dumping the white carbs

bcattoes

If I said I avoid all brown carbs would it be as racist as everyone saying they avoid white carbs?


Issues with insulin or such where you need to monitor carb intake is one thing but it's pretty funny how many people avoid something because they heard on tv somewhere that they should. Ask them why and the answer is always the same.

The answer is always that they heard it on TV? Ridiculous!

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/

Can you can provide any type of evidence whatsoever that you or your source is more credible than the source above?

Yes. TV. And it's not that ridiculous. Maybe you might take the time to read different things online and keep reading but many people don't. They can read 1 article and accept what they read or see 1 show and accept that. So yes, TV.

Read your article, not impressed.

I have a Q&A to provide also. If I'm not mistaken, this guy is kind of smart too.
http://fitnfly.com/learn-about-food/nutrition-facts-2

Agreed. Maybe not Fredrick John Stare Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition Chair, Department of Nutrition at Harvard. But kind of smart.

bcattoes

If we are talking rice you would be better cutting out brown than white. Whilst white rice is just basically starch with very little nutrition, it is still more nutritious than brown rice, and it tastes nicer IMO.

Got anything to back this up? First time I'm hearing about it. And I like the taste of brown rice.

Most of the nutrients in brown rice are in the hull and bran and bound up with phytic acid, which as a species we do not readily absorb.

White rice does not have the same issue, although the nutrients per calorie is not that much to write home about. If you've covered your micro nutrient bases for the day then white rice is a great food to accompany most things.

If neither has many nutrients to absorb, then what makes white better? Why would we be better cutting out brown than white? Didn't the link you posted earlier said that phytates may prevent colon cancer?

We don't produce phytase which breaks down phytic acid. White rice does not have phytic acid (or certainly not to the levels of brown rice so the actual nutrients within the white are absorbed.

Also not only has phyti acid been shown in high levels not to be absorbed, because it's purpose is to bind minerals it has been shown to take mineral we already have from our body.

Phytic acid (phytate) has been shown to have cancer preventative properties, but in most articles I've seen it is being used in medicine more than in food for those purposes.

Is there any evidence that people who eat brown rice suffer nutrient deficiencies more than those that eat white?

Either way brown seems a better choice to me. It's been a staple in my diet for decades and I've never had a nutrient deficiency, so I might as well stick with what I like and get fiber and maybe prevent cancer to boot.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

thegeorges11202004

there is a whole group of people (google Weston Price) who think that all whole grains contain phytic acid, and that in order for us to be able to absorb the nutrients from them, we must soak them or use "sprouted" grains. So if you prefer brown rice, and want more nutritional benefit from them, you could soak your rice before you cook it. You can also google how to do this, but most people use a mixture of water with whey, lemon juice, or apple cider vinegar. The texture is improved greatly by soaking.

parkscs

You guys are comparing an article from HSPH directed towards the general public with a fitness Q&A with Alan Aragon. I don't particularly find either link conclusive on whether a person should eat "white carbs." The Q&A is saying, for the average Joe (who does not track calories/macros), quinoa or beans are typically a better option than white bread or potatoes (as they're typically prepared). And I'd say that's good advice for average Joe. Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods. As such, substituting those out for quinoa is probably sound advice for the average Joe looking to lose/maintain weight. But the article isn't saying potatoes are always a bad choice and that you should NEVER eat potatoes even if they fit into your carefully tracked caloric intake/macros for the day. It's simply general advice for people who aren't tracking their calories (based on data suggesting people that ate more potatoes, as typically prepared, gained weight relative to people that ate fewer potatoes).

On the other hand, Alan is simply saying that brown rice isn't all it's made out to be compared to white rice. No surprises there. At the end of the day, I don't see the articles putting forth opposing views.

bcattoes

You guys are comparing an article from HSPH directed towards the general public with a fitness Q&A with Alan Aragon. I don't particularly find either link conclusive on whether a person should eat "white carbs." The Q&A is saying, for the average Joe (who does not track calories/macros), quinoa or beans are typically a better option than white bread or potatoes (as they're typically prepared). And I'd say that's good advice for average Joe. Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods. As such, substituting those out for quinoa is probably sound advice for the average Joe looking to lose/maintain weight. But the article isn't saying potatoes are always a bad choice and that you should NEVER eat potatoes even if they fit into your carefully tracked caloric intake/macros for the day. It's simply general advice for people who aren't tracking their calories (based on data suggesting people that ate more potatoes, as typically prepared, gained weight relative to people that ate fewer potatoes).

