prevalent CHD after adjustment for other major risk factors, but the data were not adjusted for other dietary variables
You cannot cherry pick one study and ignore others.
The American Heart Association provides studies both pro and con. Very true. I do love a good balanced discussion!
Note that the AHA article begins and ends with:
"The purpose of this report is to review the effects of dietary sugar on health, with an emphasis on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors. Although there are no dietary trials linking sugar consumption and CVD, there are several reasons why sugar consumption should be limited."
"Although increasing the amount of sugar in an isocaloric diet does not directly lead to changes in energy expenditure or weight gain in controlled feeding studies, high-sugar foods, which are sweet and calorie dense, may increase calorie consumption and lead to weight gain. Furthermore, replacement of whole foods with high-sugar foods compromises attainment of adequate dietary vitamin and mineral intake from whole food sources."In any event, the study concern sugar consumption, not grain consumption. Here are the nutritional profiles of Tesco White Bread and Tesco Wholemeal Bread:
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254942066
http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254944058
Per slice, the white bread contains 16g of carbohydrate. The wholemeal bread contains 14g. As such the difference is statistically irrelevant. The only meaningful difference is in fibre content.
Carbohydrates turn into sugar in our bodies. And studies of how carbohydrates impact blood sugar (see harvard public health in my previous posts) tells us that added fiber reduces the spike in blood glucose associated with consuming carbohydrates. This is one of the reasons many researchers believe high fiber and whole grain foods are healthier than their processed counterparts.So, your sources do not prove your assertion. The fact is that a reasonable consumption of refined grains, whether that is in bread, pasta, or whatever form, is of no harm to anyone, given that fibre can be sourced from other foodstuffs, and that there is simply no need to practice an exclusion diet.
The problem, as these studies show, is not what people eat, but the amount they eat and the lifestyles they lead.
You are misunderstanding my point and assuming a few things. I've never said anywhere in this thread that all bread/white bread should be eliminated, only that swapping white foods for whole grain has nutritional benefits...as that was the OP's question.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
neanderthin wrote: »I do understand what your saying and you are right to say that making improvements to your diet will have an effect, long term. The problem is all these studies are comparing quartiles of people and drawing conclusions. Basically a quartile that consumes less refined grain have better health markers, well D'uh of course they do. What other variables, and there would be many when comparing these groups, would have an effect on health markers. Compare 2 groups that are healthy and consume both types of grains in different degrees and try and extrapolate which is healthier is beyond difficult, it's just plain redundant. The paleo diet when compared to the Mediterranean diet shows better blood glucose control, lower C reactive protein, higher HDL, improved particle size of LDL cholesterol and this is in RCT's. S o we could conclude that including grain whole or refined or both increases insulin resistance, increases C reactive protein, lowers HDL etc....basically it's less healthy.
You bring out some interesting points. Yes most of these studies are of obese/diabetic/heart patient people. However, considering 68.8 % (almost 2/3) of Americans are obese, it'd be a bit hard (and probably unethical) not to include obese people in the studies.
Like you said, studying healthy people is redundant and its the reason they don't do it... also its pretty complicated to define "healthy"...moreso than defining "diabetic" or "obese" as a study group.All epidemiology studies regarding refined grains are comparing the quartile with the worst health markers in American's which are obese or overweight, consume a high percentage of refined, processed and fast food, are sedentary and a large percentage have Mets........anytime this group is intervened with any food that is less refined health markers will improve and that's the basic problem....leave out the refined grain altogether and don't replace it with anything, health markers improve, so saying whole grain is better has little context especially with the paleo and med comparisons."
I totally understand where your coming from. And I'm excited that studies about Paleo are showing good results. However, grain vs. no grain becomes a whole different topic but definitely a valuable one to look into.
For the purposes of the OP's question - the health markers improve more with whole grains than with refined/processed grains based on the majority of the evidence.Just to point out also that those percentages are not actual reductions in risk but reductions in the likelihood od someone geting a particular disease. So if a person has a 2 percent chance of getting a disease from a lifestyle inclusion a 40% increase would be still under a 3% chance of getting that disease.
Excellent point. I do think having an already low genetic predisposition to a certain disease probably makes this sort of thing (whole grain vs processed) a bit less impactful. However, so many Americans have diabetes, (or pre diabetes), markers for heart disease, cancer etc. Its really a relatively easy change to add to their diet which is a healthier/more nutritious choice.
Going grain free is pretty darn hard for me (I've tried) so I've settled for something I can manage: (adding whole grains and controlling carb intake) as it seems like a step in the right direction and more sustainable as a long term plan. 0 -
The smug sense of superiority one gets from eating whole grains has been proven to burn 250 extra calories a day.
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar-smugness-science-n-stuff/
0 -
The smug sense of superiority one gets from eating whole grains has been proven to burn 250 extra calories a day.
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar-smugness-science-n-stuff/
Here we go again with the crap of "people who eat healthier are smug".
It's rude, and immature and stupid to project your nonsense on others.
