HOME > Chowhound > General Topics >

Discussion

Brown versus white rice

  • 41
  • Share

Did a search and was surprised the topic didn't come up, but I'm sure someone will let me know if I missed id <smile>

We have been eating brown rice for years now, thinking it is healthier. Recently, I've been hearing that may not be the case, due to toxins, much less fiber than previously thought, yada yada. I've been reading up on a health plan that outright preaches against brown rice and recommends eating white rice regularly.

What's the consensus here?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. Bull Ca Ca, Leftover brown rice just spoils faster than leftover white rice, thats all.

    2 Replies
    1. re: mrbigshotno.1

      As far as I know, it IS healthier!
      Anything that has the fibre removed (thing white flour) is less nutricious.
      Refined stuff also has really minimal fibre, which fills us up and maintains a healthy gut

      1. re: pippimac

        Yep!

    2. Which diet?

      4 Replies
      1. re: wyogal

        http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?page_id=8

        not saying I buy all the arguments, but have been reading about it as I've been moving away from grains.

        1. re: Transplant_DK

          Interesting. Especially when "Buy the book" comes before "about us" on their tool bar.

          1. re: wyogal

            of course it does...because they're hoping to get your money before you discover you've just foolishly paid for arbitrary "nutrition" advice from an astrophysicist & a molecular biologist.

            1. re: goodhealthgourmet

              yep. rather suspect.

      2. I almost always eat brown rice, when I eat rice. But I don't see how brown rice has significantly more fiber the white, and I am just going by the nutrition label. I'm interested in hearing what other Hounds say about this. I am not worried about toxins. Why would there be more in brown than white? And what diet is this that you reference?

        6 Replies
        1. re: sueatmo

          sueatmo, here's a quickndirty wki paste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_rice
          A large proportion of any grain's nutritional and fibre value is lost when the husk, germ etc is removed.

          1. re: pippimac

            It's not as if it has much in the way of nutrient value to begin with, especially compared calorie for calorie... it's calorie dense and nutrient impoverished.

            1. re: mcf

              Well, but if you look beyond the fiber factor, brown rice still has more nutrients than white rice, just saying...I think it's a decent choice for a carb though I don't eat rice every single day... black rice even better due to antioxidants, here's more for consideration:

              http://smallbites.andybellatti.com/yo...

              Regarding toxicity for Transplant_DK, this article goes into detail...scroll down to "Individual Concerns:"

              http://www.worldshealthiestfoods.com/...

              1. re: Val

                I don't think either white or brown has enough nutrition to bother comparing. I compare starches to what's in colorful, leafy veggies or in good proteins and eat those instead. Calorie for calorie, rice is nutrient impoverished using those for comparison.

                If you consider glycemic impact, converted rice is lowest, but none of them are worth the calories using nutrient value comparisons.

            2. re: pippimac

              Of course brown rice is to be preferred to white from a nutritional standpoint, but how much more nutritious can it be? It is still pretty high in carbs. 32 for brown vs 35 for a 1/4 cup raw which I think is considered a serving. And there is only one gram of fiber in that 1 serving of brown rice. So, I don't know why brown rice is actually that better than white, except for trace amounts of nutrients.

              I perfectly understand that brown rice is less processed, and preserves more nutritive value.

              My point is, I suspect choosing brown rice is moot. Might as well eat white. There isn't enough difference to worry about. Please enlighten me if I am wrong.

              1. re: sueatmo

                Exactly right and well put.

          2. Today I read this article about the findings of arsenic in brown rice and brown rice syrup; a shocker to me:
            http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012...

            The study found that arsenic levels were higher in rice grown in the southeast/south central areas where cotton was grown previously (and pesticides used there with higher levels of arsenic).

            Scary....I would love to know more about this because I love brown rice!

            3 Replies
            1. re: poptart

              Bur weren't the levels still quite low? Or did I mishear that?

              1. re: sueatmo

                yes; I think I may have been too focused on their findings in brown rice syrup and rice bran to be "very high". The brown rice, especially from California, seems to be less of an issue.
                It seems like as always the "everything in moderation" rule applies.

              2. re: poptart

                And a bit more about the arsenic issue

                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agri...

              3. White rice makes my diabetic husband's blood sugar skyrocket. Brown does not. That's all the evidence I need that brown rice is more healthful, at least for diabetics and probably for everyone.

                13 Replies
                1. re: bitchincook

                  If someone is diabetic, they shouldn't be eating rice, IMO. It has nothing nutrient wise to recommend it. But using a meter to determine which foods one should choose is an excellent strategy. Your comment demonstrates why glycemic index is such a non starter, too. Only the individual's meter can bet relied on.

                  I aim for foods that don't budge my meter, or that budge it less than 10-20 points at one hour post meal. YMMV.

                  1. re: mcf

                    "If someone is diabetic, they shouldn't be eating rice, IMO. It has nothing nutrient wise to recommend it."
                    ----------
                    There are a few folks - including diabetic folks - from around the world who might have a problem with that blanket statement. Oh, I dunno, maybe Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Koreans,SE Asians, Central Americans, Persians, West Indies folks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc etc...

                    1. re: huiray

                      I eat those cuisines regulary, and I skip the rice and the bread. Have you *seen* their diabetes prevalence rates?

                      1. re: mcf

                        I think so. Well, rice may not be a staple to you but it is to many of those folks, whether they have diabetes or not, and *simply skipping* rice may not be doable for them or not be culturally possible or desirable for them when it is an innate and base component of the cuisine. Let's not ignore practical realities for a great deal of the world. Moderation or partial substitution might be a more practical goal or suggestion in many places.