On the other hand, Alan is simply saying that brown rice isn't all it's made out to be compared to white rice. No surprises there. At the end of the day, I don't see the articles putting forth opposing views.

No, I didn't think they were either. It's like when someone says "limit this" and then someone post a repsonse that says "No, everything in moderation".

tennisdude2004

If we are talking rice you would be better cutting out brown than white. Whilst white rice is just basically starch with very little nutrition, it is still more nutritious than brown rice, and it tastes nicer IMO.

Got anything to back this up? First time I'm hearing about it. And I like the taste of brown rice.

Most of the nutrients in brown rice are in the hull and bran and bound up with phytic acid, which as a species we do not readily absorb.

White rice does not have the same issue, although the nutrients per calorie is not that much to write home about. If you've covered your micro nutrient bases for the day then white rice is a great food to accompany most things.

If neither has many nutrients to absorb, then what makes white better? Why would we be better cutting out brown than white? Didn't the link you posted earlier said that phytates may prevent colon cancer?

We don't produce phytase which breaks down phytic acid. White rice does not have phytic acid (or certainly not to the levels of brown rice so the actual nutrients within the white are absorbed.

Also not only has phyti acid been shown in high levels not to be absorbed, because it's purpose is to bind minerals it has been shown to take mineral we already have from our body.

Phytic acid (phytate) has been shown to have cancer preventative properties, but in most articles I've seen it is being used in medicine more than in food for those purposes.

Is there any evidence that people who eat brown rice suffer nutrient deficiencies more than those that eat white?

Either way brown seems a better choice to me. It's been a staple in my diet for decades and I've never had a nutrient deficiency, so I might as well stick with what I like and get fiber and maybe prevent cancer to boot.

You are obviously getting your nutrients from other sources which is great, that being the case there is not reason why you shouldn't eat your brown rice - enjoy.

tennisdude2004

there is a whole group of people (google Weston Price) who think that all whole grains contain phytic acid, and that in order for us to be able to absorb the nutrients from them, we must soak them or use "sprouted" grains. So if you prefer brown rice, and want more nutritional benefit from them, you could soak your rice before you cook it. You can also google how to do this, but most people use a mixture of water with whey, lemon juice, or apple cider vinegar. The texture is improved greatly by soaking.

That is correct soaking them will release the nutrients (some of which will be lost in the water), but at the end if the day, what a load of hassle.

You may as well just eat them as they are and get your nutrients from elsewhere.

kazzsjourney2goal

I do restrict my bread - I limit it to 2 slices a day simply cos the more bread I eat the more I want. I still have white yummy pasta about once a week. There are plenty of other good grains you can have like quinoa, barley etc.

Xingy01

I don't avoid any foods. If you can't develop a healthy relationship with all foods, then you're going to have trouble keeping the weight off. Cutting out "white carbs" isn't going to reduce your calorie consumption unless you don't get those calories from any other source.

beautifulwarrior18

Cutting out refined starches isn't about cutting calories it's about eating food with nutrition. There is no point to eating white bread, rice, etc because they have very little nutritional value.

Jewlz280

You guys are comparing an article from HSPH directed towards the general public with a fitness Q&A with Alan Aragon. I don't particularly find either link conclusive on whether a person should eat "white carbs." The Q&A is saying, for the average Joe (who does not track calories/macros), quinoa or beans are typically a better option than white bread or potatoes (as they're typically prepared). And I'd say that's good advice for average Joe. Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods. As such, substituting those out for quinoa is probably sound advice for the average Joe looking to lose/maintain weight. But the article isn't saying potatoes are always a bad choice and that you should NEVER eat potatoes even if they fit into your carefully tracked caloric intake/macros for the day. It's simply general advice for people who aren't tracking their calories (based on data suggesting people that ate more potatoes, as typically prepared, gained weight relative to people that ate fewer potatoes).

On the other hand, Alan is simply saying that brown rice isn't all it's made out to be compared to white rice. No surprises there. At the end of the day, I don't see the articles putting forth opposing views.

I'm not trying to nit pick here as I have no dog in this fight, but you DO realize you made an error in that paragraph? I'm not familiar with bolding but you said, "Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods." Ummm... Mashed potatoes ARE boiled potatoes. You boil them, you mash them. Some people add butter or milk or both and sometimes other stuff. These are added for flavor, to add fats, and to make them creamy. So, you indeed, know LOTS of people who eat 'boiled' potatoes. And there is nothing wrong with butter... in moderation.

