Are white pasta/rice bad for general health?

[sonambulo]

I guess I'll just relate this to my personal experience. I am 5'11" 150 lbs and just want to maintain good health in general. I really do not carry fat no matter what I eat but I hear from some folks that white pasta/rice/bread are bad for you even if you are burning off the calories?

I have an active job, am on my feet all day and use a standing workstation at home. This is in addition to resistance training 2x a week and I probably get in ~15 miles a week of running. Am I ok to eat 2-3lbs of pasta a week and a 'fist-sized' portion of white rice once a week?

Also, before you suggest eating whole wheat pasta I have tried many, many times and it's just not happening. Same with white rice. Whole wheat bread (home made, no artificial crap) is fine.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Well, it depends on what issues you're referring to. Grains in general aren't a great source of calories due to their inflammatory nature - promoting all kinds of health dysfunction. If you're moreso addressing pasta/rice in specific, they're very empty calories. They have very few vitamins, minerals, or fiber, contributing only to calories. There are way, way better sources of carbohydrates like beans/legumes, sweet potatoes, veggies, squash, etc.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Yup, if you need to eat carbs or carb load for a heavy workout, eat carbs that contain a lot of fiber. And carbs that contain a lot of fiber also usually happen to contain lots of other good things like vitamins.

Whole Wheat Bread
http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/safeway/100%25-whole-wheat-bread

Summer Squash
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2749/2

Squash's serving size is 180g versus just 40g for bread, and it has fewer calories, more fiber, more vitamins, and more sugar (but the sugar is mixed with more fiber, which isn't bad and slows down the absorption of sugar by your body).

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Carbohydrates are a good source of cheap, dense energy that can be rapidly used by the body. In terms of white rice and flour, most of the fibre and proteins have been stripped away, but there is still a not insignificant amount left behind. But for the most part, they're just a source of glucose.

Well, it depends on what issues you're referring to. Grains in general aren't a great source of calories due to their inflammatory nature - promoting all kinds of health dysfunction.

Please, proof. I've already asked before.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Carbohydrates are a good source of cheap, dense energy that can be rapidly used by the body. In terms of white rice and flour, most of the fibre and proteins have been stripped away, but there is still a not insignificant amount left behind. But for the most part, they're just a source of glucose.

Yeah, refined grains are fine if you plan on using up that energy rather quickly - eating something refined can dull the edge off a workout that's happening soon after. I've gone into hard workouts without knowing it on just protein and it was not good.

 

[Ksyder]

I'd skip the pasta due to the gluten content but white rice is fine if you don't have any metabolic problems.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Carbohydrates are a good source of cheap, dense energy that can be rapidly used by the body. In terms of white rice and flour, most of the fibre and proteins have been stripped away, but there is still a not insignificant amount left behind. But for the most part, they're just a source of glucose.


Please, proof. I've already asked before.

You know what, I've been taught this all my life, even by professionals, but after looking things up on my own, I could only see benefits of whole grain products. The issue is that white rice isn't whole grain and pasta is calorically dense. They both have their downfalls definitely and there are better sources of carbohydrates out there. There are better sources of nutrition such as the ones I stated above. This also takes in mind satiety, vitamins, minerals, and fiber - not just inflammation (which was faulty).

 

[shortylickens]

Sweet jesus this issue comes up way too often. People need to get their butts into Biology class one of these days.
Or stop skipping their high school biology.

Starch is not BAD. Its necessary for survival. Its just that in a comfortable rich country like America the average person has way too much of it.
Too much of ANYTHING is bad, but thats a universal constant.

As for the specific issue at hand: Get a balanced meal plan going and I am sure you will realize you dont need that much starch. And try to avoid it when snacking. Snacks should be mostly fiber and protein based, as opposed to fat and starch based.

Thats good for maintaining health and also losing body fat.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Sweet jesus this issue comes up way too often. People need to get their butts into Biology class one of these days.
Or stop skipping their high school biology.

Starch is not BAD. Its necessary for survival. Its just that in a comfortable rich country like America the average person has way too much of it.
Too much of ANYTHING is bad, but thats a universal constant.

As for the specific issue at hand: Get a balanced meal plan going and I am sure you will realize you dont need that much starch. And try to avoid it when snacking. Snacks should be mostly fiber and protein based, as opposed to fat and starch based.

