Scientists have discovered a simple way to cook rice that cuts the calories(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Scientists have discovered a simple way to cook rice that cuts the calories
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/
15 comments
I've read though, that that same bacteria produces short chain fatty acids with some non-trivial amount of calories. Also, where is this coconut oil they are putting in going when they cool it? Wouldn't the fat from the coconut oil counterbalance the savings by utilizing this method?
That said, I'd rather have the short chain fatty acids than the excess carbs, so it seems a fair trade off to me.
That said, I'd rather have the short chain fatty acids than the excess carbs, so it seems a fair trade off to me.
Short chain fatty acids have a whole host of benefits. In particular, they have anti-inflammatory effects, they improve amino acid and mineral uptake, they improve insulin sensitivity and blood lipid regulation, the list goes on.
Sure, I'm not doubting that SCFA don't have health benefits (or that Coconut Oil doesn't), but just the claim that this rice has "half the calories" or even significantly less. Making even all of the starch present in rice "resistant" depending on the gut microbes present, it could be just as much calories (2.5-4.1 according to wikipedia) from the SCFA.
So healthier, but not "less calories" really, especially with the Coconut oil added (MCFA do have slightly less calories than LCFA, but not all of Coconut oil consists of MCFA).
I'm all about this though, and will probably give it a try myself (I like refried rice).
So healthier, but not "less calories" really, especially with the Coconut oil added (MCFA do have slightly less calories than LCFA, but not all of Coconut oil consists of MCFA).
I'm all about this though, and will probably give it a try myself (I like refried rice).
I'm not sure if you get anything (nutritious) back from the bacteria but from coconut oil you go medium-chain way which as far as I remember means pure ketones.
Soluble fiber which is fermented by certain gut bacteria[0][1] and product short chain fatty acids (2.5-4 kcal per gram). Those SCFA has a slew of health benefits which the article kind of alludes to but doesn't name.
[0]- http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-resistant-starch
[1]-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633129
[0]- http://www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-resistant-starch
[1]-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16633129
"What we did is cook the rice as you normally do, but when the water is boiling, before adding the raw rice, we added coconut oil—about 3 percent of the weight of the rice you're going to cook,"
I've never met anyone who cooks rice by boiling the water first. Maybe it's an Indian thing, but all the people who've ever shown me 'the right way' to make rice in SE Asian cooking, stretching from Japan to Vietnam, rinse the rice a few times and then cook it from cold. The 'trick' for good rice is using the right amount of water and adjusting the heat to a low simmer when it boils.
My (Asian) wife adds that she's heard of it but 'we thought that's how white people like rice.' ¯\(°_o)/¯
"After it was ready, we let it cool in the refrigerator for about 12 hours. That's it."
Again, who eats their rice ice-cold unless they got take out the previous evening? Rice isn't that nice cold, nor is it absorbent enough to mop up sauces with, which is sort of a key thing in most Asian cuisine because it's always consumed as an accompaniment to something else, no matter how basic.
I've never met anyone who cooks rice by boiling the water first. Maybe it's an Indian thing, but all the people who've ever shown me 'the right way' to make rice in SE Asian cooking, stretching from Japan to Vietnam, rinse the rice a few times and then cook it from cold. The 'trick' for good rice is using the right amount of water and adjusting the heat to a low simmer when it boils.
My (Asian) wife adds that she's heard of it but 'we thought that's how white people like rice.' ¯\(°_o)/¯
"After it was ready, we let it cool in the refrigerator for about 12 hours. That's it."
Again, who eats their rice ice-cold unless they got take out the previous evening? Rice isn't that nice cold, nor is it absorbent enough to mop up sauces with, which is sort of a key thing in most Asian cuisine because it's always consumed as an accompaniment to something else, no matter how basic.
> Again, who eats their rice ice-cold unless they got take out the previous evening?
According to many, the best fried rice is made with cooked refrigerated rice. Also, there's this excerpt in the article "Chilling the rice then helps foster the conversion of starches. The result is a healthier serving, even when you heat it back up."
According to many, the best fried rice is made with cooked refrigerated rice. Also, there's this excerpt in the article "Chilling the rice then helps foster the conversion of starches. The result is a healthier serving, even when you heat it back up."
Is it OK to heat it back up?
Still not convinced that turning a 30 minute process into a 12 hour one is "simple".
Still not convinced that turning a 30 minute process into a 12 hour one is "simple".
> Still not convinced that turning a 30 minute process into a 12 hour one is "simple".
Inactive prep time doesn't add much in the way of complexity.
Inactive prep time doesn't add much in the way of complexity.
I get that sort of but I'm not sure the opposite of simple is complicated.
I think it's simple as in: You don't need a lab to reproduce the results.
Rice was the most common form of food poisoning in the UK for a while. Cooling the rice takes it through bacteria reproduction temperature; as does reheating the rice. The bacteria don't cause the poisoning though, so killing them doesn't help. The bacteria release a toxin and that isn't destroyed by heating.
So, if people are going to try this they need to cool the rice down as quickly as possible; keep it cold; and then properly reheat it.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/can-reheating-rice-cause-food-po...
