Breads - Is there a difference?

[j]

Oh boy did I catch hell for this one. At ICHQ I made the remark that wheat bread and white bread were pretty much the same as far as health and nutrition. This was not taken well by the group.

But this comment didn't come out of my butt. Sometimes I actually have a good point...sometimes :-)

I have been compiling a spread sheet of 30 differnt breads that "Aunt Millies" produces (www.auntmillies.com).

I logged the nutritional label of each bread. What I found is that 23 out of 30 breads have virtually identical nutrition. Wheat, white, 100% wheat, multi-grain. All were static across the board. At least 12 grain had 5 time more fiber, but only 6g.

The major argument (Valid) was that the nutritional label means nothing and it how your body processes the food. I say the nutritional label is a reflection of the ingredients.

Another valid argument was the wheat bread has more of the grain parts than white. That would mean that fiber would be higher. Well it is higher in most, but only by .5g to 1g in most cases. Pretty much nothing.

The Healthy Goodness bread however, i will say, is much better from a nutritional point of view. Less sugar and more fiber.

I would say don't stress out about the type of bread you eat. The real choice is to eat the bread or don't. But between breads its almost all the same.

Attached is my spreadsheet. See for yourself.

[Thrax]

tl;dr: You're wrong.

[RyderOCZ]

:rolleyes:

[Buddy J]

Fiber is awesome (for poopin).

[Buddy J]

tl;dr: You're wrong.

How long?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/BuddyJ/longcatg.gif

[Nomad]

There is a huge difference in ingredients. You are wrong, flat out.

[j]

if (Nutrition == a result of ingredients)
{
Nutritional Label = reflection of ingredients.
}

therefore the you can get a good idea of the ingredients from the nutritional label. The data speaks for it's self. There are breads that are healthier than others (shown by the healthy goodness breads data) but it's not white vs. wheat. it's brand vs brand.

This is hard data folks. You may wish it wasn't true, but it is.

[Thrax]

It is white vs. wheat. Just because you choose to ignore 30 years of metabolic research because you walked into a grocery store with a clipboard doesn't mean you're right.

To anyone else: It's not worth wasting your time on this thread. Just move along.

[j]

Thrax, Dude. I'd have to say you are very knowledgeable when it comes to metabolic processes and what is healthy. You've done a great job shedding the pounds and bulking up. So I'm not going to argue that different nutrients and ingredients process differently. I'm saying that what is available in the stores are all very similar. There could be exceptions were the bread is all natural, but the label would reflect that.

I don't know why you ignore hard data. Give me a link or something to show that nutritional labels do not matter.

[Nomad]

Ingredients of common white bread:
Whole wheat flour, water, wheat gluten, high fructose corn syrup, contains 2% of less of: soybean oil, salt, molasses, yeast, mono and diglycerides, exthoxylated mono and diglycerides, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, calcium iodate, calcium dioxide), datem, calcium sulfate, vinegar, yeast nutrient (ammonium sulfate), extracts of malted barley and corn, dicalcium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, calcium propionate (to retain freshness).

Ingredients of common wheat bread:
Whole wheat flour

A calorie is not a calorie, it is not reflective of what creates that calorie.

[j]

Nomad, you left a lot of ingredients out for wheat bread. Go to http://www.auntmillies.com/#goto_productsBreadHearth. Under the organic, compare the ingredents of 100% whole wheat and country white. Or the Homestyle, Country butter Milk to 100% whole wheat. Fiber only deviates by 1gram. All the Vitamin contents resulted in being the same. Looks like whole wheat or bleach wheat loose a heck of a lot of nutritional content during the processing stage. So much so they end up being the almost the same in the end product.

Oh a calorie IS a calorie. That's like saying an inch is not an inch.

I get your point that the total calorie count is made up of sugars, proteins and fats and the total calorie count is shifted in one of 3 direction depending on the food. And sugars you will retain more weight from calories from sugars than proteins.

To that point, look at the spreadsheet and compare the sugars and proteins. Very little difference. 1gram in most cases.

[Gnome Queen]

I'm kind of glad I missed this argument because I was curling my hair.

[j]

I'm kind of glad I missed this argument because I was curling my hair.

GQ Wins! :p

[Nomad]

You are God-awful retarded.