Thats good for maintaining health and also losing body fat.

The issue is not the starch - it's the processed calorie-dense, nutritionally lacking, end-product. Go eat some wheat germ. Then go eat some noodles. You'll eat 10x more noodles until you're full. And, in addition to that, people's definition of moderate is still way, way too much. That's a huge issue, especially when it comes to American dieters.

 

[shortylickens]

The issue is not the starch - it's the processed calorie-dense, nutritionally lacking, end-product. Go eat some wheat germ. Then go eat some noodles. You'll eat 10x more noodles until you're full. And, in addition to that, people's definition of moderate is still way, way too much. That's a huge issue, especially when it comes to American dieters.

Fair enough. But my point stands.
On average we eat too much crap. If you have any sort of a diet plan and actually stick to it, you are going to be OK. Its the cheaters and folks with no real plan that are in trouble.

 

[Aharami]

Well, it depends on what issues you're referring to. Grains in general aren't a great source of calories due to their inflammatory nature - promoting all kinds of health dysfunction. If you're moreso addressing pasta/rice in specific, they're very empty calories. They have very few vitamins, minerals, or fiber, contributing only to calories. There are way, way better sources of carbohydrates like beans/legumes, sweet potatoes, veggies, squash, etc.

this is good info. i grew up on white rice but i'm trying to kick the rice habit now. can you list more examples of rice substitutes?

 

[shortylickens]

Potatoes have all the vitamins and minerals.
Provided you dont deep fry them.

 

[Capt Caveman]

this is good info. i grew up on white rice but i'm trying to kick the rice habit now. can you list more examples of rice substitutes?

Quinoa. And to the OP, a fist full of white rice a week is fine.

 

[sonambulo]

As for the specific issue at hand: Get a balanced meal plan going and I am sure you will realize you dont need that much starch. And try to avoid it when snacking. Snacks should be mostly fiber and protein based, as opposed to fat and starch based.

So the amount I listed in the OP is too much? How much is more reasonable?

Quinoa. And to the OP, a fist full of white rice a week if fine.

Thank you.

 

[wahdangun]

The issue is not the starch - it's the processed calorie-dense, nutritionally lacking, end-product. Go eat some wheat germ. Then go eat some noodles. You'll eat 10x more noodles until you're full. And, in addition to that, people's definition of moderate is still way, way too much. That's a huge issue, especially when it comes to American dieters.

hmm I eat a lot of white rice and noodle everyday because rice and noodle is our primary food, and we even feel not comfortable if not eat it just one day, and there are no health problem associated with it, even we have way less fat people than america or other western country

 

[Whisper]

hmm I eat a lot of white rice and noodle everyday because rice and noodle is our primary food, and we even feel not comfortable if not eat it just one day, and there are no health problem associated with it, even we have way less fat people than america or other western country

It's not so much the food itself that's unhealthy as it is the fact that, like SC mentioned, it can take a LOT of it to fill you up if you're used to eating larger meals. If you've eaten it in small quantities your entire life, you'll likely be less-susceptible to such binges.

That being said, if you can choose between whole-wheat and white rice or pasta, there really isn't much of a downside to choosing whole-wheat (conversely, there isn't much of an upside to choosing white/enriched).

 

[SociallyChallenged]

hmm I eat a lot of white rice and noodle everyday because rice and noodle is our primary food, and we even feel not comfortable if not eat it just one day, and there are no health problem associated with it, even we have way less fat people than america or other western country

Right, but that's because you have better habits than the average American. Americans love to eat fast and eat too much. That's the issue here.

 

[Deeko]

As a few have said....regular pasta and rice aren't BAD. Are the whole-wheat varieties healthier? Of course - but that doesn't mean that eating regular pasta or a slice of white bread is terrible for you. The problem is, people just eat too much of it.

Everything in moderation. You can eat whatever the hell you want, provided you don't do it in excess.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Well they aren't bad for general health in the same sense trans fats are....but they aren't "good" for your general health either. If you are starving they are calories but not much else.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Right, but that's because you have better habits than the average American. Americans love to eat fast and eat too much. That's the issue here.

and americans are generally more insulin resistant as well.

 

[v0id]

Speaking of carbs...