I can pretty much guarantee that NO ONE is eating to affect YOU in any way. No one is eating with YOU in mind. silly git.
0 -
This study alone made me want to switch to 'whole foods'. If I can eat food that burns up 20% of its calories in its own digestion vs. 11%, I'm all for it. That's an extra 200 daily calories nearly, for a 2000 calorie maintainer.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF (processed foods) meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF (whole foods) meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh. The fiber benefits of most whole grains are vastly overrated. Just look at the actual numbers, especially for something like whole wheat pasta or brown rice. I eat steel cut oats on occasion because I like them, but the amount of fiber in them is nothing to write home about. Beans (among other things) are a far better source for fiber.
Since when were we comparing whole grains to beans? I'm pretty sure we were comparing whole grains to bleached grains.
Again, the point is that whole grains (especially something like brown rice or whole wheat pasta) are not a particularly fabulous source of fiber, and there are many other sources of fiber.
Well I would agree with you that whole grains aren't the best source of fiber. But in the context of a varied diet, choosing whole grains over white grains will probably be better for you in the long run because most people do not get adequate fiber. Fruits, veggies, legumes, etc., all have been shown to have long term health benefits as well and are all great sources of fiber too.
As I said earlier, good nutrition depends on context and what the person's overall diet contains. Saying eat sufficient fiber and be careful not to consume too many not especially nutrient-dense calories, with "too many" defined by your size and activity level, etc., makes sense. Whether a particular item is worth it depends on the person. Whole grains might be if they add fiber, but if the person already eats lots of beans and greatly prefers regular pasta to whole grain, there's zero reason to tell the person that health requires giving up the regular pasta.
As I said above, I limit grains in general since I don't usually think they are worth the calories or add much to my diet, but I don't pretend like that's advice that should apply to everyone. It has to do with what I prefer. And similarly I usually like whole grain bread better than white when I do eat it, but I'm not passing up naan at an Indian restaurant because it uses white flour. This whole insistence on eliminating things seems bizarre to me. There's no reason for it. Just be aware of what the particular food adds and doesn't.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »This study alone made me want to switch to 'whole foods'. If I can eat food that burns up 20% of its calories in its own digestion vs. 11%, I'm all for it. That's an extra 200 daily calories nearly, for a 2000 calorie maintainer.
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144/5755
Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF (processed foods) meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF (whole foods) meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity.
I think it's really interesting (and I prefer whole foods most of the time, for a number of reason), but I wonder if it could really be isolated from the macro differences (which didn't seem insignificant to me, especially since a significant component of the carbs from the WF meal were fiber) or the difference in fiber itself.
Thus, I think it's generally consistent with the advice I'd give, which is that it's the overall make up of the diet that matters, not whether you eat pasta with 2 grams of fiber in a serving vs. 6 grams (the difference between Barilla penne regular and whole grain). People get obsessed with the idea that eating healthy is about avoiding particular items (and yes, I do think you see a lot of people on this forum who are smug about what they avoid, although you also see people who are smug about not avoiding things)*, and miss the big picture, which IMO tends to be more along the lines of do you eat the recommended amounts of vegetables and fruits, how much fiber do you get, etc.
*I don't so much mind the smugness as the constant suggestions that if you eat whatever it is--sugar, pasta, potatoes, etc.--that you don't care about health unlike the low carb folks or the anti sugar folks or the paleo folks, etc. As I always say, I think giving up added sugar or doing paleo or low carb, etc. can be an excellent strategy for an individual person, but it gets tiresome when people get evangelical about it and tell everyone else that if we eat sugar we are addicted or having cravings based on blood sugar or some such.0 -
Thanks
Don't often agree with her but I do in this case.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The smug sense of superiority one gets from eating whole grains has been proven to burn 250 extra calories a day.
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar-smugness-science-n-stuff/
Here we go again with the crap of "people who eat healthier are smug".
It's rude, and immature and stupid to project your nonsense on others.
I can pretty much guarantee that NO ONE is eating to affect YOU in any way. No one is eating with YOU in mind. silly git.
I don't eat "clean/healthier" and I'm pretty damn smug.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Thanks
Don't often agree with her but I do in this case.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »The smug sense of superiority one gets from eating whole grains has been proven to burn 250 extra calories a day.
Source:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar-smugness-science-n-stuff/
Here we go again with the crap of "people who eat healthier are smug".
It's rude, and immature and stupid to project your nonsense on others.
I can pretty much guarantee that NO ONE is eating to affect YOU in any way. No one is eating with YOU in mind. silly git.
I don't eat "clean/healthier" and I'm pretty damn smug.
Pffff
0 -
It seems like that's your response to every study that gets posted.
We're never going to get 'perfect tests' on eating or calorimetry. It's just not feasible. Or necessary, really. Which is why these tests get through peer review and get published.
But I do wish the foods at least had the same macros.0 -
Whole Grain = Refined Grain = Sugar as end product. Not difference in terms of nutrition.0
-
Maybe you could help these guys vet future articles.herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »It seems like that's your response to every study that gets posted.
Only the bad ones.