So, if people are going to try this they need to cool the rice down as quickly as possible; keep it cold; and then properly reheat it.
http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/can-reheating-rice-cause-food-po...
the article says the effect remains after you re-heat the rice. since cooking rice takes time, lots of people cook large batches of rice and store it in the fridge for a few days. if basically all that's involved is adding some fat to the rice while it cooks, it's an easy change.
I don't know if it's an Italian thing, but growing up in Argentina I learned to cook rice as you cook pasta: first boil the water, then put the rice in, cook as needed then strain. That's the same way I saw my friend cooking rice in England.
In Brazil, on the other hand, people would put a tiny bit of water, put the rice in, turn the stove on and then wait until the rice is evaporated.
The main difference I notice is that when cooked with plenty of water and added when the water is boiling the rice doesn't get sticky (unless you overcook it like crazy.) I prefer it loose and solid instead of sticky and mushy, but then, I grew up eating it that way.
In Brazil, on the other hand, people would put a tiny bit of water, put the rice in, turn the stove on and then wait until the rice is evaporated.
The main difference I notice is that when cooked with plenty of water and added when the water is boiling the rice doesn't get sticky (unless you overcook it like crazy.) I prefer it loose and solid instead of sticky and mushy, but then, I grew up eating it that way.
I've always joked around about Asians rinsing their rice: "The world would save so much fresh water if Asians only rinsed their water once." My mom would usually get mad at me since I usually rinse 1-2 times when she does around 4 rinses.
Then I asked a friend who worked at a fine dining sushi/sashimi place how much they wash their rice. Minimum 6 washes. I guess it's not much of a joke anymore.
Then I asked a friend who worked at a fine dining sushi/sashimi place how much they wash their rice. Minimum 6 washes. I guess it's not much of a joke anymore.
I don't even count. I have a contraption I made where I put rice/beans/ect. in and then just run the water through until the water runs clean.
Well, any time I make rice the water goes in a basin and ends up back int he garden a few minutes later, so I don't feel guilty about that.
White people (at least some) cook rice by rinsing once, throwing in rice cooker w/ water ( about 2 part water to 1 part rice), and then turning on the rice cooker.
Source: Am white person. (from southeast Louisiana if it matters)
Source: Am white person. (from southeast Louisiana if it matters)
I'm also not Asian, but I no longer rinse at all. I see the point for sushi, but I have yet to discern the difference for any other application. I'll use a cooker if it's handy, but I don't mind a pot on the stove, and I always just eyeball the water.
Believe me, I've already heard all the objections to my rice habits. b^)
Believe me, I've already heard all the objections to my rice habits. b^)
> who eats their rice ice-cold
Ummm, you could heat it up. I don't think the article implied you had to eat it cold to get the benefit.
Totally agree with you on the cooking method, though. I read that bit and shook my head.
Ummm, you could heat it up. I don't think the article implied you had to eat it cold to get the benefit.
Totally agree with you on the cooking method, though. I read that bit and shook my head.
> I've never met anyone who cooks rice by boiling the water first.
Standard practice for pressure cooking rice. Bring water to boil, add rice, stir, close lid and raise to pressure.
Brown rice in 14 minutes. Yum!
Standard practice for pressure cooking rice. Bring water to boil, add rice, stir, close lid and raise to pressure.
Brown rice in 14 minutes. Yum!
Boiling then steaming is the standard method of cooking rice from (at least) Iran to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Not an insignificant number of people.
the Pakistani basmati I have instructs to boil the water and then drop the washed rice in. I think it makes it fluffier. really good basmati is light like a feather.
Here is the Abstract from the actual study:
Obesity is an emerging health crisis in many developing countries. To find food based solutions for obesity, rice resistant starch (RS) concentrations and novel ways to increase RS concentrations were studied. A total of 38 Sri Lankan rice varieties were tested; the RS concentrations ranged from 0.30 to 4.65%. The traditional rice varieties had significantly higher RS concentrations than old and improved varieties. Bg 305 had the least RS concentration out of all. However, applying different heating and cooling conditions with pure coconut oil showed RS concentrations increased by at least 10 times. The increase in RS content could be attributed to the increase in RS3 and RS5 types, suggesting potential to increase these types of RS in rice. This study results clearly show that rice, when cooked properly, could be a good low calorie food source for obesity reduction. In-vivo glycemic effects of RS studies are in progress.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-low-calorie-rice-obesity.html
Obesity is an emerging health crisis in many developing countries. To find food based solutions for obesity, rice resistant starch (RS) concentrations and novel ways to increase RS concentrations were studied. A total of 38 Sri Lankan rice varieties were tested; the RS concentrations ranged from 0.30 to 4.65%. The traditional rice varieties had significantly higher RS concentrations than old and improved varieties. Bg 305 had the least RS concentration out of all. However, applying different heating and cooling conditions with pure coconut oil showed RS concentrations increased by at least 10 times. The increase in RS content could be attributed to the increase in RS3 and RS5 types, suggesting potential to increase these types of RS in rice. This study results clearly show that rice, when cooked properly, could be a good low calorie food source for obesity reduction. In-vivo glycemic effects of RS studies are in progress.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-low-calorie-rice-obesity.html
If I'm going to eat rice, it's because of the carbs it has, so I'm fine with the amount of calories it has, but I see how it can be useful for certain people.
This article provokes more questions than it answers. While I got the general idea about creating more Resistant Starch, the details about the transformation from digestible to resistant is kind of murky. Perhaps seeing the data in the source publication would make it clearer but the full report isn't readily available.
