Do you need grains to get carbs?

8rules

After yearss of being told you MUST have grains or you won't get your fibre and carbs I thought a real comparison of servings would prove enlightening.

To me, grains are fake carbs. The real carbs are our vegetables and fruit.

It is impossible to eat grain without mechanical pre-processing of some sort (such as milling, pounding, etc...) Vegetables can be eaten raw once you shake off the dirt.

To me, this is a huge clue we are not intended by nature or design or by whatever you believe to eat grains as a staple of our diet.

I do eat servings of grain, but I try to limit it to two servings a day. I do so because I do enjoy some grain products like the odd bowl of pasta or a slice of bread to make a salmon sandwich.

However, I completely and utterly fail to see why grain is considered as the base of the food guide for both Canada and the US and why the daily recommended servings are so incredibly high.

Now for Canada, the agency that has put this guide together has said time and again, the Canadian Food Guide is NOT intended as a guide for weight loss. Please keep this in mind as in Canada people utterly fail to lose weight following our guide with over 8 servings a day of grain.

Most of the calories in grain come from starch, which is pretty much identical to sucrose in how the body handles it. My grandma actually called grains and potatoes starches, it was in the 70s people started using the umbrella term carbs, which includes starches, fibre and sugar.

I hope to show with some obvious examples that grains are absolutely not necessary, and that you can feel MUCH fuller, eat MUCH bigger plates of food, get a MUCH GREATER amounts of nutrients, and MUCH fewer calories in your diet

I have compared some daily fruits and vegetables to whole wheat bread. I welcome others to make their own comparison. I welcome anyone to show me a singular grain that most vegetables do not have beat calorie for calorie hands down in fibre AND carbs.

My goal is not to prove grain is evil, just unnecessary, and incorrectly the base of our two country's food pyramid.

--- Comparison ---

I compare 2 slices of whole wheat bread to some of my favorate "God's oven" products.



2 slices of whole grain bread

23.2 g carbs

3.8 g fibre

200+ calories - More than twice the calories of another other serving in this list

Low nutrient value outside of above



Red Delicious Apple

23.8 g carbs (better source than 2 slices whole wheat bread)

3.3 g fibre (almost equal to 2 slices whole wheat bread)

100 Calories

Good nutrient value outside of above

Completely unprocessed, organic version quite affordable



Banana

27 g carbs (better than 2 slices whole wheat bread)

3.1 g fibre (almost equal to 2 slices whole wheat bread)

100 calories

Completely unprocessed, organic version quite afforrdable

Good nutrient value outside of above



Navel Orange

17.6 g carbs (less than 2 slices whole wheat bread, but far better than one slice and wins hands down on a per calorie basis)

3.1 g fibre (almost equal to 2 slices whole wheat bread)

100 calories

Completely unprocessed, organic version quite afforrdable

Good nutrient value outside of above

Green Beans, Raw, 1 serving

7.8g carbs (less than whole wheat bread, until you compare calories to carbs, then beans win hands down)

3.7 g fibre (equal to two slices whole wheat bread, 1 eigth the calories!)

34 calories!!!!

Completely unprocessed, organic version quite afforrdable

Good nutrient value outside of above

Romaine Lettuce

I include romain as it is mostly water, and hardly any calories on its own. You will see why even a mostly water vegetable is better than bread

6 outer leaves

3.0 g carbs (sad right? not so...)

1.0 g fibre (sad again right? again not so...)

20 Calories!!!!

Medium nutrient profile outside of above

Organic version cheaply available

When you compare carbs and fibre to calories romain is better

200 calories of bread gives you 23.2 g of carbs, 200 calories of romain gives you 30g of carbs

200 calories of bread gives you 3.8g of fibre, 200 calories of romain gives you 10g of fibre

Now you would have to eat enormous amounts of romaine, so this is why mixing in other veges such as green beans, carrots, etc... is important.

Feel free to verify these facts for yourself, I do not expect anyone to take my word for it.

I used this database: http://caloriecount.about.com/

Feel free to use your own.

In my mind, grains are NOT an excellent source of fibre. They are NOT an excellent source of nutrients. They are, however, an EXCELLENT source of cheap calories that our infrastructure and industry is heavily invested in.

I have also found it interesting the cycle in Canadian statistics, which you can check for yourself. Go to stats Canada and examine the historical data. And compare to the historical food guides.

The Canadian cycle goes like this

From the 60s on:

New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
And so on...

