White rice & pasta vs. white bread

A

Andrea

Guest
From all I've read, whole grain is the way to go. It sounds like white bread is some pretty nasty stuff. Does that mean that white rice and pasta have little to no nutritional value also? I keep reading in sports nutrition books about rice, pasta, and whole grain breads. It makes it sound like either kind of rice or pasta is okay and not just the brown or whole wheat kind. Anyone know?

Andrea
 
Whole grain pasta and brown rice have more nutrition and due to the fiber fill you up more, and take more calories to digest, so they are better for you. That's all I buy at home, but in restaurants, all you find is white. So, portion size is also important.

Every little bit helps, so why not just buy the good stuff at home. One bad thing about brown rice is it takes 40 minutes to cook instead of 20, so I use a pressure cooker. My mother gave me a microwave pressure cooker and sometimes I use that also.
 
Andrea,
White bread and white pasta are both made from processed flour. White rice also has had the fibrous husk removed. None of these are bad foods, just missing the fiber and some of the nutrients of their whole grain counterparts.

The more processed, the more quickly a carb will raise blood sugar. A slice of white bread and a slice of whole grain bread which indicate the same number of calories on the label actually don't have the same number of absorbable calories. The fiber is counted as a carb, and as such will be shown to contribute 4 calories per gram to the slice of whole grain bread, but since fiber can't be digested, it actually contributes no calories. So for every gram of fiber you see listed on the label, deduct 4 calories from the overall calorie content.

No foods are bad--they all provide energy. Some just have more nutritional value per calorie, though.
Maribeth
 
Maribeth

A pressure cooker basically cuts cooking time in half for most things. For beans and brown rice it's meaningful. I also use it for soups in the winter. But if you have presoaked the beans, they will cook in 30 minutes!
 
Thanks! I was basically wondering exactly what you told me. I do know that no food is "bad". In fact I can only eat tuna on white bread. It gags me with wheat. But I do try to eat all whole grain bread. So, I should try to eat mostly whole grain pasta and brown rice too.

Now about that pressure cooker...where in my cabinets could I fit it?!

Andrea
 
You probably have some silly/useless kitchen gear you could take to the thrift shop if you really think about it. A pressure cooker saves time and electricity, and I'm surprised more people don't use them.
 
When you really read the labels on brown and white rice, they do seem very similar. I think all the fuss is really hyped when it comes to these things. I know that the fiber makes a difference but when you read the label it is only a 1 gram difference. Kinda makes you wonder why you worry about it so much. I don't think it much matters whether you opt for white bread and rice as long as you are getting plenty of fiber elsewhere. Most people do not. But you could engineer your diet that way.

Personally, I eat whole grain bread and usually wild rices that have >4 grams of fiber per serving. I look for my bread to have atleast 3 grams per SLICE. Some of the "light" whole grain breads can have 5 grams a slice!!! In that case I think they use fiber as a "filler" being that they are cutting the cals in half. But, I also eat white rice. If I hated brown rice and wheat bread I would probably keep on with the white stuff. But I would make major changes elsewhere.

Even whole wheat pasta doesn't seem much better. However, I am not shopping in the organic isle or anything, so maybe I am not finding the right stuff. I will only pay so much though.

Anybody else find this topic kind of frustrating???
 
It can be frustrating. The front of package labels can be misleading. For example, the front of a pasta package can say "Made from whole wheat flour" and be plain ol'white pasta. What you have to find for the fiber count to be higher is pasta that is whole grain pasta--the one I buy has 6 grams of fiber and 9 grams of protein per serving. I also buy a bread that has the same quantities of fiber and protein.

Bottom line is that you can eat all white stuff if you want. Yes fiber is important, but if you need to, you can get it from supplements like Metamucil and FiberCon if you aren't able to include it in your diet. Like I mentioned earlier, white flour, bread, pasta, rice, etc, aren't bad foods and won't make you fat. It's the calories in vs the calories out that matters.

