Are beans off-limits for low carb, despite the fiber content?

On Dec 17, 1:37*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:

What is your source for the statement that indigestible fiber gets
converted to a digestible carb during cooking?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

Using the USDA site let's see cooked versus raw,
100 gram quantities and then use the listed water
content in the resulting product to find the
water-free numbers to adjust for water differences
in cooked versus raw -

Rutabagas, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 89.66
Energy *kcal 36
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.13
Fiber, total dietary *g 2.5
Sugars, total *g 5.60

Calculated

Non-water grams 10.34
kcal/gram 3.48
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.54

Rutabagas, cooked, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 88.88
Energy *kcal 39
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.74
Fiber, total dietary *g 1.8
Sugars, total *g 6.02

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.12
kcal/gram 3.51
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.16
sugar/gram 0.54

Sure enough cooking converted one quarter of the fiber
into digestible carb, had no effect on the total carbs
or sugar carbs. *Adjusting for water content shows the
effect quite clearly. *Exactly what the digestible carb
compound is post-cooking is not listed but the reduction
in fiber per non-water mass is quite clear - It is the type
of carb that fiber deducters don't deduct.

Now lets try this for carrots because the entry for them
includes starch:

Carrots, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 88.29
Energy *kcal 41
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 9.58
Fiber, total dietary *g 2.8
Sugars, total *g 4.74
Starch *g 1.43

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.71
kcal/gram 3.50
carb/gram 0.82
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.40
starch/gram 0.12

Carrots, cooked, 100 grams

Water *g 90.17
Energy *kcal 35
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.22
Fiber, total dietary *g 3.0
Sugars, total *g 3.45
Starch *g 0.17

Non-water grams 9.83
kcal/gram 3.56
carb/gram 0.84
fiber/gram 0.31
starch/gram 0.02

Sure enough as with swedes when carrots are cooked
one quarter of the fiber is converted to digestible
carb with very little effect on the total carbs. *In
addition most of the starch is reduced without impact
on total carbs. *I've always wanted to know what it
means that carrots "carmelize" when cooking yet they
don't get more sugar - This doesn't tell me what it means
but it does tell me both fiber and starch get converted
to something with simpler carb chains.

I asked for a reference that backs up your statement that cooking
turns fiber into digestible carbs. To most people, that would mean a
simple web reference to a credible source. Instead, you present
some raw data from the USDA, from which you try to make the case.
So, right off the bat, we're dealing with another of your conjectures
presented as if it were established fact. But. I'll play along.
Let's look at your own two examples which I summarized below:



Rutabagas
Raw .24 fiber/gram
Cooked .16 fiber/gram

Carrot
Raw .24 fiber/gram
Cooked .31 fiber/gram


Your own "data", which you obviously didn't look at carefully, shows
rutabagas, listed as cooked in the USDA database have about 25% less
fiber as compared to raw, while carrots when cooked, HAVE 25% MORE
FIBER. That's right, the cooked carrots have 25% MORE fiber. So, if
cooking turns fiber into carbs, why is it that cooked carrots have
MORE carbs than raw? Obviously you didn't look at your example and
blew it.

What you are trying to do is read tea leaves to back up another one of
your statements based on conjecture, but presented as fact. In
reality, there is variation in the USDA database for all kinds of
reasons. For example, a raw carrot could be measured as is, without
peeling. while cooked carrots are very likely peeled. Including or
not including the skin would make a difference. Also, none of us
know whether the USDA took carrots from the same batch and tested some
raw and some cooked. If they took carrots from different sources,
tested them at different time, etc, the carrots themselves are not
identical. Most of us have seen variations between reported numbers
and can't determine why they are so. Yet you miraculously tried to
tell us that the small differences prove that cooking turns
significant fiber into digestible carbs.


If you look at cauliflower in the USDA database using your calculation
methods,, the amount of fiber is the same for raw, cooked, and frozen
raw, (.33 gram fiber/gram veg) yet frozen cooked has .45. Clearly
there are variations here that are opposite of what you're trying to
establish and not tied to cooking.

From what I can gather from googling the web, there are some sources
that say cooking reduces fiber. There are some that say it
doesn't. And all that I found that comment on the subject say that
the effect, if any, is so small that for dietary purposes it doesn't
matter.