Furthermore, the effects and benefits of the cooking method are also unclear. Obesity is no doubt the most complex problem in all medical science to unravel as every body system is implicated in its origin and continuation. Obesity treatment is extremely difficult because of the tremendous level of parallelism inherent in the processes of energy storage and utilization.
For this research to be pragmatically significant, it needs to be convincingly shown that consuming this rice vs that rice matters, and that this single change produces a difference in adiposity. My experience as an obesity treatment specialist suggests it's unlikely that will happen.
A problem resulting from thousands of contributing (and highly variable) factors is not going to be solved by altering some small subset of elements. Understanding the nature of the problem is a herculean task. But until a clearer picture emerges, all we will do is nibble at the edges.
Furthermore, the effects and benefits of the cooking method are also unclear. Obesity is no doubt the most complex problem in all medical science to unravel as every body system is implicated in its origin and continuation. Obesity treatment is extremely difficult because of the tremendous level of parallelism inherent in the processes of energy storage and utilization.
For this research to be pragmatically significant, it needs to be convincingly shown that consuming this rice vs that rice matters, and that this single change produces a difference in adiposity. My experience as an obesity treatment specialist suggests it's unlikely that will happen.
A problem resulting from thousands of contributing (and highly variable) factors is not going to be solved by altering some small subset of elements. Understanding the nature of the problem is a herculean task. But until a clearer picture emerges, all we will do is nibble at the edges.
There are people around the world starving because they don't have access to enough calories and we're trying to figure out how to reduce the caloric values of foods. At the same time we're coming up with stuff like Soylent because we're worried that we're using too much of our resources to produce foods. What a strange set of circumstances.
Perhaps a less revolutionary idea to reduce the calories in the rice you eat by 50%: eat 50% less rice.
Perhaps a less revolutionary idea to reduce the calories in the rice you eat by 50%: eat 50% less rice.
> There are people around the world starving because they don't have access to enough calories and we're trying to figure out how to reduce the caloric values of foods.
We're also trying to figure out how to increase the nutritional values of foods that tend to be available to areas where inadequate food supplies are problematic (e.g., cassava.) Different groups of people have different, and often opposite, problems, and research can be directed at more than one of them at a time.
> At the same time we're coming up with stuff like Soylent because we're worried that we're using too much of our resources to produce foods.
I've yet to see any coherent explanation of how a heavily processed food like Soylent can be anything but an increase in the resources to produce food. Might, optimistically, reduce the resource cost to deliver and store food compared to some other alternatives. Mostly, though, its seems to be an attempt to make money by selling convenience to people with who aren't particularly concerned for other features of food (other than perhaps a certain very broad nutritional profile.)
> Perhaps a less revolutionary idea to reduce the calories in the rice you eat by 50%: eat 50% less rice.
A number of people find it much easier to reduce calories first (by eating less calorie-dense foods, but with similar volumes) and then reduce volumes (potentially adding back more calorie-dense foods in the process, or perhaps further reducing calories in the process.)
You can address real people's problems more effectively when you deal with them being how they are rather than how you would wish them to be.
We're also trying to figure out how to increase the nutritional values of foods that tend to be available to areas where inadequate food supplies are problematic (e.g., cassava.) Different groups of people have different, and often opposite, problems, and research can be directed at more than one of them at a time.
> At the same time we're coming up with stuff like Soylent because we're worried that we're using too much of our resources to produce foods.
I've yet to see any coherent explanation of how a heavily processed food like Soylent can be anything but an increase in the resources to produce food. Might, optimistically, reduce the resource cost to deliver and store food compared to some other alternatives. Mostly, though, its seems to be an attempt to make money by selling convenience to people with who aren't particularly concerned for other features of food (other than perhaps a certain very broad nutritional profile.)
> Perhaps a less revolutionary idea to reduce the calories in the rice you eat by 50%: eat 50% less rice.
A number of people find it much easier to reduce calories first (by eating less calorie-dense foods, but with similar volumes) and then reduce volumes (potentially adding back more calorie-dense foods in the process, or perhaps further reducing calories in the process.)
You can address real people's problems more effectively when you deal with them being how they are rather than how you would wish them to be.
Real people are eating too much rice. This problem can be addressed by eating less rice.
Something I don't understand about the problem is rice is junk food, empty calories, but at least some of the stuff people traditionally eat with rice is really good for you. So I kind of limit my carb intake while dumping more good stuff on the plate. So I'm not seeing the problem with portion control or limiting rice intake as an inherent problem. I'll put barely enough rice down to soak up the juice and dump healthy stuff on top like steamed broccoli or grilled shrimps or steamed fish pieces or grilled chicken breast or whatever.
I'm sitting here trying to think of recipes other than blindingly obvious (like fried rice) that must contain heaping piles of rice and can't simply just have more "good stuff" piled on the rice.
Its the same way with unhealthy flavored sauces. I know general tso sauce is nearly pure corn syrup and therefore is bad for me so I use the stuff like people use hot sauce, a taste is enough, a couple drops on each bite and I'm smiling. There's no reason I have to dump the entire bottle of sauce on a couple pieces of grilled chicken.
Given that the "good stuff" tastes better than the rice itself I'm not seeing an appetite or self control problem? Go ahead torture me with extra homemade lemon pepper steamed fish and less of bland tasteless blah rice?
