4 ms·

I'm always a little perturbed when I read about "refined carbs" being bad for you. This is partially because of the "Paleo Diet" folks who rail against any and

I'm always a little perturbed when I read about "refined carbs" being bad for you. This is partially because of the "Paleo Diet" folks who rail against any and all grains (and legumes) all the time. How refined is too refined exactly? Is whole wheat bread considered refined? Oatmeal? Granola? Or are we specifically talking about white flour here?

weaksauce 16y ago
Not an expert by any means but I imagine that they are talking about high fructose corn syrup and bleached white flour.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, I don't think that's true. Grains in general are troublesome (there are some worse than others, so that for instance bran won't kill you and flax is downright good for you [but yech]), but this isn't some fad about how bleached flour is particularly bad for you. Foods consisting primarily of flour are in general not going to be particularly healthy. Here's a link: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl... 'carbocation posted a link to an Excel spreadsheet of GI listings for lots of foods, too. You'll find that the lists aren't simply about demonizing Coca Cola and Wonder Bread.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
carbocation 16y ago
I think they're really focusing on glycemic index here rather than whole/non-whole wheat. The glycemic index of any food can be determined empirically (it's the AUC of the 2hr blood glucose response curve after ingesting a fixed amount of said substance). Usually, pure glucose is the reference food that is pegged at 100, and everything else is represented as the relative fraction compared to glucose.
MWinther 16y ago
The Paleo diet is not exactly mainstream science, so I don't think that's neither here nor there in relation to this article. This seems to be a good summary of what refined carbs are: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdrate.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdra... Or, in short: All sugar including corn suryp, white grains (rice, wheat), starch, and grains in the form of flakes, puffs and so forth.
jerf 16y ago
I think I recognize the source of your distress. The same sort of thing I get when I see people use "natural" as a synonym for "good" and "unnatural" as a synonym for "bad", and think that once you've established something as "natural" or not, you can stop thinking about it. In this case, in addition to the other replies, I would point out that refined is not merely a synonym for "unnatural". The refining processes in question make the refined food much easier to digest, which causes the insulin spikes and (theoretically) the rest of the problems that arise when that happens chronically. Personally I don't think it's impossible to mass-produce quality food, and there are other forms of "refinement" that can either raise the quality of the food, or bring out specific characteristics of the food without much loss, such as cold-pressing oils, so I don't think of refinement itself as a sort of dirty word or anything. Much, if not most, of the reason we don't seem to mass-produce quality food is that we haven't had a correct definition of "quality food" here in the US for literally 50 years.
- puredemo 16y ago
  Thank you. So the study is mostly referring to deep fried foods, white flour and soda / processed sugar?
  - weego 16y ago
    Yes, for example unrefined pure granulated sugar has about half the glycemic index of white pure granulated sugar. Lots of places around the world use it (often called jaggeree or jaggery) in all kinds of cooking and they often use it so unrefined you have to boil it and skim off the impurities before adding it to the food. It might be possible to suggest that it is not in the interest of large corporations to have it known that doing nothing with food is better for you than having them do things to it and then sell it on for a decent markup. If you were to believe that we live in societies where Governments treat corporate interest ahead of that of their general population of course.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    No. It's referring to foods that have a relatively high glycemic index; those do include sugar (of all sorts) but also white rice, potatoes, juice, and most things made from any kind of flour.
MartinCron 16y ago
Demonizing any particular part of a diet is a dangerous route, as people tend to feel justified in eating how much of whatever doesn't contain the currently demonized nutrient. Example: the explosion of "low fat" snack foods that are downright bad for you,but sell well. With refined carbs (refined foods, actually) it should be seen as a spectrum, with less refined things (whole vegetables) being on on end and highly refined things (HFCS) on the other. Just favoring less refined things over more refined things, without specific prohibitions of any particular ingredient can be a good place to start. Example:I've cut out HCFS soda altogether, but I still put a teaspoon of real sugar in my coffee.
Kutta 16y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334034 Whole wheat, now matter how "unrefined" it is, is still an extremely crap food. You get a bit more minerals and proteins, but get more harmful phytates along with it. In general, it is like adding an ounce of quality wine to a barrel of sewage to beef it up, but the endproduct remains pretty much sewage. "Refined" is not the word we're looking for, we're looking for specific compositions and chemicals that pose risks to our health. Much like the natural/unnatural dichotomy refinedness provides almost zero explaining power in regards to the normative question of what is good for you.

