1

votes

Would you eat Rice Krispies as your starch like Dr. Harris?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created February 16, 2011 at 2:59 AM

Dr. Harris recently said on his blog that he is eating a large bowl of Rice Krispies with half and half and adding starchy veggies to his once very low carb diet. He says that Rice Krispies contain no added sugar...but I've searched online and also looked at a box.. and it shows added sugar. (He also mentions carb levels up to 20% and that starchy veggies provide vitamins).

I know he is "panu" and not strickly paleo but can someone help me justify eating a processed, sugary breakfast cereal with milk every morning?

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 12, 2011
at 02:25 PM

does it matter if the fructose is "free" or "unbound"? if so, that might legitimize some of the obsession over added sugar vs. sucrose in a sweet potato.

201d71880bc3a59e168563ba299e4af0

on March 02, 2011
at 02:53 PM

Did you see his response on Feb. 28th? http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/28/proof-that-orthorexia-exists.html

3f5bbb444498a24f1a9720d75fa7c903

(2369)

on February 19, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Ok, I guess I should change that to say that it has "added" sugar. I was trying to support you. There are brands of rice cereal that do not have added sugar. However, the brand Rice Krispies does have barley malt which does contain gluten, which may be important to some people. It still wouldn't be my first choice for empty carbs. I'll eat chocolate-covered bacon for that. Sorry to offend. I think quite well, thank you.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on February 19, 2011
at 03:02 PM

@KGH - I am really surprised that you are even dignifying this with a response given how absurd it is. Looking forward to you Protein macronutrient post!

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 18, 2011
at 02:39 AM

thank you! Someone has some perspective. There is 30 of fructose in a 16 oz soft drink, and 1.5 g in my bowl of rice krispies. I would need to eat 100% of my total calories 0 about 20 bowls - from toasted generic rice krispies to get a measly 30 g!!! of fructose, which would still have me eating a fructose dose that is trivial compared to the SAD, and would not cause damage to any normal person.

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 18, 2011
at 02:33 AM

3 g of sugar in cup is "full of sugar"? This is the kind of absolutist thinking that makes paleo and low carb look nuts to normal people. You would get much more fructose with a sweet potato. THINK!

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on February 16, 2011
at 08:27 PM

+1. Plus I hate rice.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on February 16, 2011
at 08:26 PM

A really like the perspective on processing since it's makes sense in most cases. Good comment overall.

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on February 16, 2011
at 03:56 AM

One time last year, to find a pared-down ingredient list for a puffed rice cereal, I had to buy the store brand. The name brand had all sorts of extras added, but I think Dana's right that like Kleenex, like Band-Aid, like "Coke"s (referencing all colas or even sodas in general), the term "Rice Krispies" could be understood to be _a_ type of puffed rice cereal, name brand or generic.

  • 2e22e4512f44b9c848132acbf57344e2

    asked by

    (80)
  • Views
    8.5K
  • Last Activity
    1378D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

15 Answers

15
4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on February 16, 2011
at 06:52 PM

Dr Harris addressed this on his forum before getting pissed at forums and closing it down.

Basically, whenever he says "Rice Krispies", he's talking about some sort of generic "toasted rice". It may contain some amount of added sugar, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that significant (sweet potatoes contain sucrose too). His goal was to up his starch intake to help deal with a period of additional physical activity and probably had something to do with his changing views on ketosis.

From his perspective, "processing" is largely irrelevant, since "processing" includes such things as cooking, cutting or doing virtually anything other than killing and immediately eating something. Toasting some rice to make it crisp isn't any more a big deal than cooking a steak or boiling vegetables.

So whatever he's eating, it's not very sugary, its processing is minimal/irrelevant, and Harris has always been a milk-neutral sort of person (drink it if you tolerate it, don't if you don't).

PaNu is "Paleo". It's what Paleo should be, at least: use ideas about the past to generate hypotheses and then test them using modern science. If Paleo means stopping short of the test, then no, Panu isn't Paleo. If Paleo can handle getting tested, you'd get PaNu.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on February 16, 2011
at 08:26 PM

A really like the perspective on processing since it's makes sense in most cases. Good comment overall.

5
E242ecf1fecbac866894059f5304b4c6

(318)

on February 16, 2011
at 10:45 PM

this is ridiculously over obsessive

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 18, 2011
at 02:39 AM

thank you! Someone has some perspective. There is 30 of fructose in a 16 oz soft drink, and 1.5 g in my bowl of rice krispies. I would need to eat 100% of my total calories 0 about 20 bowls - from toasted generic rice krispies to get a measly 30 g!!! of fructose, which would still have me eating a fructose dose that is trivial compared to the SAD, and would not cause damage to any normal person.

88905cfc5bb098ad3830671a1af373a8

(803)

on April 12, 2011
at 02:25 PM

does it matter if the fructose is "free" or "unbound"? if so, that might legitimize some of the obsession over added sugar vs. sucrose in a sweet potato.

4
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on February 16, 2011
at 06:34 PM

Actually, Harris talks about carb levels from 5% to much higher than 20%. I believe Guyenet and Jaminet and others are ones recommending 20% carb being a minimum.

PaNu is a much more progressive/scientific version of Paleo. Based upon the remarks here, maybe it shouldn???t be lumped in with Paleo at all. I wouldn???t discount it though without reading more about what PaNu is all about.

4
3f5bbb444498a24f1a9720d75fa7c903

on February 16, 2011
at 03:44 AM

I think he said on his blog that he meant generic rice krispies. The actual brand contains barley malt which contains gluten. It is a common mistake of beginning gluten-intolerant and celiacs to think Rice Krispies cereal is safe. It is also full of sugar. Not my first choice if I am going to waste some empty carbs.

Ba686a7b91a9c04f18170dd4ac762968

on February 18, 2011
at 02:33 AM

3 g of sugar in cup is "full of sugar"? This is the kind of absolutist thinking that makes paleo and low carb look nuts to normal people. You would get much more fructose with a sweet potato. THINK!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on February 19, 2011
at 03:02 PM

@KGH - I am really surprised that you are even dignifying this with a response given how absurd it is. Looking forward to you Protein macronutrient post!

3f5bbb444498a24f1a9720d75fa7c903

(2369)

on February 19, 2011
at 11:40 PM

Ok, I guess I should change that to say that it has "added" sugar. I was trying to support you. There are brands of rice cereal that do not have added sugar. However, the brand Rice Krispies does have barley malt which does contain gluten, which may be important to some people. It still wouldn't be my first choice for empty carbs. I'll eat chocolate-covered bacon for that. Sorry to offend. I think quite well, thank you.

3
462ed57189bd2b8ffbe2a975186191f9

(492)

on February 19, 2011
at 09:33 AM

Tonight, I was ravenous, but didn't feel like cooking. I had a box of Trader Joe's Crispy Rice cereal from several months ago unopened in the pantry, and recalled this thread. It had been 7 weeks since I've had any (significant amounts of) grains, but I figured; hell, why not? I poured a bowl, but I didn't want to use milk. I think I do okay with dairy, but I just didn't feel like breaking too many "rules" this night. I instead poured enough heavy cream on the cereal to get the cereal wet, but not enough to get the cereal soaking, to provide a vaguely milky flavor and texture and went to town.

Eating the Crispy Rice cereal has a minor amount of what I call the 'heavy gut' feeling (many here have said happens) when I eat grain or starches. However, the small amount of cereal I had filled me up quite nicely (which, back in my SAD days would not have; I would have had to eat at least twice the amount I had tonight, with much more milk). I didn't experience any headaches or strange stomach pains I usually get with grains/starches either.

All in all, it isn't something I would do often as weight loss is a goal, but for a quick and "dirty" meal, it could have been worse. Just felt like sharing! :)

3
0adda19045a3641edac0008364b91110

(1146)

on February 16, 2011
at 05:01 PM

I'd much rather have yams, sweet potatoes and good old regular potatoes before I touch rice krispies ever again.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on February 16, 2011
at 08:27 PM

+1. Plus I hate rice.