I'm sitting here trying to think of recipes other than blindingly obvious (like fried rice) that must contain heaping piles of rice and can't simply just have more "good stuff" piled on the rice.
Its the same way with unhealthy flavored sauces. I know general tso sauce is nearly pure corn syrup and therefore is bad for me so I use the stuff like people use hot sauce, a taste is enough, a couple drops on each bite and I'm smiling. There's no reason I have to dump the entire bottle of sauce on a couple pieces of grilled chicken.
Given that the "good stuff" tastes better than the rice itself I'm not seeing an appetite or self control problem? Go ahead torture me with extra homemade lemon pepper steamed fish and less of bland tasteless blah rice?
This is like pushing abstinence education to end teen pregnancy.
Like fuck it is. Sex can be a fun and healthy activity, and it's something teenagers can do to enjoy themselves. Simply be aware of the risks, and be sensible.
Likewise, eating can be fun and pleasurable, but be aware of the risks and make sensible decisions.
Deliberately making food less nutritious so that you can shovel more of it into your mouth is akin to bulimia without the vomiting. Doing it should be a big loud alarm inside someone's head, but if they're damaged enough already to seriously consider it, it probably doesn't. Helping these people indulge themselves is grotesque.
Likewise, eating can be fun and pleasurable, but be aware of the risks and make sensible decisions.
Deliberately making food less nutritious so that you can shovel more of it into your mouth is akin to bulimia without the vomiting. Doing it should be a big loud alarm inside someone's head, but if they're damaged enough already to seriously consider it, it probably doesn't. Helping these people indulge themselves is grotesque.
>Simply be aware of the risks, and be sensible.
By their nature of being underage, they cannot understand the risks and be sensible. We can help so they won't have completely crazy ideas such as Mnt. Dew being a contraceptive, but they cannot be fully informed nor make the best decisions.
>Likewise, eating can be fun and pleasurable, but be aware of the risks and make sensible decisions.
Considering the multi-billion dollar industry making it as fun and pleasurable as possible so you won't make sensible decisions, this doesn't seem like a fair challenge.
By their nature of being underage, they cannot understand the risks and be sensible. We can help so they won't have completely crazy ideas such as Mnt. Dew being a contraceptive, but they cannot be fully informed nor make the best decisions.
>Likewise, eating can be fun and pleasurable, but be aware of the risks and make sensible decisions.
Considering the multi-billion dollar industry making it as fun and pleasurable as possible so you won't make sensible decisions, this doesn't seem like a fair challenge.
Sounds like "pushing abstinence education to end teen pregnancy" is not like adults making sensible decisions about what they put in the hole in the front of their face, then.
Actually, it's like saying "you can have sex, just wear a condom and don't have sex with every person that asks; use a little self-control."
That sounds a lot more complicated than 'eat less'.
(Many) Real people are not good at controlling themselves and eating less volume of food. This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume.
This problem can be addressed by eating food with fewer calories by volume.
They can already do that. There already exists high-volume , low-calorie food. The target market here is clearly not the people making that choice.
I genuinely have trouble caring about people whose problems are caused by making the active choice to keep putting food in the hole in the front of their head. Unpopular view, I expect, but true. Absolutely a self-inflicted injury, and making less nutritious food to indulge these people is sickening, and frankly insulting to them. They've made their choice.
Yeah, sure, maybe it IS a medical condition, and there is something massively wrong with these people's brain chemistry that means they're physically incapable of telling when they're not hungry, and they're too stupid to realise that eating five kilos of rice every day and being horrifically overweight is a clue that they're doing something wrong, or maybe they're masively emotionally damaged and stuck in some kind of self-loathing spiral that makes them eat more and more in some kind of slow suicide, but deliberately making food less nutritious is grotesque, and indulging these people in entirely the wrong way.
I suspect that they'll simply eat twice as much of this new half-calorie rice, or just top it up with a big loaf of bread.
They can already do that. There already exists high-volume , low-calorie food. The target market here is clearly not the people making that choice.
I genuinely have trouble caring about people whose problems are caused by making the active choice to keep putting food in the hole in the front of their head. Unpopular view, I expect, but true. Absolutely a self-inflicted injury, and making less nutritious food to indulge these people is sickening, and frankly insulting to them. They've made their choice.
Yeah, sure, maybe it IS a medical condition, and there is something massively wrong with these people's brain chemistry that means they're physically incapable of telling when they're not hungry, and they're too stupid to realise that eating five kilos of rice every day and being horrifically overweight is a clue that they're doing something wrong, or maybe they're masively emotionally damaged and stuck in some kind of self-loathing spiral that makes them eat more and more in some kind of slow suicide, but deliberately making food less nutritious is grotesque, and indulging these people in entirely the wrong way.
I suspect that they'll simply eat twice as much of this new half-calorie rice, or just top it up with a big loaf of bread.
I'm not in total disagreement with your idea of the solution, and it's how I approach it myself. Since my mid-20s, I've struggled with my weight. Until 23, I was 6'0" and 180lbs. Since then I've been as heavy as 225, which isn't enough to make people think I'm fat, but is more than I want to be.
