/ck/ - Food & Cooking

it's not unhealthy per se but it's not really nutritionally dense as far as macro and micronutrients, aside from carbs

I still eat it because I like it, and I eat white rice because I prefer it and the nutritional difference between brown and white isn't significant enough for me to sacrifice the taste (although I do enjoy brown rice). So you can still eat it, just don't eat fuckloads of it under the guise of it being "healthy" because it isn't high in fat or some shit.

Rice is free of gluten so it's a bit easier to digest than, say, wheat or barley. Other then that it tends to be a little less calorie-rich than the others. On the other hand, it tends to be high in arsenic, especially if it still has its bran on it (brown rice). I tend to prefer rice over others, definitely better than bread or noodles which are the standard go to for most, and is lower on the glycemic index so it won't jack up your blood sugar as much.

TL;DR: Yes, as far as grains go it's the "healthier" choice.

>>5151294

Wow you really managed to fit an impressive amount of broscience in for such a relatively short post.

>staples are fillers
How many chins have you, Amerilard?

>>5151283

http://youtu.be/J-zFQ9fOTSU?t=35s

(cooked long grain brown rice vs baked potatoes) More magnesium, less potassium, no vitamin C but you probably get 3000% of your daily intake of it anyway...

Everything in moderation and you'll be fine.

Give quinoa a try, though. It has a little bit of a nutty flavour to it.

>>5151300

I'm just cool like that

>>5151294
this
thou I am a big fan of potato

>>5151307

yeah quinoa is fucking tasty

>>5151308

Me to man, potatoes are mad tasty. It's always a matter of moderation though. You just have to realize that if you eat a lot of potatoes you're really not filling yourself up all that well and you're jacking up your insulin levels, which will cause you to get hungrier faster as well as making your body more inclined to store anything as fat.

If you want to eat healthy, here's how you should split your food intake:

60-70% Fruits, nuts, vegetables (not grains)
15-20% low-fat proteins (beans, lean pork, fish)
5-10% "filler," up to 15% if it has its bran attached as it's full of fiber and will help you stay clean AND fill you up
0-5% Other. That's sweets, oils, fried foods, munchies, etc.

>>5151337

Misclicked link, meant to aim that at

>>5151313

White rice has a high glycemic index and barely has any minerals in it. Brown rice is pretty good for you though. The only commonly consumed whole plant food that isn't great for you is white potatoes.

>>5151357

glycemic index doesn't matter unless you're diabetic

>>5151294
Thanks, the blood sugar bit is exactly what I needed to know. I've quit bread for the most part (still indulge on cinnamon buns or a burger once a month), noodles are harder to give up because of all the awesome sauces.

>>5151307
Guinoa sounds amazing, I'm definitely gonna give it a try. Any other tips?

>>5151337
That percentage chart is awesome, I've been looking for something like that for ages. I always thought it's supposed to be mostly veggies, but I never knew what amounts.

>>5151361
I'm not diabetic, but I do feel that high sugar intake has a bad influence on my overall health, fatigue-stress tolerance and also my stupid adult acne. Too bad, because I also love candy.
When I started the thread I was afraid it'd turn into a trollhaven in seconds. But it didn't. Thanks anons, you're awesome!

>>5151337
I've always really disagreed with putting fruits and vegetables together. They've always seemed more like a dessert-to me than something to put on the same level as vegetables

>>5151357

I was thinking more basmati, which is extremely low on the index.

>>5151361

False. Things higher on the glycemic index make your insulin levels higher than other foods. Insulin is the hormone in the human body that's in charge of telling your body that it needs to start storing fats, as it is usually increased by foods that are high in fats and sugars, which our bodies naturally want to hold on to in case of food scarcity. It's basically a throwback to our hunter-gatherer days.

>>5151372

>They've always seemed more like a dessert-to me than something to put on the same level as vegetables

Just because they taste good doesn't mean they aren't good for you

>>5151371

the first guy you quoted was trolling so I wouldn't take that information too seriously

>>5151372

They can basically fill the same slot in our diets because it's what our body is naturally made to digest, since we are descendants of forest/jungle hunter-gatherers. Fruit can definitely be high in sugar but our bodies also have an easier time processing it since it's in its natural state, as opposed to being processed like cane sugar.

>>5151377
Fuq :(
Sorry, I'm a total noob about this.

>>5151377
How was I trolling? Everything I said was accurate. You're free to drop a Goog on it and see for yourself.

>>5151382

I most definitely wasn't trolling, don't worry.