Lately in the mornings I'll have a bowl of oatmeal (decent quick oats, handful of walnuts and raisins, no milk/dairy) because it's quick and seems reasonably healthy. When I have oatmeal for breakfast I also usually end up making a whey protein drink (~24g protein) because it seems like some protein in the morning helps me stay awake, alert, etc.

Is this not really a good choice for general health? I know that it would probably be better to cook up some eggs and greens or something in the morning, but a lot of times I'm in a hurry and can't be bothered.

The only other significant source of carbs in my daily diet is the sourdough bread I use to make sandwiches for lunch (which I have almost every day). I very rarely eat pasta, rice, noodles, etc anymore but I think giving up the sandwiches would be pretty tough.

Dinner is almost always a piece of meat and some salad/other veggies.

 

[CPA]

Yup, if you need to eat carbs or carb load for a heavy workout, eat carbs that contain a lot of fiber. And carbs that contain a lot of fiber also usually happen to contain lots of other good things like vitamins.

Whole Wheat Bread
http://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/safeway/100%-whole-wheat-bread

Summer Squash
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2749/2

Squash's serving size is 180g versus just 40g for bread, and it has fewer calories, more fiber, more vitamins, and more sugar (but the sugar is mixed with more fiber, which isn't bad and slows down the absorption of sugar by your body).

Sure, but squash is nasty.

 

[spamsk8r]

Sweet jesus this issue comes up way too often. People need to get their butts into Biology class one of these days.
Or stop skipping their high school biology.

Starch is not BAD. Its necessary for survival. Its just that in a comfortable rich country like America the average person has way too much of it.
Too much of ANYTHING is bad, but thats a universal constant.

As for the specific issue at hand: Get a balanced meal plan going and I am sure you will realize you dont need that much starch. And try to avoid it when snacking. Snacks should be mostly fiber and protein based, as opposed to fat and starch based.

Thats good for maintaining health and also losing body fat.

Starch (or carbohydrates in general) are not remotely necessary for survival. Please do not spread misinformation. The human body does need glucose (mainly for the brain) but it can create plenty of glucose on its own from proteins via a process called gluconeogenesis. Other organs, such as the heart, will run on glucose, but actually preferentially use ketone bodies if available in the bloodstream, something that only happens in the absence of dietary carbohydrate.

Will you be the best athlete on a zero-carb diet? No.
Will you live? Definitely.
Will you thrive? Who knows.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The human body does need glucose (mainly for the brain) but it can create plenty of glucose on its own from proteins via a process called gluconeogenesis

Please do not spread misinformation. Do some research before you spout things like this, please. People might actually believe you.

EDIT: Thought I should back myself up a bit: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31768689&postcount=23

Other organs, such as the heart, will run on glucose, but actually preferentially use ketone bodies if available in the bloodstream, something that only happens in the absence of dietary carbohydrate.

After doing a little research, not even the heart will metabolize ketone bodies preferentially given a choice (unless OP is diabetic or has CHF - I'm assuming neither is true). The heart, in fact, metabolizes fatty acids preferentially (which is surprising to me; I would have thought that glycogen would be the preferred substrate) and while fatty acids can be turned into ketone bodies, the intermediate acetyl-CoA required for this is a much more efficient use of energy.

Kodde IF, van der Stok J, Smolenski RT, de Jong JW. Metabolic and genetic regulation of cardiac energy substrate preference. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2007 Jan;146(1):26-39

 

[spamsk8r]

Please do not spread misinformation. Do some research before you spout things like this, please. People might actually believe you.

EDIT: Thought I should back myself up a bit: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31768689&postcount=23

What I said was still true. From wikipedia article on gluconeogenesis:

"All citric acid cycle intermediates, through conversion to oxaloacetate, amino acids other than lysine or leucine, and glycerol can also function as substrates for gluconeogenesis."

All amino acids (what is protein made of again? Oh yeah, amino acids) minus lysine and leucine can be used for creation of glucose. If you're in a state of ketosis, the body is forced to make its own glucose. It does take a while to adapt (2 weeks for the early arctic explorers who learned to adopt the traditional diet of the Inuit) but the body will run just fine.

As to the 2nd point, you're right. I jumped the gun on that using faulty recollection without re-checking my resources. What I meant was fatty acids, not ketone bodies, and in a state of ketosis you'll have abundant levels of both. The main point still stands, that starch is not a necessary component of human survival.