In both cases the end result is a quarter of the fiber
being converted to digestible non-fiber carbs, much of
the starch being converted to digestible non-starch
carbs. *The ending carb type isn't specified so all
we know is it isn't sugar or fiber or starch. *That
leaves plenty of possible digestible carb compounds
that weren't listed.

If that were true, it
would seem that it would be widely known that cooking any high fiber
food would render it no different from a food without fiber, ie
negating the health benefits of fiber.

Your giant leap of false logic noted - Reducing fiber
by cooking is not the same as eliminating fiber by
cooking.

No giant leap of false logic. Your post didn't say reduced. It said
indigestible fiber is converted to digestible carbs by cooking. It
seems reasonable to take that to mean either all or a significant
portion of the fiber is converted. Now you say it's a 25% reduction
because that was the number for rutabagas. Oh, but wait, it's a 25%
INCREASE for carrots. So, kindly provide a credible reference that
says cooking does what you say it does. And again, I find it strange
that if there were a significant effect, it's not been widely
discussed in all the fiber articles I've seen.




In all the health articles
related to fiber I've seen, I've never seen it stated that if you cook
a vegetable containing fiber, you lose the health benefits of the
fiber.

Because it's something you just made up based on
nothing I wrote.


You stated that cooking turns fiber into digestible carbs. If it
becomes a digestible carb, then it gets digested that way and not
passed as undigested roughage or soluble fiber. So, to a reasonable
person, it's not a leap of logic that some or all of the health
benefits would be gone. Or are you going to argue that pysillium
husks and sugar are about the same?





This is the first time I've ever heard it stated.

Me too. *Funny how that works. *I assert something trivial to
check. *You fail to look it up and make lunatic conclusions.

So trivial to check, that you got it backwards in the case of your
carrot example and once again made an ass of yourself.




Having cooking convert fiber to digestible fiber is so well known
there are evolutionary theorists who assert that humans invented
fire to make root veggies more digestible and increase their
caloric content because even with digestible fiber only a
percentage of the calories are absorbed.

It gets better all the time. There are two types of fiber, soluble
and insoluble. That's how most of the world refers to them and how
they are indicated on product labels. The solubles are sometimes
referred to as digestible, but that is not really correct, because
they are not digestible in the conventional sense. Soluble fiber gets
metabolized by bacteria in the intestine and turned into short chain
fatty acids. This the first time that I've heard that cooking
turns one type into the other. Reference please, but I suspect as
usual it won't be forthcoming.




*It competes with the
theorists who claim fire was invented to slow the spoilage of
meat. *I figure both theories are true to some extent.

How this applies to bean legumes - Raw beans are not
edible directly. *They must be cooked to be eaten. *As cooking
root veggies shows a quarter of the fiber is converted and beans
are cooked longer, it would be interesting to run the numbers
on beans to see how they come out in converting fiber to carbs
that are not deducted.

After the carrots, you really want to continue?

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Bob Muncie wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl
Using the USDA site ...
Just wanted to say thanks for the link. I thought I was diabetic, but
I'm not. Getting educated on the right things though is important, and
you helped me with a good resource. I'm now 47, and the health things
are becoming more important.

Bob,

Please note that when I wanted to do these calculations I
went to the daily posting of the FAQ file on ASLDC and there
it was. Read that FAQ file and use it's resources! On of the
coolest things about UseNet is that FAQ files are built over a
period of years by regulars on newsgroups who are truly
expert on their topics. Many FAQ files I've read over the
years are better quality material than any textbook I used
during my entire pass from kindergarden through a Bachelors
degree - More compact, more informative, more dynamic.

The USDA link is one of many gems in that FAQ file.

As to heath things becoming more important over the years,
that's a topic I recently discussed with my Dad. I'm 50 and
he's 78. He says he can tell every injury he ever suffered as
a young man. Looking at little scars on my hands, recalling
minor injuries that somehow never put me in a cast, looking
back at my youthful diet of junk and then 20 years trying low
fat before I started low carbing, I shudder at the long term
health implications.

Doug - Thanks for sharing. I am now realizing that long term heath
efforts include not just exercise (and I need more of that to), but
healthy eating, and a good attitude.