My 2 cents on the carbs -- eat what you like. If you don't like how you feel eating a certain amount of carbs, cut it. If you like one over the other, eat it. Dairy makes me feel icky so I have reduced that. The point is that as you go along on this, you have a sustainable diet for your life. If something isn't sustainable, there's no point to it.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

bcattoes

I don't avoid any foods. If you can't develop a healthy relationship with all foods, then you're going to have trouble keeping the weight off. Cutting out "white carbs" isn't going to reduce your calorie consumption unless you don't get those calories from any other source.

If one thinks a food isn't worth the calories so they choose to avoid it in favor of what they see as a better choice, there is nothing unhealthy about that.

Sabine_Stroehm

I don't avoid any foods. If you can't develop a healthy relationship with all foods, then you're going to have trouble keeping the weight off. Cutting out "white carbs" isn't going to reduce your calorie consumption unless you don't get those calories from any other source.

I've kept the weight off for 12 years now. In part, by selecting whole grains over "processed", "enriched" and bleached grains. I've explained why earlier in this thread. I know I have a healthy relationship with food. Different strokes for different folks.

parkscs

You guys are comparing an article from HSPH directed towards the general public with a fitness Q&A with Alan Aragon. I don't particularly find either link conclusive on whether a person should eat "white carbs." The Q&A is saying, for the average Joe (who does not track calories/macros), quinoa or beans are typically a better option than white bread or potatoes (as they're typically prepared). And I'd say that's good advice for average Joe. Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods. As such, substituting those out for quinoa is probably sound advice for the average Joe looking to lose/maintain weight. But the article isn't saying potatoes are always a bad choice and that you should NEVER eat potatoes even if they fit into your carefully tracked caloric intake/macros for the day. It's simply general advice for people who aren't tracking their calories (based on data suggesting people that ate more potatoes, as typically prepared, gained weight relative to people that ate fewer potatoes).

On the other hand, Alan is simply saying that brown rice isn't all it's made out to be compared to white rice. No surprises there. At the end of the day, I don't see the articles putting forth opposing views.

I'm not trying to nit pick here as I have no dog in this fight, but you DO realize you made an error in that paragraph? I'm not familiar with bolding but you said, "Boiled potatoes may have a high ranking on some satiety indexes but I personally don't know anyone that eats boiled potatoes on a regular basis. French fries, mashed potatoes (oftentimes with plenty of butter) and so on are much more common and are very calorically dense foods." Ummm... Mashed potatoes ARE boiled potatoes. You boil them, you mash them. Some people add butter or milk or both and sometimes other stuff. These are added for flavor, to add fats, and to make them creamy. So, you indeed, know LOTS of people who eat 'boiled' potatoes. And there is nothing wrong with butter... in moderation.

My 2 cents on the carbs -- eat what you like. If you don't like how you feel eating a certain amount of carbs, cut it. If you like one over the other, eat it. Dairy makes me feel icky so I have reduced that. The point is that as you go along on this, you have a sustainable diet for your life. If something isn't sustainable, there's no point to it.

I'm not disputing how mashed potatoes are prepared, but the typical preparation of mashed potatoes does not consist of plain boiled potatoes. On the other hand, the study involved 240 calories of plain boiled potatoes, and 240 calories of the typical mashed potatoes looks a lot different than 240 calories of plain boiled potato. As for nothing being wrong with butter... where did I suggest otherwise? The reason I mentioned butter is because the study in question dealt with fixed calorie portions and you're going to get a lot less potato in your 240 calories if you start adding butter to the mix.

Please don't think I'm making broad assertions about potatoes, butter or the like. I'm simply commenting specifically on a single study that found boiled potatoes to be particularly satiating and suggesting that finding doesn't mean much for the satiety of potatoes as a whole.

Xingy01

I don't avoid any foods. If you can't develop a healthy relationship with all foods, then you're going to have trouble keeping the weight off. Cutting out "white carbs" isn't going to reduce your calorie consumption unless you don't get those calories from any other source.

If one thinks a food isn't worth the calories so they choose to avoid it in favor of what they see as a better choice, there is nothing unhealthy about that.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just letting OP know that cutting out certain foods isn't the same as cutting calories. And if you really enjoy those foods, abstaining completely can be more challenging for a lot of people than incorporating.