>>5151371

> I've quit bread for the most part

Just eat tasty whole grain/multigrain bread. White bread isn't "bread," it's just one unhealthy kind of bread. Same with noodles, switch to whole wheat pasta.

>>5151385

there's no reason for a healthy individual to pay attention to glycemic index, it doesn't fucking matter

the amount of arsenic in rice is too low to cause health effects as far as we know currently

>>5151391

>there's no reason for a healthy individual to pay attention to glycemic index, it doesn't fucking matter

How do you think people become unhealthy in the first place?

>>5151391

No. The higher on the glycemic index a food is, the higher it raises your insulin levels.

Insulin is a hormone that makes your body store a higher percentage of your caloric intake as fat. It's also just unhealthy to always have a high level of insulin in your body.

For the arsenic, true, but it can build up in your system over time. I also just wanted to make sure all the information is out there in case he has to be concerned with arsenic already due to location.

Being thorough isn't "trolling."

>>5151391
'Stop liking stuff I don't like?' As far as I know high blood sugar - > fuck year insulin -> androgens -> acne. If anything, I've experienced a difference in my skin when just eating veggies. While I don't mind discussion it, I don't see why you're getting so mad about when other people care about stuff.
>>5151389
The choice available at out local stores is rather sad, I'll leave that as the last option. Though wholegrain bread with seeds is amazing indeed.

>>5151399

I don't believe the high glycemic = fat business because asians eat white rice for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they're known for being the skinniest people around. It does raise your triglycerides though

>>5151405
>As far as I know high blood sugar - > fuck year insulin -> androgens -> acne

The point is that the glycemic index isn't significant enough to matter. It's like trying to reduce your time taken to run a mile by shaving your legs to reduce weight. Would it make a difference? Tecnically, yes. Would it make enough of a difference to actually matter? No.

That's an alarming trend I'm seeing with a lot of the more modern health studies. People seem to focus on less significant details like gylcemic index and instead miss the bigger picture of simply eating a varied diet, portion control, and exercise.

>>5151408

Rice is lower on the index, that's why. Japanese food is also high in vegies and low in fat and meat, which helps, and green tea, which is great for your metabolism.

Also, Asiatic people have higher metabolisms on average due to a naturally high musculature/low fat levels their bodies maintain.

>>5151414
Dude. I'm not saying that index is the be-all-end-all of managing a healthy diet. I was being thorough, because it IS a concern for some people.

>>5151416

>Rice is lower on the index, that's why

White rice has one of the highest glycemic indexes

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

The only things on that list that are higher are white potatoes, fruit roll-ups, and "sparkling glucose drink"

> Asiatic people have higher metabolisms on average due to a naturally high musculature/low fat levels their bodies maintain.

Which has to do with their diet of mainly high glycemic white rice + vegetables. When asians eat more westernized foods, they get just as fat as the average American

>>5151436

Look at the different strains. What most people eat is short grain rice, which is high, but basmati and jasmine rices are extremely low and sticky rice is in the same boat.

Also no, I can tell you by, you know, living with a number of Asian people who eat american food every day that they stay thinner regardless of their diet.

>>5151420

people with diabetes

quick question I'm too embarrassed to ask someone in real life. how do you say quinoa? I thought it was kwi-noah but I think I might be horrifically wrong.

>>5151484

"keen-wah"

>>5151484

This anon is correct >>5151490

But it would be hilarious to hear you pronounce it "kwi-noah". Would make my day if someone said that to me.

>>5151481

Or who have a tendency to accumulate a lot of weight naturally. Or who like not being jittery and hungry all day because their body is telling them to eat more food for them it to store.

I can very evidently are in myself that I tend to gain weight when I eat more high glycemic foods and I'm not even close to being diabetic. There's a lot of factors that play into it that can change it for anyone. Which is why I added as much info as I could in a short post.

TL;DR: Dick off you ignorrent shitter, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>5151484

NSW that's pretty close. Its Mayan if I remember correctly, so its going to be strange

>>5151475
>>5151436
jfc how are there still people who haven't figured out that asians a thin because their portions are smaller

>>5151497
>"kwi-noah"
>tfw 98% of your social interaction is in text form so you spend the other 2% pronouncing everything wrong

>>5151513
Their overall digestion is probably somewhat different from western. The staple foods vary from western ones to begin with, like how milk is considered odd to drink in China, not to mention all the spices and different herbs. I've no doubt this has had an impact on digestion (though i'm not trying to say it's the only thing making a difference)

>>5151513
IKR?
Americans are always shocked that I cook with lard and butter and eat lots of carbs and sugar and don't eat a lot of meat yet I weigh far less than they do. Always. I don't eat an 800cal sandwich with a 500cal drink and a 1000cal order of fries at one meal. That's gross. That's more calories than I eat in one day.