Sorry, but the experiment has too many confounding variables and inconsistencies. It looks like a piece of undergrad work, and not a good one at that.
Editor-in-Chief
Mikael Fogelholm, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
Editors
Asim Duttaroy, Department of Nutrition, Oslo University, Norway
Anna S Olafsdottir, University of Iceland, Iceland
Anja Olsen, Danish Cancer Association, Denmark
Seppo Jaakko Salminen, University of Turku, Finland
Inge Tetens, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Agneta Yngve, Örebro University, Sweden
Editorial Office
Susanne Bryngelsson, Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Anneli Hovstadius, Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Nina Jansson, SNF Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Editorial Board
Arne Astrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Robert Jan Brummer, Örebro University, Sweden
Philip Calder, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Tommy Cederholm, Uppsala University, Sweden
Lars-Ove Dragsted, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Olle Hernell, Umeå University, Sweden
Peter Jones, University of Manitoba, Canada
Leila Karhunen, University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Bo Lönnerdal, University of California Davis, United States
John Milner, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, United States
Marja Mutanen, University of Helsinki, Finland
Joseph Rafter, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Gabriele Riccardi, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
Ian Rowland, United Kingdom
Toshio Shimizu, Nagaya-bunri University, Tokyo, Japan
Linda Tapsell, University of Wollongong, Australia
Alicja Wolk, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Per Åman, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala
0 -
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Two years ago it was the "eat more toWalkingAlong wrote: »arditarose wrote: »Shadowpenn wrote: »Have recently started working out to shed body fat but I keep hearing that whole grains are much better than white rice, bread etc. How true is it?
I am already in the process of cutting down sugar and junk food but would love a diet plan where I don't have to give up stuff like chocolate, chocolate milk etc completely for a few months (as everyone around me keeps telling me).
Most people around here who have been super successful did not give up any of that stuff. Also, working out does not shed body fat. Caloric deficit does. Good luck!
Lol. Not most people. Just a few who like to state it really loudly and often. Kinda reminds me of my neighbour's dog barking ...
Two years ago here there was no "IIFYM" contingent. Now it's the WHOLE PLACE, or at least anyone with any success, if you believe the barking dogs.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Maybe you could help these guys vet future articles.herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »It seems like that's your response to every study that gets posted.
Only the bad ones.
Sorry, but the experiment has too many confounding variables and inconsistencies. It looks like a piece of undergrad work, and not a good one at that.
Editor-in-Chief
Mikael Fogelholm, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
Editors
Asim Duttaroy, Department of Nutrition, Oslo University, Norway
Anna S Olafsdottir, University of Iceland, Iceland
Anja Olsen, Danish Cancer Association, Denmark
Seppo Jaakko Salminen, University of Turku, Finland
Inge Tetens, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
Agneta Yngve, Örebro University, Sweden
Editorial Office
Susanne Bryngelsson, Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Anneli Hovstadius, Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Nina Jansson, SNF Swedish Nutrition Foundation, Sweden
Editorial Board
Arne Astrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Robert Jan Brummer, Örebro University, Sweden
Philip Calder, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
Tommy Cederholm, Uppsala University, Sweden
Lars-Ove Dragsted, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Olle Hernell, Umeå University, Sweden
Peter Jones, University of Manitoba, Canada
Leila Karhunen, University of Eastern Finland, Finland
Bo Lönnerdal, University of California Davis, United States
John Milner, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Rockville, MD, United States
Marja Mutanen, University of Helsinki, Finland
Joseph Rafter, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Gabriele Riccardi, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
Ian Rowland, United Kingdom
Toshio Shimizu, Nagaya-bunri University, Tokyo, Japan
Linda Tapsell, University of Wollongong, Australia
Alicja Wolk, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Per Åman, Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala
The journal has an impact factor of 1.785. Not exactly "Nature".0 -
And the impact factor of MFP and any poster on MFP is 0.000. Do you seriously intend to compare the authority of a journal against a forum post? You're talking Mt. Everest vs. the bottom of the ocean.
Though the fun thing about MFP is so many think they know it all. They could teach the classes. They could teach the doctors. They could edit the journals. How seldom does an actual BOOK get mentioned here? Virtually never. This place is a bevy of 'experts' on MFPisms and nothing else.-1 -
Subjectively speaking, whole grains provide more satiety. That's a very compelling reason to prefer them, but pretty much the only one (aside from taste).
That being said, it depends more grain-to-grain than whole-refined. For instance, pearl barley is considered a refined grain while brown rice is considered a whole grain, but the former has four times more fiber and marginally more protein than the latter...
Ridiculous, it's the Lizardmen.neanderthin wrote: »
Bread can be stored in the fridge......amazing that people think otherwise, but then again 6 million Americans believe alien insects run the gov't.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Sprouted grains must be stored in the fridge.FunkyTobias wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Look for breads with NO high fructose corn syrup and the lowest sugar count. Look for breads with SHORT ingredient lists (and then store them in the fridge).
Never EVER store bread in the fridge, unless you like stale bread.
When will people open their eyes?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions