Does any one have a source for the nutrition content of grains in their natural state? I'd like to have evidence to show people just now crappy of a food source they really are, and how many vitamins and minerals have to be artificially added back into them just to stave off crippling deficiencies.
EDIT: Cron-O-meter has a couple of entries for unenriched grain flours. It's the closest thing I could find that had the answers I needed. Thanks for the wheat berry info, CJ
asked byNemesis (11157)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on September 26, 2012
at 06:23 PM
1/4 cup wheat berries unprocessed: about 139 calories, 5 g fiber, 4.5 g protein, 1 g fat, 53 mg of magnesium, 164 mg of potassium, and some B and E vitamins, (for vitamin E the bran should be consumed) After a few days time some of the vites and minerals start to oxidize out, so fresh ground without overheating is always going to be better. White flour is bleached and has the bran removed so that there isn't much nutrition left, especially the vit E or the fiber.
on September 27, 2012
at 02:36 AM
I did a presentation on whole grains a while back, and to prove that grains didn't have anything you couldn't get better from vegetables, I did a side-by-side comparison using Fitday. So according to Fitday's calculations, here's how isocaloric amounts of spinach and hard red winter wheat looks:
Speaking solely in terms of nutrients, spinach leaves wheat in the DUST. No contest. The only thing where wheat beats spinach is selenium. Big whoop. Eat a Brazil nut or two and you'll be fine. The spinach even has more protein, for goodness sake. Way more fiber, too, which is interesting since they tout whole grains like crazy because they're "high in fiber."
Not sure if this was the best way to compare -- equal # of calories, but let's face it -- if I had done it by weight (equal # of ounces or grams), spinach would have had practically nothing since it's so lightweight. I did 0.5 cup of wheat berries, since that's a pretty standard serving size, I think. It came out to about 313 calories.
The interesting thing is that it takes THREE POUNDS of spinach to equal the same number of calories as that half cup of wheat berries. And I'll give you one guess as to which one is probably more filling! Either way, in terms of practicality and not being able to down that much spinach on a regular basis, wheat wins, but none of us here is eating only spinach anyway. In terms of a varied diet of animals and plants, calorie-for-calorie, spinach beats wheat into the ground.
I apologize for the way it looks -- couldn't seem to figure out how to format this very well. Numbers for spinach are on the left, wheat is on the right.
I wouldn't say wheat is a "terrible" source of nutrients, but it sure ain't as good as spinach.
Carbohydrate 49.4g // 68.3g
Fiber 29.9g // 11.7
Protein 38.9g // 12.1g
Vitamin A 2552% // 0%
(carotene/retinol equivalents 'cuz real A only comes from animal foods)
Vitamin C 637% // 0%
Vitamin E 137% // 5%
Calcium 135% // 3%
Thiamin 71% // 25%
Riboflavin 151% // 6%
Niacin 49% // 26%
Vitamin B6 133% // 14%
Vitamin B12 (ony from animals) 0% // 0%
Phosphorus 67% // 28%
Selenium 19% // 97%
Zinc 48% // 17%
Magnesium 269% // 30%
Copper 88% // 21%
Manganese 610% // 191%
Sodium: 1075mg // 1.9mg
(Seems like a lot of sodium for spinach until you see how much more potassium there is)
Potassium: 7593mg // 348.5mg
on September 26, 2012
at 03:55 PM
Why does it matter the nutritional content of food in a state that we do not eat them in?
Let's say there was a magical mushroom (no not that kind) that was poisonous when eaten raw, but if you soaked it and then cooked it in butter you got rid of the poison and the mushroom could now cure obesity. Would you not consume it because in it's natural state is has poor nutrition content?
What is important is the nutritional content of food that we eat. So it would be valuable to show the difference in BA of nutrients for legumes boiled vs roasted vs sprouted -- not raw.