>>5151561
>I've no doubt this has had an impact on digestion

What makes you think this? Do you just make up random things or is it that you have a poor lack of how digestion and metabolism work? What makes you think that one human being's digestive system is subject to the laws of physics while others are not?

The vast majority of human beings have a nearly identical metabolic rate:
http://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people.html

Furthermore, it's been proven quite conclusively by several high-profile experiments that what you eat is far less important than how much you eat. A few great examples you can research:

1) Google "Twinkie Diet". A university professor used himself in a weight loss experiment. He ate a diet of nothing but junk food (hence the name "twinkie" diet), but restricted his calories. He lost weight and his Cholesterol numbers improved.

2) Two brothers, who are both doctors, did a similar experiment. One cut fat out of his diet. The other carbs. Both lost weight. They concluced that neither diet was a very good one, and the solution was not to avoid specific foods, but simply to moderate total consumption:
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/twin-brothers-act-guinea-pigs-sugar-v-fat-190600102.html

Total consumption of food is by far the most important factor regarding weight.

>>5151591

Same thing with a lot of traditional European diets. Take a look at the French for example--loads of rich food, butter, cheese, offal, lard, alcohol, strong coffee, etc, yet the obesity rates are a fraction of, say, USA , Britain, or Mexico. Portion control is the key.

>>5151626
Yep.
I'm European living in the US, not Asian. I don't think Asians use butter or lard all that much but both are traditional cooking fats (alongside olive oil) for my native cuisine.
I actually ate an American lunch today: two slices of meatloaf with mushroom-and-onion beef gravy and sides of macaroni and cheese and some collard greens. I feel ill. It was too much at once. Delicious, but dear me: how do you people eat like this at every meal? I'm so full, I'll not eat the rest of the day! I'll have some alc before bed and that's it for me, thanks.

>>5151593

>1) Google "Twinkie Diet"
>he lost weight and his cholesterol numbers improved

We know you can lose weight on any diet if you starve yourself, but weight loss alone naturally lowers your cholesterol. This of course isn't sustainable as eventually you're going to stop losing weight (unless you straight-up die). This isn't also doesn't mean other foods wouldn't have had a more beneficial effect on health than the twinkies.

See this video to understand what kind of misleading things you can do with badly set up studies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCD46KbOkSM

>>5151637

Lard is typical for traditional Chinese cooking and I've seen it used a lot in southeast asia as well, but I don't know how many "modern" Chinese use it. Even if they don't, Asians love their pork belly (and so do I), and that's very fatty even if it wasn't cooked in lard. Chinese and Chinese-influenced southeast Asian cusine is big on texture, and the texture contrast between fat and meat is very common, so you will find a lot of fatty and cartilage foods in Asian cuisine.

>>5151593
Sorry I didn't mean to seem rude and you can definitely chill a bit. It came from observation and I really don't have anything other to back it up with. Very informative post though, thanks.

>>5151663
>This isn't also doesn't mean other foods wouldn't have had a more beneficial effect on health than the twinkies.

Agreed completely. But, the example makes it quite clear that health improvement is possible even while eating the worst diet imaginable, if caloric restriction is followed.

I find it funny that we have examples like this (and the Jared guy from Subway, and that guy who did the McDonald's diet, etc, etc, etc.) who have proven time and time again that massive weight loss is possible by simply restricting calories. The proof is plain as day.

Then we have research that focuses on minute differences between foods. None of this research has ever produced as clear-cut results as the aforementioned calorie restriction.

Yet despite this, people seem to be ignoring the clear evidence staring them in the face--simply eating less will help them lose weight--while constantly searching for some "magic bullet" to fix the problem. It's frustrating that every one of these discussions (Twinkie diet, The two brother's carb/fat experiment, Jared/subway, and even a 3rd-party review of the "twinkie diet" by a licensed MD all came to the same conclusion: stop worrying about minutiae and concentrate on eating a variety of foods, just in smaller amounts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/chewing-on-the-twinkie-di_b_782678.html

Seeing as how entire continents rely on it for sustenance, I'd say it's probably pretty healthy. Make it sushi style with vinegar/sugar/salt though for flavor.

>>5151637
Lunch? That sounds more like a dinner.
Though I guess the heavyness of the meals really depends on where you live.
The further south you go in America, the larger the portions get

>>5151700

> the example makes it quite clear that health improvement is possible even while eating the worst diet imaginable, if caloric restriction is followed.