Now I realize this is not a clinical trial but an observation so scientifically unreliable for showing cause and affect, but it is an interesting correlation between the Canadian Food guides increasing over time recommendation of more grain and less full fat dairy and meat. Again, the data is there to verify for yourself. I will not cherry pick my findings from the full set of data. If you care enough, you will go and look at the entire set of available data.

I hope some food for thought was provided.

rosebarnalice

However, I completely and utterly fail to see why grain is considered as the base of the food guide for both Canada and the US and why the daily recommended servings are so incredibly high.

Wouldn't be politics would it?!
In the U.S. at least, the agriculture lobby basically runs the USDA--which develops and issues the food and dietary guidelines. And them there great plains grow a hell of a lot of grain--in both the US and Canada.

AlyRoseNYC

WOW...I really appreciate your train of thought on this. I get my carbs from non-grain sources too. Every once in a while I'll eat a slice of bread though.

So yeah. Totally agree 100%. Carbs can be consumed from numerous sources. And I want to be your best friend lol!

fruitsndveggies

bump

AlyRoseNYC

Also, would you mind if I share this on FB? I'll totally credit you!

8rules

WOW...I really appreciate your train of thought on this. I get my carbs from non-grain sources too. Every once in a while I'll eat a slice of bread though.

So yeah. Totally agree 100%. Carbs can be consumed from numerous sources. And I want to be your best friend lol!

Thanks, this is why I feel Atkins is great as a choice. Because you start low carb, and work your way up eating these type of carbs until you hit the "right amount of carbs" for you

I do not do Atkins, nor am I deliberately low carb. I am more "right type of carbs" and "starch and sugar suck"

I have also lost all my weight enjoying real cream in my coffee many times, 2% and homo milk, full fat butter and coconut oil and extra virgin olive oil the entire trip.

8rules

Also, would you mind if I share this on FB? I'll totally credit you!

I dont mind, no.

I do not need credit LOL

asyouseefit

You definitely make sense but I can't bring myself to consider starchy carbs as evil. I think we should eat everything in moderation, even treat yourself with a little bit of processed stuff every once in a while. Honestly, I love food, cooking and baking and I'd go crazy if I could only eat/cook fruit and veggies!

8rules

You definitely make sense but I can't bring myself to consider starchy carbs as evil. I think we should eat everything in moderation, even treat yourself with a little bit of processed stuff every once in a while. Honestly, I love food, cooking and baking and I'd go crazy if I could only eat/cook fruit and veggies!

Hey me too, and I do not exclude them. I try to limit to 2 or less servings most days. I find that satisfies my emotional need for them.

I had ice cream with the kids this week too!!

I just do not think they should be our primary source of nutrient the way the food guide states. I think that is completely misguided, ESPECIALLY for those losing weight. We need to get lots of nutrients on LESS calories. Grains are contrary to that goal. Vegetables and fruit promote that goal. Not sure anyone would debate that much.

linsben

GREAT POST!!

kerriknox

Great post. I get 95% of my carbs form fruit and veg and feel great.

Grokette

WILL YOU MARRY ME AND BE PART OF MY MFP MALE HAREM????


I have been saying this very same thing for the last 3 years that I have been a member of this site.

Grokette

I read an article yesterday that said In countries where the lower the fat intake and the higher the carb intake there is much higher rates of CHD and CVD than in countries that have higher intake and lower carb intake...............

There is a direct correlation between CHD and low fat eating.

8rules

I read an article yesterday that said In countries where the lower the fat intake and the higher the carb intake there is much higher rates of CHD and CVD than in countries that have higher intake and lower carb intake...............

There is a direct correlation between CHD and low fat eating.

Even the 7 countries study, in which Ancel Keys based the lipid hypothesis, the grandfather of this entire delusional line of thought that eating fat causes heart disease confirms the opposite. Good old Ancel ignored the data from over a dozen other countries that did not agree with his theory. And when rolling those in, you find no correlation at all between fat intake and heart disease.

In short, his theory was that ducks don't exist, and as proof he offered only countries that do not have indigenous ducks, ignoring all the countries that have ducks, even though other scientists at the time were screaming WE FOUND DUCKS!!!

jjs22

I don't have a strong "loyalty" to a particular approach to dieting, but in order for *me* to get my calorie intake down, the easiest thing to give up was carbs.

And the thing that kept me from even considering a diet over the past 30 years was the fear that I would have to give up fats. I love fats.

And then, recently, I find out that fats are good for you.

As to *why* all the expert advice says you must eliminate fats to be healthy, the story is actually rather complicated. It isn't as simple as saying "big industry did it to us." They played a role, but think of the influence of ranchers, dairy farmers, and the corn growers who supply them. They would love for you to buy their products !

For an excellent, extremely well-researched account of how the "low fat dogma" came to be so entrenched, a fantastic book I found is "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes. It is NOT a diet book. I would call it an intellectual history : how specific research studies were designed (or mis-designed) within the atmosphere of a specific hunch or mindset, how the biases (and egos) of specific scientists, doctors, and politicians distorted the outcome and conclusions of the studies, and how government agencies have (wittingly or not) prevented contradictory information from altering any of the "mainstream" conclusions and recommendations.

It is not a simple read, but IMO is very well worth it. The author isn't a strident anti-establishment ranter, but a pretty even-handed, extremely well-informed and well-educated science journalist who makes a compelling case.

8rules

I don't have a strong "loyalty" to a particular approach to dieting, but in order for *me* to get my calorie intake down, the easiest thing to give up was carbs.

And the thing that kept me from even considering a diet over the past 30 years was the fear that I would have to give up fats. I love fats.

And then, recently, I find out that fats are good for you.

As to *why* all the expert advice says you must eliminate fats to be healthy, the story is actually rather complicated. It isn't as simple as saying "big industry did it to us." They played a role, but think of the influence of ranchers, dairy farmers, and the corn growers who supply them. They would love for you to buy their products !

For an excellent, extremely well-researched account of how the "low fat dogma" came to be so entrenched, a fantastic book I found is "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes. It is NOT a diet book. I would call it an intellectual history : how specific research studies were designed (or mis-designed) within the atmosphere of a specific hunch or mindset, how the biases (and egos) of specific scientists, doctors, and politicians distorted the outcome and conclusions of the studies, and how government agencies have (wittingly or not) prevented contradictory information from altering any of the "mainstream" conclusions and recommendations.

It is not a simple read, but IMO is very well worth it. The author isn't a strident anti-establishment ranter, but a pretty even-handed, extremely well-informed and well-educated science journalist who makes a compelling case.

While I agree Taubes is a genius, and that low carb can be great, I think though my goal is to display that the current advice we get, that being starchy grains should be the absolute cornerstone of our diet, is absolutely not based in common sense, and does not even pass muster on the barest analysis.

Now, to take that one more step and say those same people are putting down fat, and maybe they are wrong about that too... I can see that for sure LOL

jjs22

Yeah, I guess the main point of Taubes' book is that fats, especially saturated fats, have been unfairly condemned (i.e., not due to rational conclusions of unbiased scientific research).

But one component of the flawed process leading to where we are today is the promotion of grains (and many vegetable-derived oils) as being positive contributors to health, despite clear evidence to the contrary. And this is discussed pretty nicely in the book.

lclarkjr

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

8rules

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

Fair enough,

Please point out to me one essential nutrient from grain that raw or steamed vegetables not provide in greater abundance calorie for calorie, and I will concede that some grains are necessary for health. Stick to organic, unprocessed grains if you like. I personally enjoy the odd spelt product, but it doesn't come close to a carrot in nutrition.

lclarkjr

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

Fair enough,

Please point out to me one essential nutrient from grain that raw or steamed vegetables not provide in greater abundance calorie for calorie, and I will concede that some grains are necessary for health. Stick to organic, unprocessed grains if you like. I personally enjoy the odd spelt product, but it doesn't come close to a carrot in nutrition.

I just disagree with your logic. You didn't compare raw fruit and vegetable nutrients with that of raw grains. You used a processed grain to make your point. I understand your bias, I just respectfully disagree. Grains aren't unnecessary. They provide key nutrients. Of course those key nutrients can be gotten from other sources as well, but the same can be said about the nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. Here is the question I pose to you: Is a banana also unnecessary because you can get more potassium from eating papaya, with about half as many calories? That is where your logic is going and I respectfully disagree.

A balanced diet where you are getting key nutrients from multiple sources is far better than eliminating one of the sources altogether.

Grokette

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

Fair enough,

Please point out to me one essential nutrient from grain that raw or steamed vegetables not provide in greater abundance calorie for calorie, and I will concede that some grains are necessary for health. Stick to organic, unprocessed grains if you like. I personally enjoy the odd spelt product, but it doesn't come close to a carrot in nutrition.

I just disagree with your logic. You didn't compare raw fruit and vegetable nutrients with that of raw grains. You used a processed grain to make your point. I understand your bias, I just respectfully disagree. Grains aren't unnecessary. They provide key nutrients. Of course those key nutrients can be gotten from other sources as well, but the same can be said about the nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. Here is the question I pose to you: Is a banana also unnecessary because you can get more potassium from eating papaya, with about half as many calories? That is where your logic is going and I respectfully disagree.

A balanced diet where you are getting key nutrients from multiple sources is far better than eliminating one of the sources altogether.

Personally speaking I will always go with a vegetable that packs more nutrient value over any fruit and definitely not grains.

Grains for the majority of people are highly inflammatory and their nutrient content is not that great, even when eaten raw and sprouted. Yes, there are some nutrients, but the anti-nutrients outweigh the nutrients by a long shot.

I don't want the inflammation, so grains have no room in my life and my eating plan.

Same goes for bananas because they are a trigger food and there is entirely too much sugar.

Schwiggity

One of my biggest pet peeves is people thinking no grains = no carbs.

lclarkjr

Personally speaking I will always go with a vegetable that packs more nutrient value over any fruit and definitely not grains.

Grains for the majority of people are highly inflammatory and their nutrient content is not that great, even when eaten raw and sprouted. Yes, there are some nutrients, but the anti-nutrients outweigh the nutrients by a long shot.

I don't want the inflammation, so grains have no room in my life and my eating plan.

Same goes for bananas because they are a trigger food and there is entirely too much sugar.

I am a big advocate of doing what works for you personally. Whether it be low carb/no carb, paleo, or just everything in moderation. There is no one size fits all diet or nutrition plan. What is good for one person can be detrimental to another. The key is to find what works for you based on not only clinical research, but personal experience as well.

Zeromilediet

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

Fair enough,

Please point out to me one essential nutrient from grain that raw or steamed vegetables not provide in greater abundance calorie for calorie, and I will concede that some grains are necessary for health. Stick to organic, unprocessed grains if you like. I personally enjoy the odd spelt product, but it doesn't come close to a carrot in nutrition.

I just disagree with your logic. You didn't compare raw fruit and vegetable nutrients with that of raw grains. You used a processed grain to make your point. I understand your bias, I just respectfully disagree. Grains aren't unnecessary. They provide key nutrients. Of course those key nutrients can be gotten from other sources as well, but the same can be said about the nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. Here is the question I pose to you: Is a banana also unnecessary because you can get more potassium from eating papaya, with about half as many calories? That is where your logic is going and I respectfully disagree.

A balanced diet where you are getting key nutrients from multiple sources is far better than eliminating one of the sources altogether.

I think the OP was comparing commonly available foods ... not too many people consume grains raw. It's possible to eat wheat seed (berries) raw if it's soaked and sprouted but raw would likely break a tooth :-) As you point out, there are many sources of the various nutrients ... IMHO the best course of action is to seek out the best natural sources of those nutrients rather than look to ones that require more processing to enable consumtion. This is a matter of preference. Some people would rather stick needles in their eyes than eat liver and prefer more palatable (to them) selections.

gianna42

New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
And so on...


^^ While I won't disagree with you math on the carb/nutrient counts, I disagree with this study in that it does not even remotely prove that the food guide and nation's weight gain were related. I think they were more coincidental - women have been working more out of the home in the past decades, less time to cook, more money for convenience foods (whether store purchased boxed foods or fast food), etc.

Before the 60's plenty of people ate the "traditional" carbs - breads, noodles, etc, and there was not an obesity epidemic. There were home-cooked meals, less "snacky" type foods, and hard play and work.

8rules

You make an interesting point, although I respectfully disagree with you that grains are unnecessary. Overly processed, manufactured until nearly all valuable nutrients are gone, grains are unnecessary. But the same can be said about fruits and vegetables.

Fair enough,

Please point out to me one essential nutrient from grain that raw or steamed vegetables not provide in greater abundance calorie for calorie, and I will concede that some grains are necessary for health. Stick to organic, unprocessed grains if you like. I personally enjoy the odd spelt product, but it doesn't come close to a carrot in nutrition.

I just disagree with your logic. You didn't compare raw fruit and vegetable nutrients with that of raw grains. You used a processed grain to make your point. I understand your bias, I just respectfully disagree. Grains aren't unnecessary. They provide key nutrients. Of course those key nutrients can be gotten from other sources as well, but the same can be said about the nutrients found in fruits and vegetables. Here is the question I pose to you: Is a banana also unnecessary because you can get more potassium from eating papaya, with about half as many calories? That is where your logic is going and I respectfully disagree.

A balanced diet where you are getting key nutrients from multiple sources is far better than eliminating one of the sources altogether.

