 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 2008Are 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? > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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.  Signature"[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/product_info.php?products_id=103050&ref_src=googl e&ref_id=black_soybeans | 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | 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. > 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. "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> 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. > "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > semi-regularly. I just checked and the cans in my cupboard > are Edends brand. "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> 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. > "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> What is your source for the statement that indigestible fiber gets [quoted text clipped - 144 lines] > 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 > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >>> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl >>> Using the USDA site ... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > 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.... > "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 a.s 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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? > "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > 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. SignatureSteve > On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:37:11 -0500, Doug Freyburger wrote > (in article [quoted text clipped - 188 lines] > > - 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. [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. SignatureSteve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.