When I want to lose weight, I just eat much less--typically ~800 calories per day. But that's a struggle to beat hunger. And yes, I'm hungry--I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. I like to feel satiated, and maybe that means something different to me than it does to you. But when I need to lose weight, I just ignore hunger. Not everyone is blessed with that kind of willpower.
When people ask me "how can I do what you did and lose 40lbs in 2 months?", my answer is just like yours--quit eating so much.
However if they had the choice to feel as satiated for half the calories, I expect they'd lose weight. I don't know why you imagine they'd eat twice as much--they have no idea how many calories are in the food, typically. They eat and drink as much as they want to each day without respect to any calories. Changing diet to an already-existing high-volume, low-calorie food is not nearly as good of a solution as modifying people's existing diet. It's also not making it "less nutritious,"--in fact, for these people, it's more nutritious in a sense--at least better for their health.
Your whole stance is basically a "fuck those people, I don't have that problem" stance. If you're a programmer, it'd be similar to "Vim is the best text editor, so I have no sympathy for anyone who can't use it properly. We shouldn't develop other editors, deliberately making people less productive is grotesque..." etc.
Obesity is an epidemic and any progress to thwart it is good, necessary work. It improves people in so many ways--physical health, self-esteem, career, relationships, etc.
When I want to lose weight, I just eat much less--typically ~800 calories per day. But that's a struggle to beat hunger. And yes, I'm hungry--I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. I like to feel satiated, and maybe that means something different to me than it does to you. But when I need to lose weight, I just ignore hunger. Not everyone is blessed with that kind of willpower.
When people ask me "how can I do what you did and lose 40lbs in 2 months?", my answer is just like yours--quit eating so much.
However if they had the choice to feel as satiated for half the calories, I expect they'd lose weight. I don't know why you imagine they'd eat twice as much--they have no idea how many calories are in the food, typically. They eat and drink as much as they want to each day without respect to any calories. Changing diet to an already-existing high-volume, low-calorie food is not nearly as good of a solution as modifying people's existing diet. It's also not making it "less nutritious,"--in fact, for these people, it's more nutritious in a sense--at least better for their health.
Your whole stance is basically a "fuck those people, I don't have that problem" stance. If you're a programmer, it'd be similar to "Vim is the best text editor, so I have no sympathy for anyone who can't use it properly. We shouldn't develop other editors, deliberately making people less productive is grotesque..." etc.
Obesity is an epidemic and any progress to thwart it is good, necessary work. It improves people in so many ways--physical health, self-esteem, career, relationships, etc.
Your whole stance is basically a "fuck those people, I don't have that problem" stance
In this part of the thread it has gone that way, although I wouldn't word it as "fuck those people", but that they're people capable of making choices, and they're choosing to eat too much. "Fuck those people" is more emotive than I feel about it. It's their choice. What problem? There's no problem. If they want to eat less, they can. Barring brain damage or serious psychological disturbance, they're human and humans are more than capable of deciding what to eat. It's not "fuck those people", it's "they're making a choice and it's none of my business".
I do genuinely believe that. I wouldn't even call it willpower. I'm not convinced any such thing really exists; people make choices. That's all there is. I feel hungry, but I know I don't actually need to eat this. Make a choice and in doing so pick how I'm going to feel; I can keep feeling hungry, or I can not keep feeling hungry, weighed up with factors and knowledge I possess.
My stance in the bigger thread is that the idea of deliberately removing nutritional content from food is grotesque. Sure, we in the rich world have never known hunger (not the kind you feel when you haven't had anything with sugar in it for a few hours, but the kind that grinds people into dust over years and ends up with people selecting which of their family should die first), but it's still a real thing and yes, sure, it's just about free market economics and if the rich world can afford to deliberately destroy nutritional value to make life a little bit more convenient for themselves that's just how international trade goes, but nonetheless it makes me sick. That's what I feel is fucking grotesque; so much of humanity's history has been a struggle to get enough food and famine was a perpetual real issue, and sure, this is modern times in the first world and now we can just destroy the calorie content of food for our own convenience, but still, what the fuck.
Addendum: I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. Is that from what I said about some people not able to tell when they're not hungry? I understand that's a real medical issue some people have. Their body/brain doesn't work right in that sense and when they've eaten enough, the hunger doesn't fade as it should.
In this part of the thread it has gone that way, although I wouldn't word it as "fuck those people", but that they're people capable of making choices, and they're choosing to eat too much. "Fuck those people" is more emotive than I feel about it. It's their choice. What problem? There's no problem. If they want to eat less, they can. Barring brain damage or serious psychological disturbance, they're human and humans are more than capable of deciding what to eat. It's not "fuck those people", it's "they're making a choice and it's none of my business".
I do genuinely believe that. I wouldn't even call it willpower. I'm not convinced any such thing really exists; people make choices. That's all there is. I feel hungry, but I know I don't actually need to eat this. Make a choice and in doing so pick how I'm going to feel; I can keep feeling hungry, or I can not keep feeling hungry, weighed up with factors and knowledge I possess.
My stance in the bigger thread is that the idea of deliberately removing nutritional content from food is grotesque. Sure, we in the rich world have never known hunger (not the kind you feel when you haven't had anything with sugar in it for a few hours, but the kind that grinds people into dust over years and ends up with people selecting which of their family should die first), but it's still a real thing and yes, sure, it's just about free market economics and if the rich world can afford to deliberately destroy nutritional value to make life a little bit more convenient for themselves that's just how international trade goes, but nonetheless it makes me sick. That's what I feel is fucking grotesque; so much of humanity's history has been a struggle to get enough food and famine was a perpetual real issue, and sure, this is modern times in the first world and now we can just destroy the calorie content of food for our own convenience, but still, what the fuck.
Addendum: I have no idea why you would think people aren't hungry just because they're overweight. Is that from what I said about some people not able to tell when they're not hungry? I understand that's a real medical issue some people have. Their body/brain doesn't work right in that sense and when they've eaten enough, the hunger doesn't fade as it should.
What amazingly useful logic. Why didn't somebody think of that before.
We can employ in all sorts of use cases:
* Solve global hunger problems? Give starving people more food. * End crime? Just everybody stop committing crimes. * Debilitating OCD? Just stop washing your hands.
We can employ in all sorts of use cases:
* Solve global hunger problems? Give starving people more food. * End crime? Just everybody stop committing crimes. * Debilitating OCD? Just stop washing your hands.
While simply eating less works for most people I think this is a little dismissive of other factors at work in the obesity epidemic.
We are also living in a world economy which is constrained (among other factors) by energy inputs, water, and arable land. So a method of reducing calorie intake of a food after you've spent the resources to produce a crop seems... well, wasteful.
>eating less works for most people
Eating less actually works for all people, it's just hard to commit to. Restricting calories is uncomfortable.
Eating less actually works for all people, it's just hard to commit to. Restricting calories is uncomfortable.
I had a professor in college whose field of expertise was designing cockpits. She liked to say that if the pilot pushes the wrong button and crashes the plane, it's your fault as the cockpit designer that it was possible to make that mistake.
I like to say if a pilot (person) starts firing bullets into the engines (eats too much) and crashes the plane (suffers the effects of ill health), then it's probably the pilot's fault for thinking the laws of physics don't apply to them. Unfortunately, our bodies aren't designed, and while they evolved many failsafes, it takes some conscious control not to mess them up.
That's a terrible analogy. A huge proportion of well-intentioned pilots are crashing their planes.
I wouldn't call firing bullets into the engine (overeating on a regular enough basis to get obese) well intentioned.
Okay, so instead let's look at people who have lost weight (well-trained pilots) trying to maintain their loss. They fail miserably. Very low success rate. Among a large population. So not a rogue pilot with a machine gun, instead the majority of successful weight losers.
The advice "eat less move more" is a proven loser. Not really even a question. Time to move on. Maybe low carb/IF/less time-consuming HIIT will do better. But we know move more, eat less has failed. Being more smug about the fact it would work if only all these dummy pilots would use it right isn't going to improve the public health success rate.
The advice "eat less move more" is a proven loser. Not really even a question. Time to move on. Maybe low carb/IF/less time-consuming HIIT will do better. But we know move more, eat less has failed. Being more smug about the fact it would work if only all these dummy pilots would use it right isn't going to improve the public health success rate.
> Eating less actually works for all people, it's just hard to commit to.
If people are less able to comply with a program than an alternative program, then the first program, in fact, works less well (if it can even be said to work at all) for them.
So the two halves of this statement are opposed.
If people are less able to comply with a program than an alternative program, then the first program, in fact, works less well (if it can even be said to work at all) for them.
So the two halves of this statement are opposed.
The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less. This is a stupid statement which is proven false by basic thermodynamics, and this should be pointed out.
If you look at statistics from Europe at the end of WW2, or from the late 1930s in the US, how many obese people were there? Pretty much zero, because food was scarce.
If you look at statistics from Europe at the end of WW2, or from the late 1930s in the US, how many obese people were there? Pretty much zero, because food was scarce.
> The problem is when some people claim that they just become overweight because of their genes, and are unable to lose weight by eating less.
Without getting into the discussion of whether or not your problem is simply equivocation because you are interpreting "unable" in a different sense than those using it (or, e.g., the medical community) would in this context, "eating less" in the context of this discussion was eating less volume of food with the same calorie density, and the post to which you responded was pointing out that that is, in practice, not as successful for some people as eating similar volumes of food with lower calorie content.
Both of these methods are equally "eating less" in a caloric balance sense. The set of processes that affect processes related to wait loss (including both processes that control how much of that energy content is actually made available, and processes that might be viewed as compliance-related in terms of satiety triggers on the input side and processes that make people prone or resistant to activity on the output side) have substantial, well-known, biological variation between individuals, which have significant linkages to propensity for obesity.
Treating the issue one of simply calories in vs. calories out with success outcomes differentiated only by moral features like willpower is a stupid statement which is proven false by a vast body of research on metabolism, obesity, etc.
Without getting into the discussion of whether or not your problem is simply equivocation because you are interpreting "unable" in a different sense than those using it (or, e.g., the medical community) would in this context, "eating less" in the context of this discussion was eating less volume of food with the same calorie density, and the post to which you responded was pointing out that that is, in practice, not as successful for some people as eating similar volumes of food with lower calorie content.
Both of these methods are equally "eating less" in a caloric balance sense. The set of processes that affect processes related to wait loss (including both processes that control how much of that energy content is actually made available, and processes that might be viewed as compliance-related in terms of satiety triggers on the input side and processes that make people prone or resistant to activity on the output side) have substantial, well-known, biological variation between individuals, which have significant linkages to propensity for obesity.
Treating the issue one of simply calories in vs. calories out with success outcomes differentiated only by moral features like willpower is a stupid statement which is proven false by a vast body of research on metabolism, obesity, etc.
Did you have a point or were you just posting to feel superior to strawman fat people?
I was replying to parent who was basically saying that a process does not work if people are unwilling to try the process. This statement is false. If I am unwilling to replace the broken on exhaust on my car, it does not mean that it's impossible for me to fix my car.
Exactly. You can't beat the second law of thermodynamics. I'm really disappointed in the level of fatlogic in the comments here, and the downvotes for pointing out simple facts.
I don't think your proposal to fight more wars to destroy the global economy and make food scarce will appeal to many people outside the armaments industry.
Such as food subsidies that make high calorie/low value foods cheaper than they otherwise would be? Or the over-availability to the most at-risk populations of these high calorie/low value foods? I'm not sure how lowering the caloric density of a food is going to lower the incentive to eating too much food. In fact, I could easily see it doing the opposite.
You saw the part where part of the obesity problem is actually in the developing world right
'Wait 12 hours' might sound simple, but it's not very practical...
> 'Wait 12 hours' might sound simple, but it's not very practical...
Its quite practical in a place where refrigerators are available. I suspect many of the places where rice is a staple food and transition from bare subsistence to a more robust living standard in a historically short period of time has resulted in an upswing of obesity as eating habits adapted to up and down cycles don't work as well with stronger and longer up cycles probably see a substantial overlap between the population this would hope to serve and the population for which refrigerating prepared food for 12 hours before consuming isn't a completely unrealistic prep step, even if its not something you'd do at home every meal.
And even to the extent it is, part of what they've said is that they are looking into how this could be developed into a pre-consumer process.
Its quite practical in a place where refrigerators are available. I suspect many of the places where rice is a staple food and transition from bare subsistence to a more robust living standard in a historically short period of time has resulted in an upswing of obesity as eating habits adapted to up and down cycles don't work as well with stronger and longer up cycles probably see a substantial overlap between the population this would hope to serve and the population for which refrigerating prepared food for 12 hours before consuming isn't a completely unrealistic prep step, even if its not something you'd do at home every meal.
And even to the extent it is, part of what they've said is that they are looking into how this could be developed into a pre-consumer process.
It works well with rice cookers with delay timers (which are as cheap as $35). You prepare the rice the night before and put it in the rice cooker, then set the delay timer to right before you wake up. Once you wake up, put the cooked rice into a container and into the fridge; when you return home it's done.
You can cycle this process every 12 hours by having new rice on a delay when you leave for work, so it's cooked when you return home and you can put that in the fridge for the morning or lunch. It may not be 12 hours exactly but it's close. Or just save big batches.
You can cycle this process every 12 hours by having new rice on a delay when you leave for work, so it's cooked when you return home and you can put that in the fridge for the morning or lunch. It may not be 12 hours exactly but it's close. Or just save big batches.
This is especially true in Asian cultures where (as cited) rice is such a central part of the cuisine. The way that foods are prepared are tied often to tradition, family history, etc. Shifting even small habits is a huge undertaking:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/an-iron-...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/01/an-iron-...
On the topic of changing how foods affect us via preparation, this (somewhat click-baity) article talks about how refrigeration of cooked pasta could reduce glucose spikes from its consumption:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29629761
Both articles sound borderline one-weird-trick to me, but the explanations are plausible.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29629761
Both articles sound borderline one-weird-trick to me, but the explanations are plausible.
It would be great if it really worked as advertised. You could easily make low-carb sushi.
> China and India, which are already seeing rising obesity problems, are huge consumers of rice.
Are there any studies linking rice consumption to higher obesity rates?
AFAIK, these populations have relied on rice for ages and their obesity rates have only spiked recently.
Are there any studies linking rice consumption to higher obesity rates?
AFAIK, these populations have relied on rice for ages and their obesity rates have only spiked recently.
A lot of people still struggle with portion control and this method will give hope to many people. Calorie-dense foods psychologically bring us comfort so this will allow people to continue to eat them while still cutting calories. In the end, this translates to real weight loss assuming people don't pile on the calories elsewhere.
Calorie-dense foods psychologically bring us comfort
Am I the only one disturbed by this statement? Sure, many people are conditioned to get emotional comfort from eating, but I've seen no evidence it's hard wired. I'm not saying one should hate food, but I find it as unhealthy to have a relationship with food where you use it to fill an emotional void, and I suspect it's a major cause of obesity in places like America. If an obese person lost their emotional attachment to food and stopped eating unconsciously, I'd be surprised if they didn't drop to a healthy weight.
Am I the only one disturbed by this statement? Sure, many people are conditioned to get emotional comfort from eating, but I've seen no evidence it's hard wired. I'm not saying one should hate food, but I find it as unhealthy to have a relationship with food where you use it to fill an emotional void, and I suspect it's a major cause of obesity in places like America. If an obese person lost their emotional attachment to food and stopped eating unconsciously, I'd be surprised if they didn't drop to a healthy weight.
Some google work indicates the "comfort food" meme of people are comforted by extremely high carb mostly starchy foods was invented in 1977. Its been a popular meme and has already settled into eternal common knowledge despite being less than 40 years old.