Well thank you for proving my point. You cannot even just pick up a grain and digest it or eat it. You have to process it in some way first. Soaking for a long period of time is a simple form of mechanical processing. So is heating over a fire, boiling over water.

Fresh killed meat, fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, fresh nuts, fresh milks need no processing to be digested and eaten raw and many people do. I had carpacio last night from organic beef. Wonderful!

I understand I am being nitpicky, as what you are referring to as processing is actually meaning highly processed where we blow the husk of the wheat, most of the nutrients, then enrich it back artificially.

My invitation is to take your wheat berry and compare it to anything you want.

Here, let me.

Quarter cup of hard, raw red wheat berries (Not that you could eat them in that form but lets assume you soaked em)

170 calories
33 grams of carbs
5 grams of fibre

170 calories of apple (1.75 red delicious apples)
Red Delicious Apple

41.6g g carbs (better source than 2 slices whole wheat bread)
5.7 g fiber

170 Calories

Apple wins. I imagine would be the case for pretty much any vegetable and fruit with some exceptions.

I am trying to illustrate that this food group is completely surplus. There is nothing wrong with variety in your diet, but to say it is necessary to get fiber from 4 places instead of one has never been shown anywhere I can see. I would rather stick to the richer sources of nutrients as a strategy.

Is a banana also unnecessary because you can get more potassium from eating papaya, with about half as many calories?

I am comparing an entire food group to another. Fruits vs grain, fruits provide everything grain does, hands down. Vegetables vs grains, the same.

I agree with you though, if you care about potassium, there are better sources than a banana. I would still eat bananas as I do not like papaya, just like humans tend to eat bread because we do not like spinach. That does not mean its a wise choice. But if the alternative is not eating the nutrient at all because you do not view food as fuel but pleasure, then by all means eat both bread and bananas.

Not sure I have ever claimed banana's were a necessary part of anyone's diet. I have gone years of my life without eating bananas. You are taking my A to B and assuming C

8rules

New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
New food guide, increased grain, reduced fat
5 years later, increase in both overweight and obesity across the board
And so on...


^^ While I won't disagree with you math on the carb/nutrient counts, I disagree with this study in that it does not even remotely prove that the food guide and nation's weight gain were related. I think they were more coincidental - women have been working more out of the home in the past decades, less time to cook, more money for convenience foods (whether store purchased boxed foods or fast food), etc.

Before the 60's plenty of people ate the "traditional" carbs - breads, noodles, etc, and there was not an obesity epidemic. There were home-cooked meals, less "snacky" type foods, and hard play and work.

Please do not quote me out of context

Here is the rest of what I said. If you had taken the time to read it, I admitted this is not conclusive data, but rather an interesting correlation, which it is. Your idea that women working outside the home also correlates does not discount mine. Both could be true, in fact both could be synergistic.

Quoting myself:

Now I realize this is not a clinical trial but an observation so scientifically unreliable for showing cause and affect, but it is an interesting correlation between the Canadian Food guides increasing over time recommendation of more grain and less full fat dairy and meat

8rules

Grains aren't unnecessary. They provide key nutrients.

Also please, imagine for a minute we dropped all grains from the food guide and from our diets.

Replacing those servings with more fruits and vegetables.

Do you honestly, truly think, we wouldn't have FAR MORE of ANY nutrient found in grain in our new diet?

8rules

oops double

Grokette

One of my biggest pet peeves is people thinking no grains = no carbs.

A big pet peeve of mine also.

I eat plenty of carbs............................vegetables and fruits.

My other pet peeve is people thinking no grains = no fiber. I eat more fiber now than I have in a loooong time, again coming from vegetables and fruits.


Just the other night I made stuffed peppers with no rice.

They container the green pepper to put the filling in and the filling was grass fed ground beef, cauliflower, spinach, orange bell pepper, onion, garlic, fresh diced tomatos, sea salt and pepper.................

Very filling, good amount of fiber and very yummy. My husband actually made the comment that they were the best I ever made.

gianna42

Sorry - I really didn't mean to take you out of context, which is why I prefaced my statement with not disagreeing with you on the whole nutrient/numbers portion of your post.

I also do not believe the government's dietary recommendations are made without some private interests in mind. "In the words of Michael Pollan, “we need to find a way to make carrots cheaper than chips.”" (or in this case, grains).

I just don't believe that grains make us fat. I think that unhealthy (stripped) grains and processed foods combined with too many overall calories and too little activity are more to blame. Paleo is healthy, but I'm not sure that brown rice isn't, as well.

Your post is certainly "food for thought", and has encouraged me to go back to re-read some "diets".