If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are beans off-limits for low carb, despite the fiber content?
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.... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Are beans off-limits for low carb, despite the fiber content?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Are beans off-limits for low carb, despite the fiber content?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are beans off-limits for low carb, despite the fiber content?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Carb content of Metamucil - unflavored - sugar free? | Joey Goldstein | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 4 | January 17th, 2007 07:36 PM |
Acai Berry Carb Content? | Max Hollywood Harris | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | August 16th, 2005 01:43 AM |
Low carb diets - broad beans (fava beans in US?) | Alan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | August 13th, 2005 03:15 AM |
Strange fiber content | Martin W. Smith | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | June 29th, 2004 09:38 PM |
Questions on getting to the carb limits | Sunshyne | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 26 | April 6th, 2004 05:19 AM |