Nomad, you left a lot of ingredients out for wheat bread. Go to http://www.auntmillies.com/#goto_productsBreadHearth. Under the organic, compare the ingredents of 100% whole wheat and country white. Or the Homestyle, Country butter Milk to 100% whole wheat.

No, I didn't. Each brand has different ingredients. I make bread at home. I use water and wheat flour. You can buy lots of brands like that. We are talking about wheat bread, not Aunt Millie's shit they are allowed to market because the FDA has bad labeling practice.

I'm not pretending all wheat bread is the same anyhow. But wheat, unless infused with cancer, is always better than non-wheat products.

Fiber only deviates by 1gram. All the Vitamin contents resulted in being the same. Looks like whole wheat or bleach wheat loose a heck of a lot of nutritional content during the processing stage. So much so they end up being the almost the same in the end product.

Simply because something has the same grams and vitamins does not mean it does the same thing in your body. Since you cannot understand this, I will write it all big and lol

Simply because something has the same grams and vitamins does not mean it does the same thing in your body.\

Oh a calorie IS a calorie. That's like saying an inch is not an inch.

No. You are wrong. WRONG. wrong. -5 points for a dumb analogy. Since when is length and energy even in the same bio-mechanical ballpark?

If a calorie was just a calorie, I would sit on my ass and eat zebra cakes all day instead of chicken. Do you think a calorie is just a calorie to someone with peanut allergies?

"lol it says it's got 14g of fat, just like this hamburger, I guess the ingredients don't matte--OH SHI' I'VE GOT HIVES AND AM DYING, WHY DID I USE J's LOGIC AND END UP IN THE HOSPITAL WITH AN EPI PEN IN MY HEART."

Biochemically speaking, the ingredients interact different in your body, even if they are protein, carbs, or fats.

I get your point that the total calorie count is made up of sugars, proteins and fats and the total calorie count is shifted in one of 3 direction depending on the food. And sugars you will retain more weight from calories from sugars than proteins.

Right, and if your bread is loaded with 17g of high-fructose corn syrup (despite just being 'a carb') it will be different than if you consume 17g of wheat pasta.


I am right, you are wrong. My experience trumps yours, and my dick is also bigger. Thanks for playing.

[MAGIC]

8===D
8==========================D

[Koreish]

And suddenly J's avatar becomes appropriate.

[j]

Nomad you sad little boy.
"No. You are wrong. WRONG. wrong. -5 points for a dumb analogy. Since when is length and energy even in the same bio-mechanical ballpark?"

-10 for not knowing what a calorie is. But ok if you want an analogy with energy terms I'll rephrase: It's like saying a Joule is not a Joule. So your so very wrong. 1 calorie from fat IS = to 1 calorie of sugar. Just as 1 Joule of electricity IS = to 1 Joule of heat transfer. Come back when you know more about SI terms and what they mean. NEXT.

"Simply because something has the same grams and vitamins" So 1 gram of Vit C from an Orange is different from 1 gram of Vit C from Apple. Sorry, no matter were the gram comes from Vit C will act the same way.

"I make bread at home. I use water and wheat flour"
HEY EVERYBODY Buy Nomad brand breads it's the most nutritious thing on the planet. kuz hez makz breadz at homez. -- you tart.

[j]

I believe you're the first one to call names.

[Nomad]

I believe you're the first one to call names.

norly?

[ardichoke]

J... as much as I hate to get in the middle of this... you're wrong.

A calorie is a unit of energy. It makes a big difference where this energy comes from. That's why they put on the labels things like "calories from fat" because calories that come from fat are WAY worse for you than calories that come from, oh, say wheat. I agree with (and write this down people, it may never happen again) Nomad. You're all sorts of wrong.

[RyderOCZ]

Here is where this is all getting messed up.

Jeff, you are going by the strict definition. The point here is that your body does care where that calorie comes from, not just that is "is a calorie".

[ardichoke]

I propose an experiment to put the calorie argument to rest. J, figure out your normal daily caloric and vitamin intake. Then for a month match your normal caloric intake with nothing but junk food (chocolate, ice cream, donuts, etc.). Make up the vitamin difference with supplements. I'm willing to bet your body ends up in not very good shape sir.

[j]

Noman and Ardichoke:

a calorie is a unit of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius at a specified temperature.

I'm positive that when they say a calories from wheat is better than a calorie from fat it's because of the bi-products after the calorie is used up or how they get stored when you don't use the calorie. Don't get confuse with energy transfer and mass.