Maribeth
 
Refined and unrefined carbs

White carbohydrates are higher on the glycemic index and will raise your blood sugar faster than whole grain carbohydrates.
In many people (not all) this will create a surge in insulin.
Since insulin is basically a fat storer, this will encourage the storage of fat. Whole carbohydrates are absorbed more slowly and cause a gradual rise in blood sugar and resulting insulin levels.
Hence they are a better alternative for most.

There's also the issue of wheat intolerance. Many people have a slight wheat allergy and will feel bloated and uncomfortable after eating it. Rice is probably the most easily digested of the common starches.

The best carbohydrates to eat are the most unrefined ones you can find. They usually have to be cooked a while before being eaten.
Once they're refined and milled into a fine powder(flour)they
lose a lot of fiber and nutrients and are much more quickly absorbed by the body.

The problem with these kinds of carbs is that they are so tasty we want to eat lots of them. They pump up blood sugar and insulin levels, which in turn makes us crave more of them. Add a rich fat to the mix, and they're practically irresistable. They're also cheap so it's the only way those on a budget often can feed their families.

I try and stay away from most processed foods, and eat lower on the food chain, but I don't always suceed.
 
RE: Refined and unrefined carbs

Jane,
Good points on the glycemic index and insulin surges, but very few people eat only a white flour product alone. Other substances (ie, peanut butter on white bread) slow the digestion process, therefore blunting both the rapid rise in blood sugar and the insulin surge. Additionally, exercise will blunt the insulin response tremendously.

Insulin is also a hormone that facilitates muscle growth, so it isn't a bad guy. And regardless of its tendency towards the facilitation of fat storage, if less calories are taken in than expended, no fat is going to be stored--calories in < calories out=weight loss--first law of thermodynamics again.

I don't argue against eating primarily high fiber,lower glycemic complex carbs, nor do I disagree with your comment regarding spikes in blood sugar leading to an exaggerated insulin response, which, in turn, leads to low blood sugar and the craving for simple carbs to boost blood sugar levels again--when blood sugar bottoms out, the body thinks it's starving and will crave what will give it a big boost in blood sugar again.

My point in all of this is that the diet industry has made people crazy with all the junk science and factoids. The first and formost fact that has to be understood is that if the calories you take in exceed the calories that you expend, you will gain body fat, period. NOTHING changes this basic premise--regardless of the form in which those calories come--"natural" products, pure protein, or M&Ms--if you take in less than you expend, you will NOT gain body fat.

Yes, there are factors to consider as far as satiety, nutrient density, and bodily needs go--fiber makes you feel fuller so you tend to eat less--lower calories in, eating a potato vs a cookie will provide you with more vitamins, minerals, etc, and you have to supply your body with what it needs to function. But people get soooo confused because all these factors are used to manipulate them into believing that the "latest, greatest diet guru" can change the first law of thermodynamics--it ain't gonna happen.

Again, I'm not negating the value of healthy eating--I'm pointing out the fallacy in thinking that as long as a person consumes "healthy" foods, they can eat all they want. Case in point, the low fat trend. There's nothing wrong with eating low fat, but if one assumes that eating fat is all that will make them fat, and that as long as they avoid it, they can eat all they want, they are mistaken--calories DO count! But, from a strictly input vs expenditure standpoint, one could eat nothing but cookies and not gain body fat. They may experience tons of cravings, sugar rushes, blood sugar bottom-outs, but if they keep their calories in equal to or below their calories out, no gain in body fat will occur.

**TO ANYBODY READING THIS--PLEASE UNDERSTAND MY POINT--IT IS TO EMPHASIZE THAT NO FOOD IS BAD AND THAT WHAT COUNTS IN THE FAT LOSS GAME IS FOR YOUR CALORIC INTAKE TO BE LOWER THAN YOUR CALORIC EXPENDITURE. ONCE EVERYBODY HAS THAT FACT LOCKED INTO PLACE, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DISPELL ALL THE MYTHS AND FACTOIDS.**

Maribeth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top