I am working on the above, but I do have some good starting points like
my HDL/LDL is 120/70. My doctor told me he knew people that would kill
to have those stats.

I am also going through other tests (neglecting even getting a physical
for over 20 yrs) and I may have liver issues, but I am keeping my
fingers crossed, and hoping that if I learn enough from guys like you,
I'll be around for a lot longer time to give my wife more grief if
nothing else :-) If she'll have me....

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:37:11 -0500, Doug Freyburger wrote
(in article
):

" wrote:

What is your source for the statement that indigestible fiber gets
converted to a digestible carb during cooking?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

Using the USDA site let's see cooked versus raw,
100 gram quantities and then use the listed water
content in the resulting product to find the
water-free numbers to adjust for water differences
in cooked versus raw -

Rutabagas, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water g 89.66
Energy kcal 36
Carbohydrate, by difference g 8.13
Fiber, total dietary g 2.5
Sugars, total g 5.60

Calculated

Non-water grams 10.34
kcal/gram 3.48
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.54

Rutabagas, cooked, 100 grams

Listed

Water g 88.88
Energy kcal 39
Carbohydrate, by difference g 8.74
Fiber, total dietary g 1.8
Sugars, total g 6.02

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.12
kcal/gram 3.51
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.16
sugar/gram 0.54

Sure enough cooking converted one quarter of the fiber
into digestible carb, had no effect on the total carbs
or sugar carbs. Adjusting for water content shows the
effect quite clearly. Exactly what the digestible carb
compound is post-cooking is not listed but the reduction
in fiber per non-water mass is quite clear - It is the type
of carb that fiber deducters don't deduct.


Now lets try this for carrots because the entry for them
includes starch:

Carrots, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water g 88.29
Energy kcal 41
Carbohydrate, by difference g 9.58
Fiber, total dietary g 2.8
Sugars, total g 4.74
Starch g 1.43

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.71
kcal/gram 3.50
carb/gram 0.82
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.40
starch/gram 0.12

Carrots, cooked, 100 grams

Water g 90.17
Energy kcal 35
Carbohydrate, by difference g 8.22
Fiber, total dietary g 3.0
Sugars, total g 3.45
Starch g 0.17

Non-water grams 9.83
kcal/gram 3.56
carb/gram 0.84
fiber/gram 0.31
starch/gram 0.02

Sure enough as with swedes when carrots are cooked
one quarter of the fiber is converted to digestible
carb with very little effect on the total carbs. In
addition most of the starch is reduced without impact
on total carbs. I've always wanted to know what it
means that carrots "carmelize" when cooking yet they
don't get more sugar - This doesn't tell me what it means
but it does tell me both fiber and starch get converted
to something with simpler carb chains.

In both cases the end result is a quarter of the fiber
being converted to digestible non-fiber carbs, much of
the starch being converted to digestible non-starch
carbs. The ending carb type isn't specified so all
we know is it isn't sugar or fiber or starch. That
leaves plenty of possible digestible carb compounds
that weren't listed.

If that were true, it
would seem that it would be widely known that cooking any high fiber
food would render it no different from a food without fiber, ie
negating the health benefits of fiber.

Your giant leap of false logic noted - Reducing fiber
by cooking is not the same as eliminating fiber by
cooking.

In all the health articles
related to fiber I've seen, I've never seen it stated that if you cook
a vegetable containing fiber, you lose the health benefits of the
fiber.

Because it's something you just made up based on
nothing I wrote.

This is the first time I've ever heard it stated.

Me too. Funny how that works. I assert something trivial to
check. You fail to look it up and make lunatic conclusions.

Having cooking convert fiber to digestible fiber is so well known
there are evolutionary theorists who assert that humans invented
fire to make root veggies more digestible and increase their
caloric content because even with digestible fiber only a
percentage of the calories are absorbed. It competes with the
theorists who claim fire was invented to slow the spoilage of
meat. I figure both theories are true to some extent.

How this applies to bean legumes - Raw beans are not
edible directly. They must be cooked to be eaten. As cooking
root veggies shows a quarter of the fiber is converted and beans
are cooked longer, it would be interesting to run the numbers
on beans to see how they come out in converting fiber to carbs
that are not deducted.

