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

I recently picked up the Eades' "Low-Carb Comfort Food Cookbook" from the
library and was sort of surprised to see that they mentioned that soybeans
were the only low-carb bean out there. I'm a complete low-carb newbie, but
I had read that beans have a high fiber content, and since my wife is a
vegetarian I was hoping beans could be a nice compromise food we could both
enjoy. I'm looking at a can of red kidney beans here and I see that they
have 19g total carbs, 8g dietary fiber, and less than 1g sugars. I haven't
read the Eades' other books yet, so could someone clue me into why most
beans are so bad for low-carbing?

In article ,
"EMK" wrote:

I recently picked up the Eades' "Low-Carb Comfort Food Cookbook" from the
library and was sort of surprised to see that they mentioned that soybeans
were the only low-carb bean out there. I'm a complete low-carb newbie, but
I had read that beans have a high fiber content, and since my wife is a
vegetarian I was hoping beans could be a nice compromise food we could both
enjoy. I'm looking at a can of red kidney beans here and I see that they
have 19g total carbs, 8g dietary fiber, and less than 1g sugars. I haven't
read the Eades' other books yet, so could someone clue me into why most
beans are so bad for low-carbing?

Well, they're fairly carb-dense. If you look at your can of kidney
beans, you'll see that those are per serving numbers and that there are
probably 3 1/2 servings per can. Now it may be that you can fit 11 net
carb grams in a single meal into your eating plan and successfully meet
your goals (weight loss, blood sugar control, or whatever), but will you
be satisfied limiting yourself to c. 1/4 cup of cooked beans.

For perspective, how I fit beans into my diet is simple: I buy dried
beans rather than canned. When I make a big pot of soup, something I
often do in the winter, I add 1/4 cup of dried beans. This swells up to
maybe 1/2 cup of cooked beans. But I typically get 6-7 large servings of
soup per batch, so I'm eating much less than an official serving of
beans.

--
"[xxx] has very definite opinions, and does not suffer fools lightly.
This, apparently, upsets the fools."
---BB cuts to the pith of a flame-fest

Try some Eden Foods Black Soybeans, I use them in everything where you would
use regular beans, chili, soup, etc. They are high in protein which is good
for vegetarians as it is hard to get enough protein from veggies.
http://www.edenfoods.com/store/produ...black_soybeans

EMK wrote:
| I recently picked up the Eades' "Low-Carb Comfort Food Cookbook" from
| the library and was sort of surprised to see that they mentioned that
| soybeans were the only low-carb bean out there. I'm a complete
| low-carb newbie, but I had read that beans have a high fiber content,
| and since my wife is a vegetarian I was hoping beans could be a nice
| compromise food we could both enjoy. I'm looking at a can of red
| kidney beans here and I see that they have 19g total carbs, 8g
| dietary fiber, and less than 1g sugars. I haven't read the Eades'
| other books yet, so could someone clue me into why most beans are so
| bad for low-carbing?

I don't think finding compromise foods with your wife will work.

How about two refrigerators? You could put your food in the garage.

On Dec 14, 4:00*pm, "QN" wrote:
I don't think finding compromise foods with your wife will work.

How about two refrigerators? *You could put your food in the garage.

You could fit small amounts of beans in to your carb budget, depending
on where in a particular plan you are and how high the carb budget
is. However, as Alice pointed out, 11g of carb for a serving can be
quite high for a single serving, esepecaially for someone just
starting out. If you were at maintenance, they could fit in.

I second FOB on using the Eden soy beans. They are excellent and very
low carb, only a couple grams of net carb per serving.

" wrote:

You could fit small amounts of beans in to your carb budget, depending
on where in a particular plan you are and how high the carb budget
is. * However, as Alice pointed out, 11g of carb for a serving can be
quite high for a single serving, esepecaially for someone just
starting out. *If you were at maintenance, they could fit in.

Different type of bean, different carb count. Soy are the lowest
type and black soy the lowest variety of soy. Tofu has an okay
carb count for its protein content.

If you deduct fiber that helps the count some. Deducting fiber is
part of some plans and generally a good idea unless you started
long ago before fiber deduction. The bit I puzzle over - One of
the features of cooking is indigestable fiber is converted to
digestable carb. Check the carb counts on line for cooked and
raw veggies to find this difference. Is the fiber listed on the label
before or after cooking? Canned beans are cooked after all.
Just how trusting am I that the manufacturer has my best
interests at heart not the best looking numbers for the label ...

I second FOB on using the Eden soy beans. *They are excellent and very
low carb, only a couple grams of net carb per serving.

Yum. I keep a few cans in the cupboard and use them
semi-regularly. I just checked and the cans in my cupboard
are Edends brand.

On Dec 16, 10:54*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
" wrote:

You could fit small amounts of beans in to your carb budget, depending
on where in a particular plan you are and how high the carb budget
is. * However, as Alice pointed out, 11g of carb for a serving can be
quite high for a single serving, esepecaially for someone just
starting out. *If you were at maintenance, they could fit in.

Different type of bean, different carb count. *Soy are the lowest
type and black soy the lowest variety of soy. *Tofu has an okay
carb count for its protein content.

If you deduct fiber that helps the count some. *Deducting fiber is
part of some plans and generally a good idea unless you started
long ago before fiber deduction. *The bit I puzzle over - One of
the features of cooking is indigestable fiber is converted to
digestable carb.

What is your source for the statement that indigestible fiber gets
converted to a digestible carb during cooking? 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. 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. This is the first time I've ever heard it stated.



*Check the carb counts on line for cooked and
raw veggies to find this difference. *Is the fiber listed on the label
before or after cooking? *Canned beans are cooked after all.
Just how trusting am I that the manufacturer has my best
interests at heart not the best looking numbers for the label ...

I second FOB on using the Eden soy beans. *They are excellent and very
low carb, only a couple grams of net carb per serving.

Yum. *I keep a few cans in the cupboard and use them
semi-regularly. *I just checked and the cans in my cupboard
are Edends brand.

" 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 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.

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.

Hi Doug,

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.

Thanks,

Bob

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.