None the less the concept is going to seem weird to people roughly older than the meme and self evident to everyone younger.
None the less the concept is going to seem weird to people roughly older than the meme and self evident to everyone younger.
[deleted]
A big part of it is the supersaturated foods we have now are far, far more sweet/salty/fatty than our tastebuds evolved with. Sugar fat and salt taste good to us because our body needs them and in ancient times the tastiest foods available were also the healthiest (fruits, nuts, meat, etc). Evolutionarily speaking, food tastes good to encourage us to eat it, and it makes us happy to eat good food because that means we're keeping our bodies alive/healthy. Nowadays, we can make food that has far more sugar/fat/salt than our tastebuds evolved with, so the tastiest foods are now the worse foods for us, but the biological pressure to eat them hasn't gone away.
To make it even worse, things that make us feel good are things we can get in the habit of doing (i.e. addicted) very easily. To make it even worse, you have to eat. If you're addicted to marijuana (assuming it's purely psychological addiction here) you don't have to smoke a less fulfilling joint every day (reminding you of the more fulfilling joint you could be smoking), you can just quit cold turkey (which is also hard but less so). A lot of obese people are literally addicted to unhealthy food since it provides so much more stimulus than our brains were evolved to handle.
And to make it even worse, being obese tends to lead to low self-esteem and a common way to assuage self-esteem issues is to engage in pleasurable activity... like eating more unhealthy food. It's a vicious cycle of eating poorly, getting fat, then eating poorly to comfort oneself, getting fatter, eating more, etc. It can be very difficult to break the cycle, both because of the super-stimulatory nature of the food and because it's impossible to just quit eating cold turkey. Every healthy meal is a reminder of the addiction you could be feeding and with the high availability of poor food (especially in the US), it's even harder to stay healthy.
In short, we are of wired to find bad food comforting in a roundabout way, and the problem is far harder than you give it credit for.
To make it even worse, things that make us feel good are things we can get in the habit of doing (i.e. addicted) very easily. To make it even worse, you have to eat. If you're addicted to marijuana (assuming it's purely psychological addiction here) you don't have to smoke a less fulfilling joint every day (reminding you of the more fulfilling joint you could be smoking), you can just quit cold turkey (which is also hard but less so). A lot of obese people are literally addicted to unhealthy food since it provides so much more stimulus than our brains were evolved to handle.
And to make it even worse, being obese tends to lead to low self-esteem and a common way to assuage self-esteem issues is to engage in pleasurable activity... like eating more unhealthy food. It's a vicious cycle of eating poorly, getting fat, then eating poorly to comfort oneself, getting fatter, eating more, etc. It can be very difficult to break the cycle, both because of the super-stimulatory nature of the food and because it's impossible to just quit eating cold turkey. Every healthy meal is a reminder of the addiction you could be feeding and with the high availability of poor food (especially in the US), it's even harder to stay healthy.
In short, we are of wired to find bad food comforting in a roundabout way, and the problem is far harder than you give it credit for.
If an obese person lost their emotional attachment to food and stopped eating unconsciously, I'd be surprised if they didn't drop to a healthy weight.
There's much, much, much more to it than this.
There's much, much, much more to it than this.
I can't find details on their process, but I wonder if they bothered to compare their results to hot water washing the rice prior to putting it into the boil water. I do this every time and I notice a mega amount of starch is taken away. It would be rather sad if they didn't account for this.
I don't know for certain whether or not they accounted for it, but I'm inclined to believe that your suggestion isn't the contributing factor to the reduced calories. I've read about this effect before, except with reheated pasta instead of rice (both seem rather similar to me) and the pasta was due to the resistant starches as well. This is the article that I read it in before [0].
[0]:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29629761
[0]:http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29629761
Or you could just eat half as much rice?
Plus, eating half as much works with all foods, not just rice! :)
Plus, eating half as much works with all foods, not just rice! :)
But then you are twice as hungry
It is probably impossible to pick the best cookbook of all time, but I think the paleo recipe book is the best for me , Prepare easy and healthy meals with the Paleo Recipe Book. Over 370 recipes covering just about anything you'll ever need on a Paleo diet .
for more info click the link :
http://www.paleorecipebookview.com/
for more info click the link :
http://www.paleorecipebookview.com/
Or, you could, I don't know, just not each as much . . .
What if you are making a rice based dessert and wanted a lower calorie ingredient but not take away from the taste or texture? Problem solved.
Eat less of the dessert; savor each bite. People who inhale a whole pint of ice cream in less than 10 minutes are the problem, and no amount of lo-cal will help them; they'll just eat more. For a large number of obese, it's not about being full, it's about eating to distraction, or eating unconsciously, or to fill an emotional need.
So if I'm making a rice dessert dish for a party, that's typically served cold anyway, I should make no attempt to make it healthier? Instead I should tell everyone not to eat (much of) it?
If there's no change in flavor or texture, this preparation seems like a win win.
If there's no change in flavor or texture, this preparation seems like a win win.
Rice is normally not the best for turning to resistant starch I believe, the process works a lot better for potatoes: cook, then chill, voilá. Even re-heating preserves some of the benefits. Not sure if, or how, the added coconut oil mentioned in the article would alter the process, or make it more effective.