Doug, I think your analysis is based on some faulty assumptions. First, I
don't think one can compare a cooked product to an uncooked product by simply
removing the water. Nutrients are removed in the cooking process else you
couldn't make "vegetable broth" :-) In addition, cooking alters the other
macro-nutrients in addition to the fiber so you can't assume the change in
caloric value is simply due to fiber being converted to something else.

Second, I believe what you are calling "digestible fiber" is equivalent to
soluble fiber. While cooking may convert insoluble fiber to soluble fiber,
neither has any caloric value except to ruminants.

Here is an analysis of the subject I found as regards a variety of bean:

"...Compared to untreated beans, soaking decreased soluble sugar (9.8
percent) but increased starch (7.3 percent) and soluble fiber (16.9 percent).
In cooked beans, an increase in soluble sugar (1.5 percent), and a decrease
in thiamine (81.7 percent), starch (24.6 percent) and soluble fiber (16.6
percent) and nitrogen (2.9 percent) contents were observed. Crude fiber (6.9
percent) and starch (10.0 percent) increased while fat (17.6 percent), fatty
acids (linoleic : 10.7 percent ; linolenic : 14.3 percent) and soluble sugars
(25.4 percent) and nitrogen (14.4 percent) decreased in soaked-cooked beans."

.... "Effects of soaking, cooking and fermentation on composition, in-vitro
digestibility and nutritive value of common beans", BARAMPAMA Z. & SIMARD R.
E. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3009213)

I regularly compute the nutritional values of a recipe from the composite
values of it's raw ingredients. Without a laboratory, I don't know any other
way to do this and I suspect it is "good enough" in most cases.

Subtracting the fiber content from the caloric content makes sense to me
because although I don't "burn" fiber, a bulb calorimeter does and hence the
calorie counts are overstated unless you are a bulb calorimeter.

--
Steve

On Dec 18, 6:22*pm, Steve wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:37:11 -0500, Doug Freyburger wrote
(in article
):





" wrote:

What is your source for the statement that indigestible fiber gets
converted to a digestible carb during cooking?

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl

Using the USDA site let's see cooked versus raw,
100 gram quantities and then use the listed water
content in the resulting product to find the
water-free numbers to adjust for water differences
in cooked versus raw -

Rutabagas, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 89.66
Energy *kcal 36
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.13
Fiber, total dietary *g 2.5
Sugars, total *g 5.60

Calculated

Non-water grams 10.34
kcal/gram 3.48
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.54

Rutabagas, cooked, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 88.88
Energy *kcal 39
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.74
Fiber, total dietary *g 1.8
Sugars, total *g 6.02

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.12
kcal/gram 3.51
carb/gram 0.78
fiber/gram 0.16
sugar/gram 0.54

Sure enough cooking converted one quarter of the fiber
into digestible carb, had no effect on the total carbs
or sugar carbs. *Adjusting for water content shows the
effect quite clearly. *Exactly what the digestible carb
compound is post-cooking is not listed but the reduction
in fiber per non-water mass is quite clear - It is the type
of carb that fiber deducters don't deduct.

Now lets try this for carrots because the entry for them
includes starch:

Carrots, raw, 100 grams

Listed

Water *g 88.29
Energy *kcal 41
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 9.58
Fiber, total dietary *g 2.8
Sugars, total *g 4.74
Starch *g 1.43

Calculated

Non-water grams 11.71
kcal/gram 3.50
carb/gram 0.82
fiber/gram 0.24
sugar/gram 0.40
starch/gram 0.12

Carrots, cooked, 100 grams

Water *g 90.17
Energy *kcal 35
Carbohydrate, by difference *g 8.22
Fiber, total dietary *g 3.0
Sugars, total *g 3.45
Starch *g 0.17

Non-water grams 9.83
kcal/gram 3.56
carb/gram 0.84
fiber/gram 0.31
starch/gram 0.02

Sure enough as with swedes when carrots are cooked
one quarter of the fiber is converted to digestible
carb with very little effect on the total carbs. *In
addition most of the starch is reduced without impact
on total carbs. *I've always wanted to know what it
means that carrots "carmelize" when cooking yet they
don't get more sugar - This doesn't tell me what it means
but it does tell me both fiber and starch get converted
to something with simpler carb chains.