Not exactly. The diet that guy followed may have reduced his cholesterol (again, due to the weight loss alone), but a diet of junk food has more implications than LDL count. A fat guy who eats good food will atleast get the vitamins/minerals his body needs to operate, unlike a guy eating nothing but twinkies.

As for the twin brothers study, that's a 1-month-long study with a sample size of 2 (or even just 1 if you count that they share the same DNA), where the result was just "we didn't like the food we ate, also we lost a few pounds"

I can't stress dietary sustainability enough. A permanent weight loss diet isn't a healthy long-term diet. I agree that over-eating is bad, but it's not as if just eating less food will make you healthy, it's about what the food you're eating is.

>>5151717
Ha! I live in the northeast, so not the south at all. I see this all the time. If I go out to eat with friends or coworkers, I just stick to small plates and some alc because I know mains are going to be fuckhuge. Today, though... yeah. No. Too much food. Had I not skipped breakfast this morning, I'd not have been able to finish it.

>>5151720
>but a diet of junk food has more implications than LDL count.

Of course it does. And I'm not disagreeing with that. But from a WEIGHT LOSS perspective it worked brilliantly, even though the diet was just about as poor as it could be. Now think about what is possible if he had eaten wholesome foods instead. The "twinkie diet" is an important example because it proves that calorie restriction yields immediate and significant weight loss, even with the crappiest diet possible.

>>where the result was just "we didn't like the food we ate, also we lost a few pounds"

There's more results than that. There's also the important conclusion that "cutting out all fat" and "cutting out all carbs" both delivered relatively poor results with other potential health concerns as well.

>> A permanent weight loss diet isn't a healthy long-term diet.
Agreed 100%


>> but it's not as if just eating less food will make you healthy,

No, but it will make you healtihER. And as these examples have made very clear, from a weight-loss perspective calories is MORE important than anything else. That's really what the twinkie diet (and Mcdonald's) have proven: even if your diet is shit-tier food weight loss still happens.

Of course, that's discussing weight loss only. Healither foods are certainly warranted for overall health. But from a weight-loss perspective only, calorie restriction is far more important than what those calories came from.

>>5151764

> from a weight-loss perspective calories is MORE important than anything else

If that's all we're talking about, I shouldn't have even jumped into the discussion. I agree less calories = weight loss (for the most part, there's still weird shit like nuts whose calories don't seem to contribute to weight gain in many studies on them), I just want to make it clear that the less calories you eat, the more nutrient-dense your food ought to be. When you're counting calories, you have to make the calories count

Potatoes have more nutrition and less manganese.

>>5151283
Germinated brown rice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germinated_brown_rice

>>5151283
Is staple grain (rice, maize and wheat) healthy?

>>5151307
quinoa a shit.

i can't find a good, simple recipe for quinoa. i like it in stews, but that's about it. overhyped grain imo

>>5151357
nigga pls

>>5153119

It's not a grain.

>>5151283
food is like math people over complicate things ... 1 + 1 = 2 is rice, beans, are good when not canned or bleached so yes rice is healthy ... when its wild rice and brown rice and not white rice same with lentils and beans simply cooked and not drowned in fat or whatever

is salad healthy sure when you slice and dice your own veggies and dont pour tasty sauces over it all

reminder healthy means you chew your food well not drink a juice or blend some shit that is not bad per se only it runs through your system at an accelerated rate compared to chewing and embedding saliva into your food readying it for stomach acids that is called healthy nourishment

Rice is shitty carbs.

But I don't know what to switch to.

>>5156141
Brown rice

Slightly less shitty carbs

>>5156143
People are dumb fucks where I live. They only eat one kind of rice ("Rice" -- the cheapest, worst kind) so if you want something different, you should order it online and pay a fuckton of cash.

Rice is completely devoid of nutrients and is basically just worthless filler.

Why do you think Asians are so skinny and lacking in body mass?

Here's a picture of the nutritional value of white rice as opposed to pasta (just regular pasta, not whole grain).

>>5157903
Nice try, comparing cooked rice to dry pasta, faggot. Also, good job not using the same mass size for both. You're a fag of the highest order.

>>5157903
you're comparing twice the calories in pasta, but it's still a good point

cal for cal, rice is still crap

>>5157909

And he used white rice, too.

>>5157942
that looks very similar and pasta has a lot more protein

at least compare it to whole grain pasta, that would make sense

>>5157946
>Whole grain pasta.
'Aight.