                        Rice, after all, is the grain with the third-highest worldwide production and provides more than one-fifth of the caloric intake of all humans.

                        1. re: huiray

                          I'm pretty sure I'm not addressing those cultures here in this thread, nor do I think that's germaine here, where I've said to eat rice if you like to, but don't imagine that any form of rice makes a nutritional contribution to anyone's diet compared to its nutrient density. In the case of diabetics, it typically creates a problem.

                          All I'm addressing here is inaccuracy of claims that any kind of rice is a valuable source of nutrients.

                          1. re: mcf

                            Well, lots of folks from those cultures do live here in the USA and many do read CH - including myself. :-)

                            1. re: huiray

                              And they should eat to their meters, if they're diabetic. There's a common misconception that those in Asian countries who subsist on rice or starchy diets are healthy. Research reveals that's not true. I think we're going afield of what's appropriate for CH, here, so I'll leave it there.

                        2. re: mcf

                          was just seeing some numbers. us diabetes rate 6%, diagnosed cases of diabetes among am asian has increased from 1-2% to 10%. highest rate in world is pima indians with 50% of adults.

                    2. re: bitchincook

                      Thanks for this information. You are talking equal servings amounts, right? This is the kind of info I want to see. Thanks again.

                      1. re: sueatmo

                        Sueatmo, that person's experience is no indication of how it would effect you. From years of sharing info with other diabetics about food spikes, there's no consistency with a particular food from person to person, except for wheat, especially, even in minute quantities. It's pretty universally terrible for bg control. Very few diabetics can eat steel cut oatmeal, but most cannot.

                        That's what meters are for; creating an individual plan that works for you. One size does not fit all. Carb restriction is the best method, but how to do it and with what is highly individual.

                      2. re: bitchincook

                        Doesn't that just mean that he takes longer to digest brown rice?

                        1. re: paulj

                          No, though that's one possibility easily confirmed with hourly testing starting with the first hour post meal.

                        2. re: bitchincook

                          not necessarily. white rice is actually better than brown for anyone with fructose malabsorption issues. i learned that one the hard way.

                        3. I've been using Tamaki haiga-mai rice for a few years now and prefer it to white or brown.

                          Here is a blurb about it I found ...

                          Tamaki “Haiga” rice is specially milled California premium short grain rice that retains the kernel’s own nutritious rice germ. “Haiga” translates into “rice germ.” The “Haiga” process of milling rice utilizes the latest in milling techniques to produce a fully milled rice kernel that retains the kernel’s rice germ. In retaining the kernel’s own rice germ, it preserves much of the Vitamin E, Vitamin B1, B6, fibre, and GABA (Gammar Amino Butyric Acid). Vitamin E is an antioxidant that protects body tissue from the damage of oxidation. It is also important for proper function of nerves and muscles. Vitamin B1 helps for recovery of fatigue, improves mental attitude, aids in digestion and keep the nervous system, muscles, and heart functioning normally. Fibre assists digestion and elimination. It may be helpful in prevention or treatment of diveticulosis, diabetes and heart disease. Many clinical studies of GABA have indicated that it may help the release of human growth hormone, calming, improving sleep cycles, alleviate pain and stabilize blood pressure. Being a specialty rice it commands a greater price when compared to Kokuho Rose rice.

                          I get it at H Mart for about $14 (it cost $9 not long ago).

                          http://chefshop.com/Tamaki-Haiga-Mai-...

                          5 Replies
                          1. re: woodleyparkhound

                            It's high in calories and has almost no fiber and nutrient value. It's rice. If you're going to eat it, do it because you like it, because the differences between them and the nutrient value are minimal no matter which you choose.

                            1. re: mcf

                              Brown rice is high in calories, as are many foodstuffs. However, your own definition of nutrient value may differ from what others think. A standard serving has high levels of magnesium, niacin, and selenium, for example. Fiber is above 10% of the daily recommendation. Rice can be incorporated into a healthy eating plan; to demonize it for personal reasons is uncalled for. And the glycemic index has proved to be a useful tool for those concerned about blood sugar levels. I am also a diabetic, and sympathetic to the tribulations of other diabetics. My observation is to do your own research and experiment with everything that goes into your body.

                              1. re: Mayor of Melonville

                                It is very low in fiber and nutrients per calorie, as compared to other foods. That makes it a bad choice for everyone concerned with optimal health, and diabetics in particular.

                                I'm not "demonizing" rice, I'm scrupulously avoiding it and have reversed all my diabetic complications for over ten years as a result.

                                I've done assiduous endocrine and metabolic research all this time, too, which is why I don't eat starch, and don't need any meds after many years as a diabetic, long undiagnosed.

                                . Glycemic index is not useful in any reliable and predictable way for those with broken metabolisms. In fact, some foods that are quite low GI spike many diabetics like crazy and others that are high GI do little. Diabetics must eat to their meters, not someone else's personal philosophy. That will lead to an individualized and customized diet plan over time that promotes the best outcomes.

                                1. re: mcf

                                  Have you allowed for racial differences in metabolism?

                                  http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=r...
                                  http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showth...
                                  etc

                                  1. re: huiray

                                    Of course. That's what "eat to your meter" means.

                                    What happens in someone else's body in response to the same foods may be very different in other individuals.

                          2. All things given, I highly suspect that an enriched white rice has move nutrients, overall, than brown rice. The primary reason I don't cook a lot of brown rice is the cookin time, so when I want something reminiscent of brown rice and MUCH quicker cooking, I just use bulgur. Easy!

                            EDIT: Look what I found! TaDAAA..!!!

                            http://www.sunnylandmills.com/bulgur_...

                            1. The consensus is that there is no consensus. :-)