[j]

. caloric intake with nothing but junk food (chocolate, ice cream, donuts, etc.).

That's my weekend food :tongue:

[ardichoke]

I'm not J... that's the point... the byproducts have an effect on your body and thus the calories from wheat bread produce fewer bad byproducts than the calories from white bread. Thus, wheat bread is better for you than white bread. QED. STFU.

[Gargoyle]

I had no idea Icrontic had so many nutrition scientists. Time to add a new tab in the navbar, I guess.

[Nomad]

I had no idea Icrontic had so many armchair nutritionists. Time to add a new tab in the navbar, I guess.


fixed

[j]

ahh and here is were my data wins. Where the calories are, is located in the nutritional label. Fibers, Sugars and Fats. The breads I compared had equal values (for the most part). And that's my point. If they have the same mass of Fiber, Sugar and fats, they should break down the same way. and the byproducts should be the same.

it seems to me the no one wants to look at the nutrition label.

[Nomad]

they should break down the same way.

They don't though. Such a pity.

[Thrax]

It seems to me nobody wants to look at your nutritional label because you used inconceivably shitty bread as your sample. If you want to do an experiment, experiment with the right materials, Beakman.

Your metabolism doesn't give two shits about what the label says. Nine grams of 100% whole wheat flour is digested vastly differently from nine grams of bleached flour. From how much energy the body can recruit from every gram, to what sugars are produced, to how much insulin responds, to how much glycogen is generated, every step of the metabolic process varies.

But again, wheat vs. white doesn't apply when you pick crap bread.

[ardichoke]

The fiber sugar and fats will all break down the same way, however the actual WHEAT vs your cheap white-bread bleached flour will not.

[Thrax]

I think this thread is just J's attempt to justify a terrible diet so he doesn't have to feel guilty about eating food that's terrible for anybody.

[primesuspect]

As with all arguments with Jeff, I predict a RAPID degeneration into a semantic argument in less than 10 minutes.

[j]

They don't though. Such a pity.

provide a link of this process. I want to know byproducts of each.

I at least provided data for my argument.

[Thrax]

The burden of proof is on you, since you claim that 30 years of metabolic science is open to debate. If you expect us to follow a crack scientific process, we can expect you to respect the burden of proof.

Prove that it is wrong.

[j]

I think this thread is just J's attempt to justify a terrible diet so he doesn't have to feel guilty about eating food that's terrible for anybody.

Hamburger helper, makes a good meal, what? ;D

[j]

As with all arguments with Jeff, I predict a RAPID degeneration into a semantic argument in less than 10 minutes.

Yes, using correct terms is always wrong. :tim:

[j]

The burden of proof is on you, since you claim that 30 years of metabolic science is open to debate. If you expect us to follow a crack scientific process, we can expect you to respect the burden of proof.

Prove that it is wrong.

1) all science is open for debate. That's what makes science great and how we advance. The world was flat, and flying was imposable at one time.

2) I'm not debating the metabolic process. I'm debating that most manufactured bread are a like.

I used crap bread in my study. It's crap because it proved a point? As I said before I'm sure there are uber health breads that are jammed packed with Vitamins and and other good things for you, but how do make the comparison.

Here this is real simple. Post a bread that you consider to be healthy and compare it to the "crap breads" I have. The label should be different and then we just look at the ingredients.

Ok everyone Bread choices to compare. who's got one

[Thrax]

That's not how the burden of proof works, Jeff. You are attempting to discredit the establishment; please provide incontrovertible proof that your assertions are correct.

[CB]

Okay: here's the thing:

Jeff is right a calorie is a calorie in chemical terms, so where does this break down when we get into nutrition? Your body doesn't combust its fuel for energy.

If our bodies were steam engines then it wouldn't matter where the calories come from, calorie is calorie, heat is heat.

Everything that can be lit on fire has chemical calories. Those calories are not a good way to measure nutrition, but we use it anyway because it's the only thing that we have to measure with. Here's the best example I can think of:

A sheet of paper has how many chemical calories in it? 5? 10? okay, whatever that is... When you eat a sheet of paper, what happens to it in your body? nothing, it goes in one end, and out the other because our chemical systems can't process wood-pulp. dietary caloric intake is nul, despite what the label may say.