Makes no difference to me, though. My pasta is almost all corn or rice based.

>>5157903
Mussolini tried to switch Italians off of pasta and onto rice for health reasons.

>>5157955

Mussolini also ate nothing but milk and crackers for a year. Not disagreeing with you on whether rice is healthier or not, but if you're going to use logical fallacies like Appeal to Authority, then having an actual authority on the subject would help, lol.

>>5157955
Mussolini also liked jazz. Doesn't make jazz the greatest music style of all time or anything. No matter what, Mussolini is a layman when it comes to health. It'd be like asking Oscar Wilde's opinion on open-heart surgery or for Einstein to write an opera. These people are not Eratosthenes and therefore command no expertise on any disciplines beyond the single one for which their known.

Secondly: Mussolini only had this idea because rice grew throughout Italy but durum and semolina wheat grow only in the south; it was an attempt at distribution of agricultural wealth cloaked in "why won't-a you eat-a hell-ty, eh?"
I'm from Italy. We're taught about this bullshit in detail.

>>5153550
yes it is

>>5151374
Except GI numbers are taken on an empty stomach and isolated from other food.

If you aren't taking white rice alone for breakfast, it doesn't matter much.

Say, you've eaten a meal before in the day and you have your white rice with protein or something with lower GI; and it won't hit your insulin hard.

Brown rice has a tiny bit of fiber in it compared to regular white rice. But most brown rice has a really shitty texture.

Eat white rice and then eat something else to get some fiber.

>>5158115

Are you the same guy who was arguing that tomatoes were "culinarily vegetables and botanically fruit"?

>>5158161
Not that guy, but that statement is correct in my book.

>>5158176

Except it's wrong. It's a "pseudo-cereal". Look it up.

>>5158151
that picture so ridiculous

he's a waste of roids

>>5158151
Are you cooking the brown rice long enough?

Cause its #1 bitch nigga

>>5157954
what's 'corn pasta'?

I've never had that

Eat whatever you want.

Why should you care if you die at 78? Who wants to live to be 90 anyway?

I'll tell you who...faggots on ck that's who.

>>5158239
you don't just die at 78

you never get laid, but you get a heart attack at 42, diabetus at 45 and alzheimers at 50 and then you die a medicated potato vs being healthy and dying of old age

>>5158239
My nan lived to be almost 107. She would have lived longer had she not stumbled over and broke her leg.
She ate everything in moderation.

>>5158229

Pasta made of corn. Fusili and penne, usually.

rice is great for you. just as long as you don't add fat to it. sprinkle some salt on it instead.

>filler
You're gross.

>>5158293
how does it taste?

>>5158187
I think it's supposed to funny, can't imagine anyone being that stupid irl

>>5157954
Is this real? Rice has 2x the fat, half the protein of wheat pasta. And half the fibre if anyone gives a shit. Plus wheat tastes better... why rice?

>>5158351
we've been lied to our entire lifes

pasta is the shit

>>5158360
pasta also has a lower glycemic index (the firmer you cook it the lower)

Nobody mentioned buckwheat yet. It's a nice nutrient rich alternative.

>>5158326

Not bad, honestly. I don't miss wheat-based pasta.

Corn pasta has a better texture than rice pasta (rice pasta likes to clump up because of all the starch it releases).

>>5158351

According to google, anyway. Just type in "brown rice vs pasta" and set the parameters to raw/uncooked for both.

The rice is higher in B6, so that's nice.

>>5158421

Buckwheat has a nice nutty flavour to it, as well. Makes for fantastic pancakes (the trick is to use really well beaten egg whites and to fold them into the other ingredients).

The best gnocchi I've had was made with just potato and tapioca. Shit was so fucking cash.

>>5151405
>choice available at out local stores is rather sad

Bake! Seriously, it's fun and a handy skill. I picked it up because bread in my city is expensive (with a shitty selection to boot) and I've never looked back.

>>5158421
Also pretty much any grain that you can find in whole groat form. Barley is one of my favorites, but oats and wheat are pretty good too.

>>5153128

That's not a very impressive nutrient profile, but why do you think minerals are the only thing that determines if a food is healthy? Poison could be an amazing source of every vitamin and mineral, it's still poison

>>5158421
imparts an interesting flavor in baked good, but whole buckwheat is pretty labage

>>5156148
Where on earth is this

>>5158695
>interesting flavor in baked good
i mean this in reference to buckwheat flour

Polished white rice has pretty low nutritional content compared to other grains, but it's better than potato. If your trying to be a healthfag carb the fuck up and start doing exercise.