3
F9a0b72f38860d7601afd5a45bb53394

(3618)

on February 16, 2011
at 03:35 AM

It depends on whether he's talking about the literal Kellogg's cereal or whether he's doing that ubiquitous name brand thing like where all disposable handkerchiefs are Kleenex even if they're Puffs or store brand.

That, and maybe the name brand Rice Krispies didn't always have sugar in it. The big cereal companies change formulation all the time. I remember Krispies tasting real plain when I was a kid, and not being really crazy about them. At some point they tasted better to me. Maybe the difference in sugar content is why. So maybe Dr. Harris is operating from previous knowledge of the product and hasn't checked the label lately. It happens.

If it is just puffed rice I wouldn't see quite as much concern with it. Rice is probably the least harmful of the true grains. (Quinoa and amaranth are broadleaf seeds. Grains come from grasses.) At that point my only real concern is whether the cereal is extruded. If so, I still wouldn't eat it--I have heard from the Weston Price folks that extrusion warps the proteins in ways that aren't terribly good for us.

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on February 16, 2011
at 03:56 AM

One time last year, to find a pared-down ingredient list for a puffed rice cereal, I had to buy the store brand. The name brand had all sorts of extras added, but I think Dana's right that like Kleenex, like Band-Aid, like "Coke"s (referencing all colas or even sodas in general), the term "Rice Krispies" could be understood to be _a_ type of puffed rice cereal, name brand or generic.

3
Medium avatar

on February 16, 2011
at 03:26 AM

It's not necessarily sweetened, so it would just be puffed rice. Rice isn't all that bad, it's just a nutrient-poor starch. Those nations who largely eat rice to their heart's content while eating low amounts of fructose are far leaner than other nations. The conventional wisdom offered by the lipid hypothesis states that it's the low amount of fat in their diets that keeps them lean. We know this to not be true, obviously.

2
Bb1ba0d71083ceaecd3a3b405a977454

on February 16, 2011
at 03:51 AM

I would probably not at the moment, but never say never. Most times that I have declared "Never!", I had to eat my words. I (we) need to remember that we are trying to get the nutritional, movement/fitness and lifestyle benefits from a Paleo/Primal approach, not to simply recreate the Paleolithic, wearing furs and eating just killed, still warm game animals. I try to look at every choice that I (and others) make and decide whether it fills a need and, if it does, that doesn't harm you in the process. If the answer is yes to both questions, then maybe it would be worth considering. But no, I won't be having krispies and cream tomorrow morning. Just cream and coffee, and maybe eggs, thanks.

2
0d2dec01a5ed9363a9915e111ae13f7e

on February 16, 2011
at 03:21 AM

Nope, but I'm not 150lbs at 5'11"!

2
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on February 16, 2011
at 03:17 AM

That sounds tasty...I haven't had those in many years, but with some many vitamin-rich starches...why???? My favorite starches are plantains cooked in coconut oil, cassava, and purple yam.

1
26b7615ef542394102785a67a2786867

on February 17, 2011
at 03:21 AM

Sure, but I would choose unsweetened rice crisps. I tend to be too thin (trying to gain) and am very active, plus experimenting has proven I do best with plenty of starch. I get it from potatoes, sweet potatoes, other sweet/starchy veg, white rice - and some milk chocolate and ice cream.

1
C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

on February 16, 2011
at 10:40 PM

i started using rice krispies(or fake ones, generic) in meatloaf, meatballs etc

1
74f5d2ff6567edd456d31dfb9b92af61

(5227)

on February 16, 2011
at 03:41 AM

I wouldn't, but only because rice tears up my stomach. I'm pretty sure all grains upset my digestive system, though.

0
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on February 16, 2011
at 04:18 AM

I guess if one were trying to gain weight, it would not be a big deal. Milk and starch are good for weight gain and eating only potatoes for the starch could get boring after a while. I would probably not eat them every day though as white rice has very little nutritional value. And milk does not seem to bother me, so for myself, milk does not seem to cause any obvious harm. I am thinking maybe he just really likes the taste of that breakfast and so decided that this kind of moderate slip/cheat is not a big deal and worth it for the value of the taste. (I can't imagine, tastewise, wanting to put vegetables in my milk and cereal though..)

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!