So: different things give more dietary calories than others, but that's not all:

As far as things that can be processed by the body, the way the body uses it is often determined by where it is processed. Something that can only be processed by the liver (like fructose), for example can cause different things to happen than something that is processed in the brain (like ethanol) or in the intestines (like lactose).

It's cool that you want to see the science behind it. There is a great video that I posted in this board (http://icrontic.com/forum/showthread.php?t=85213) called Sugar: the Bitter Truth which talks about all of this stuff from a scientific, chemical interaction viewpoint. Watch it, and get back to us.

You want some references for the points that the Brothers Hallock are making, that video should suffice.

[Koreish]

Bam! (http://www.vegetariantimes.com/features/editors_picks/389)

[lordbean]

I think you guys are offering too much proof of the accepted science. You're not leaving him anything to argue.

[j]

CB: WOW This is exactly what what I was looking for. The detail was awesome and I have a new understanding if sugars. I have to sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention.

A few things in that video that did proof my point. about 45 mins in he mentioned white bread and how it is adsorbed with out any problems. But he also said maid with glucose. This was the key I was looking for. All the breads I compared all contain fructose/sucrose. Which still makes all bad for you.

However, I will tip my hat to Thrax (with the help of CB) to say if your bread is made with the correct ingredients, sugars being very important, that the bread will be healthy for you, because of the way your body uses it. the way the sugars are used was absolutely fascinating.

I would still say I'm correct that white and wheat are the same, especially if they contain fructose but if I compared a white bread with fructose and a wheat bread with glucose I would not be able to see that on the nutritional label. So I will say the nutritional label does not reflect the whole story of the ingredients, I was wrong on this part.

Koreish: you just helped me proof that not everything on the internet is true. The 1st paragraph states that wheat is much higher in fiber and other B vit.. My data proves the opposite.

I will definitely pay more attention to my diet. Look like I'm headed for a heart attack and that really scares me. But I have to look at more that just weather its whole grain or white enriched, organic, or preprocessed. I'm kinda at a loss to determine what is good and bad. Knowing what fructose is a good start.

Great comments by all, yes even Nomad :-)

[Koreish]

I think you guys are offering too much proof of the accepted science. You're not leaving him anything to argue.

Should we argue with made up facts? Or unaccepted science?

[Thrax]

Koreish: you just helped me proof that not everything on the internet is true. The 1st paragraph states that wheat is much higher in fiber and other B vit.. My data proves the opposite.

No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread.

[Thrax]

I would still say I'm correct that white and wheat are the same, especially if they contain fructose but if I compared a white bread with fructose and a wheat bread with glucose I would not be able to see that on the nutritional label.

You're not, because wheat is not a sugar and the wheat is more important than any additive. The structural complexities of coarse-ground wholegrain wheat not only retards the insulinemic response(1) to promote lipolysis (2) when compared to refined wheat, but its higher fiber content and digestive difficult also reduces caloric uptake(3).

(1) Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/591):
"Plasma glucose and insulin responses (area under the curve) were highest after the fine-flour meal, followed by the coarse flour and cracked grain, with the lowest area under the curve observed after the whole-grain meal."

(2) Insulin and Glucagon (http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%203-4/homeostasis_2.htm):
"At the same time, insulin restrains processes that release stored energy; lipolysis and ketogenesis, glycogenolysis, proteolysis and gluconeogenesis. Insulin is necessary for uptake of amino acids to tissues and for protein synthesis. Insulin is THE central actor in homeostasis; the stabilization of the internal milieu."

(3) The calorie delusion: Why food labels are wrong (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html)
"Yet according to a small band of researchers, using the information on food labels to estimate calorie intake could be a very bad idea. They argue that calorie estimates on food labels are based on flawed and outdated science, and provide misleading information on how much energy your body will actually get from a food. Some food labels may over or underestimate this figure by as much as 25 per cent, enough to foil any diet, and over time even lead to obesity. As the western world's waistlines expand at an alarming rate, they argue, it is time consumers were told the true value of their food."

But again, I'd like to point out that you have not yet provided any evidence to suggest or otherwise confirm that your viewpoint on the matter is correct.

[lordbean]

Should we argue with made up facts? Or unaccepted science?

Time travel to the future and get some of that science and argue with it.

I dunno. :tongue:

But yeah. He ALSO says several times during the lecture "even though a food may not have fructose, does not mean there aren't OTHER things in it that aren't good for you." Particularly when referring to McDonald's foodstuffs. Oh look, white bread in the hamburger patties.