In both cases the end result is a quarter of the fiber
being converted to digestible non-fiber carbs, much of
the starch being converted to digestible non-starch
carbs. *The ending carb type isn't specified so all
we know is it isn't sugar or fiber or starch. *That
leaves plenty of possible digestible carb compounds
that weren't listed.

If that were true, it
would seem that it would be widely known that cooking any high fiber
food would render it no different from a food without fiber, ie
negating the health benefits of fiber.

Your giant leap of false logic noted - Reducing fiber
by cooking is not the same as eliminating fiber by
cooking.

In all the health articles
related to fiber I've seen, I've never seen it stated that if you cook
a vegetable containing fiber, you lose the health benefits of the
fiber.

Because it's something you just made up based on
nothing I wrote.

This is the first time I've ever heard it stated.

Me too. *Funny how that works. *I assert something trivial to
check. *You fail to look it up and make lunatic conclusions.

Having cooking convert fiber to digestible fiber is so well known
there are evolutionary theorists who assert that humans invented
fire to make root veggies more digestible and increase their
caloric content because even with digestible fiber only a
percentage of the calories are absorbed. *It competes with the
theorists who claim fire was invented to slow the spoilage of
meat. *I figure both theories are true to some extent.

How this applies to bean legumes - Raw beans are not
edible directly. *They must be cooked to be eaten. *As cooking
root veggies shows a quarter of the fiber is converted and beans
are cooked longer, it would be interesting to run the numbers
on beans to see how they come out in converting fiber to carbs
that are not deducted.

Doug, I think your analysis is based on some faulty assumptions. *First, I
don't think one can compare a cooked product to an uncooked product by simply
removing the water. *Nutrients are removed in the cooking process else you
couldn't make "vegetable broth" :-) *In addition, cooking alters the other
macro-nutrients in addition to the fiber so you can't assume the change in
caloric value is simply due to fiber being converted to something else.

Second, I believe what you are calling "digestible fiber" is equivalent to
soluble fiber. *While cooking may convert insoluble fiber to soluble fiber,
neither has any caloric value except to ruminants.

Here is an analysis of the subject I found as regards a variety of bean:

"...Compared to untreated beans, soaking decreased soluble sugar (9.8
percent) but increased starch (7.3 percent) and soluble fiber (16.9 percent).
In cooked beans, an increase in soluble sugar (1.5 percent), and a decrease
in thiamine (81.7 percent), starch (24.6 percent) and soluble fiber (16.6
percent) and nitrogen (2.9 percent) contents were observed. Crude fiber (6.9
percent) and starch (10.0 percent) increased while fat (17.6 percent), fatty
acids (linoleic : 10.7 percent ; linolenic : 14.3 percent) and soluble sugars
(25.4 percent) and nitrogen (14.4 percent) decreased in soaked-cooked beans."

... "Effects of soaking, cooking and fermentation on composition, in-vitro
digestibility and nutritive value of common beans", BARAMPAMA Z. & SIMARD R.
E. (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3009213)

I regularly compute the nutritional values of a recipe from the composite
values of it's raw ingredients. *Without a laboratory, I don't know any other
way to do this and I suspect it is "good enough" in most cases.

Subtracting the fiber content from the caloric content makes sense to me
because although I don't "burn" fiber, a bulb calorimeter does and hence the
calorie counts are overstated unless you are a bulb calorimeter.

--
Steve- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Good post and info which shows that it's not as simple as Doug's
analysis. Again, in the above data, it appears that crude fiber
actually increased with cooking. That wouldn't appear to make
sense. And it's from a source that is actually looking into the
effects, so we have reason to believe that all other things were held
constant, as opposed to trying to extrapolate data from the generic
USDA database where we don't know if the foods were tested from the
same batch, at the same time, etc.

What really irks me with Doug is how he often presents something like
this as if it were simple established fact, when in fact it is opinion
based on his own conjecture.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:59:57 -0500, wrote
(in article
):

[snip]

Again, in the above data, it appears that crude fiber
actually increased with cooking.

Since cooking can change the mass of the sample, eg by carrying off soluable
substances or by absorption of water, it's not surprising to me that mass
based percentages would change even if the absolute masses of the
constituents remained the same. In fact, I would be surprised if cooking
_didn't_ change percentages.


--
Steve