SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the we-don't-need-your-stinkin-GMO department, the Beeb reports that "Scientists have successfully decoded the genome of quinoa, one of the world's most nutritious but underutilised crops." The team was led by Mark Tester in Saudi Arabia.
The South American grain is a hugely popular "super-food" because it is well balanced and gluten-free. However, prices for quinoa have rocketed in recent years as demand exceeded supply. Researchers believe the genetic code will rapidly lead to more productive varieties that will push down costs.
They go on to say that the genome will be used to direct conventional plant breeding methods. Several traits of the 7000 year old South American grain would improve its utility such as reducing the level of saponins which make it bitter. Also, varieties could be bred for other climates. The plant is naturally able to grow in salty soils and another goal is to breed tolerance to irrigation with brackish water (partially desalinated sea water).
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday February 09 2017, @07:24PM
Summary: if you're going for a nutritious diet with carbs you might as well eat sardines, green vegetables (for fibre), potato or other cheap carb staple that suits you (rice, pasta). There's no significant benefit from quinoa and amaranth (they tend to be more expensive).
While I agree with you about the "superfood" hype around things like quinoa, total nutritional content is not the only thing one should look at in foods. You hint at this a bit in your discussion of fiber, but there is a metabolic difference in how your body processes orange juice compared to whole oranges. And there's a difference between how you metabolize finely ground bleached pastry flour vs. large whole-meal wheat flour or even whole wheat berries. (One metric for this is glycemic index, which has been connected not only to blood sugar/insulin response, but to hunger and patterns of food consumption.)
Now, that difference isn't necessarily huge between, say, whole wheat vs. white in things like pasta. You're right that a lot is made out of that difference, but it's relatively small. However, there are significant metabolic differences in how you might process, say, wheat bread compared to whole barley or even whole wheat berries. Sometimes the form of the food also makes a big difference -- for example, even white pasta typically has a significantly lower glycemic index compared to bread, because of the starch structure differences and how they are digested.
Meanwhile, potatoes frequently have some of the highest glycemic indexes. Again, none of this is an argument to join on the "superfood" hype and buy quinoa or amaranth or whatever unless you actually just like the flavor. You're certainly not going to be getting a lot more nutrition from them. BUT, not all starches are alike in the way the body processes them, and that can have significant effects. Fiber is one element that affects this, but there are other elements about the form of the food. Sometimes mixing things together can help (as you mention, like putting in beans, etc.) -- but the point is that among the cheaper starches, there are still sometimes better and worse choices, not just because of the nutrient breakdown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @03:42AM
The nutrition info in the links includes fibre and plenty of other stuff (omega 3, omega 6).
1) don't overcook your potatoes - e.g. cook to al dente, boil instead of bake.
2) cool them down before consuming
3) add some mayo/fat/vinegar dressing.
The result can be an effective glycemic index of about 50+ or even lower.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271531704001502 [sciencedirect.com]
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/cold-potatos-have-a-lower-glycemic-index/ [diabetesincontrol.com]
http://www.andersenchiro.com/potatoes-and-the-variability-of-the-glycemic-index.shtml [andersenchiro.com]
http://www.montignac.com/en/the-factors-that-modify-glycemic-indexes/ [montignac.com]
You mention whole oranges. Many popular fruits are overrated. Treat and enjoy them as a dessert. Or use them to fatten up. Many green leafy vegetables have more vitamin C than oranges. 100g of Broccoli has more vitamin C than 100g of oranges.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1966/2 [self.com]
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2357/2 [self.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @05:39AM
That said, the usual nutrition info can miss out on significant stuff like oxidization (rancidity) of the oils. That's normally not such a problem for fresh food but might be for preserved, canned or very processed stuff. Similar for content of pesticides and other toxins.
Oxidization of fish oil matters:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23863036 [nih.gov]
No surprise that consuming rotten fish is not so good for you, however this does raise the question of dried fish and other preserved fish (the manufacturers might not start out with fresh fish).
Many of those fish oil supplements have high oxidization levels:
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep07928 [nature.com]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4681158/ [nih.gov]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marketplace-fish-oil-omega-3-benefits-safety-1.3326587 [www.cbc.ca]