[j]

Time travel to the future and get some of that science and argue with it.

I dunno. :tongue:

But yeah. He ALSO says several times during the lecture "even though a food may not have fructose, does not mean there aren't OTHER things in it that aren't good for you." Particularly when referring to McDonald's foodstuffs. Oh look, white bread in the hamburger patties.

The buns have fructose. He states that quite clearly.

[lordbean]

True, but the point is, ingredients are not black and white. I fully agree with the "a calorie is not a calorie" assessment, especially in this case. White bread contains traces of things (such as bleach) that really have no place voluntarily entering your body. Whole wheat bread (when properly prepared) does not.

[j]

Thrax:
"No, he helped you prove that you used shitty bread."

I think this statement ends the debate. All I can really say about the data is that the wheat and white used in the study were similar. I can't say all white vs all wheat are a like. I have to be careful of other ingredients make bread shitty. Some of the breads I used said whole wheat and whole grain, but still is shitty? How can I tell the difference? Should I look at the sugar to fiber ratio. I will agree non-shitty wheats will have a higher ratio. Who makes "good" breads?

It's too late to read all the articles you produced, I'll get to that later. I'm sure there informative. That's the information I'm looking for. Just saying i'm wrong isn't enough for me, especially when I have reason to question.

I'm a big pain in the ass sometimes, stubborn, hard headed, but I do admit when I'm wrong. I'm wrong. I made a false assumption based on bad data. That's how I learn sometimes. I don't like taking something at face value. Maybe that's a flaw I have, maybe not. I'll say at the end of this one I did learn quite a bit and I can say that's at all bad.

[j]

This video was good I think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbU26gxE-Qw

non of my breads said 100% whole grain. Is that what makes them shitty? or is whole grain at the top of the list ok?

[Thrax]

Refer to the FDA's CFR Title 21, parts 135, 136 and 137 for information on product branding that indicates a certified 100% wholegrain content:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm

[MAGIC]

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/this-thread-sucks/8/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[GHoosdum]

I didn't look at the nutritional information in your spreadsheet (because I haven't downloaded the Office 2007 compatibility pack yet), but here is the info from the bread I like to buy at the store:

Serving Size: 1 slice
Calories: 100
Calories from fat: 10
Total Fat 1g (saturated 0g trans 0g)
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 200mg
Total Carbohydrates: 19g
Dietary Fiber 3g
Sugars 3g
Protein 5g

Ingredients: Whole wheat flour, water, vital wheat gluten, molasses and <2% of a bunch of stuff I can't pronounce and would rather not eat.


It's not the healthiest bread (not as good for you as Nomad's unleavened flour & water only recipe), but it's one of the healthier ones on the shelves, especially compared to white breads. Healthy(ish) breads are out there on the shelves, they just usually cost about a dollar more per loaf than the others. I think it's worth it for my health, though.

You're correct in saying that most "wheat" sandwich breads on the shelf are no better for you than the typical white bread. The only difference between them, generally, is unbleached vs. bleached flour, but it's still refined flour. The good breads (usually) are larger slices than sandwich size (for some reason I don't understand), often say "100% whole wheat", and usually feel like a bowling ball in comparison to the sandwich loaves. I usually look at the label of these and try to find those lowest in any refined sugar. But like I said, the better nutrition comes at a price.

[Annes]

Ezekiel 4:9 bread. Freezer section. It makes the best damn toast ever.

Ingredients:
Organic Sprouted Wheat, Organic Sprouted Barley, Organic Sprouted Millet, Malted Barley, Organic Sprouted Lentils, Organic Sprouted Soybeans, Organic Spelt, Filtered Water, Fresh Yeast, Sea Salt

[Gargoyle]

Ezekiel 4:9 bread rocks.

[j]

You're correct in saying that most "wheat" sandwich breads on the shelf are no better for you than the typical white bread. The only difference between them, generally, is unbleached vs. bleached flour, but it's still refined flour. The good breads (usually) are larger slices than sandwich size (for some reason I don't understand), often say "100% whole wheat", and usually feel like a bowling ball in comparison to the sandwich loaves. I usually look at the label of these and try to find those lowest in any refined sugar. But like I said, the better nutrition comes at a price.

Damit where were you a few days ago. :-).