weaksauce 16y ago

Not an expert by any means but I imagine that they are talking about high fructose corn syrup and bleached white flour.

tptacek 16y ago
No, I don't think that's true. Grains in general are troublesome (there are some worse than others, so that for instance bran won't kill you and flax is downright good for you [but yech]), but this isn't some fad about how bleached flour is particularly bad for you. Foods consisting primarily of flour are in general not going to be particularly healthy. Here's a link: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl... 'carbocation posted a link to an Excel spreadsheet of GI listings for lots of foods, too. You'll find that the lists aren't simply about demonizing Coca Cola and Wonder Bread.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

carbocation 16y ago

I think they're really focusing on glycemic index here rather than whole/non-whole wheat. The glycemic index of any food can be determined empirically (it's the AUC of the 2hr blood glucose response curve after ingesting a fixed amount of said substance). Usually, pure glucose is the reference food that is pegged at 100, and everything else is represented as the relative fraction compared to glucose.

MWinther 16y ago

The Paleo diet is not exactly mainstream science, so I don't think that's neither here nor there in relation to this article. This seems to be a good summary of what refined carbs are: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdrate.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdra... Or, in short: All sugar including corn suryp, white grains (rice, wheat), starch, and grains in the form of flakes, puffs and so forth.

jerf 16y ago

I think I recognize the source of your distress. The same sort of thing I get when I see people use "natural" as a synonym for "good" and "unnatural" as a synonym for "bad", and think that once you've established something as "natural" or not, you can stop thinking about it. In this case, in addition to the other replies, I would point out that refined is not merely a synonym for "unnatural". The refining processes in question make the refined food much easier to digest, which causes the insulin spikes and (theoretically) the rest of the problems that arise when that happens chronically. Personally I don't think it's impossible to mass-produce quality food, and there are other forms of "refinement" that can either raise the quality of the food, or bring out specific characteristics of the food without much loss, such as cold-pressing oils, so I don't think of refinement itself as a sort of dirty word or anything. Much, if not most, of the reason we don't seem to mass-produce quality food is that we haven't had a correct definition of "quality food" here in the US for literally 50 years.

puredemo 16y ago
Thank you. So the study is mostly referring to deep fried foods, white flour and soda / processed sugar?
- weego 16y ago
  Yes, for example unrefined pure granulated sugar has about half the glycemic index of white pure granulated sugar. Lots of places around the world use it (often called jaggeree or jaggery) in all kinds of cooking and they often use it so unrefined you have to boil it and skim off the impurities before adding it to the food. It might be possible to suggest that it is not in the interest of large corporations to have it known that doing nothing with food is better for you than having them do things to it and then sell it on for a decent markup. If you were to believe that we live in societies where Governments treat corporate interest ahead of that of their general population of course.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No. It's referring to foods that have a relatively high glycemic index; those do include sugar (of all sorts) but also white rice, potatoes, juice, and most things made from any kind of flour.

MartinCron 16y ago

Demonizing any particular part of a diet is a dangerous route, as people tend to feel justified in eating how much of whatever doesn't contain the currently demonized nutrient. Example: the explosion of "low fat" snack foods that are downright bad for you,but sell well. With refined carbs (refined foods, actually) it should be seen as a spectrum, with less refined things (whole vegetables) being on on end and highly refined things (HFCS) on the other. Just favoring less refined things over more refined things, without specific prohibitions of any particular ingredient can be a good place to start. Example:I've cut out HCFS soda altogether, but I still put a teaspoon of real sugar in my coffee.

Kutta 16y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1334034 Whole wheat, now matter how "unrefined" it is, is still an extremely crap food. You get a bit more minerals and proteins, but get more harmful phytates along with it. In general, it is like adding an ounce of quality wine to a barrel of sewage to beef it up, but the endproduct remains pretty much sewage. "Refined" is not the word we're looking for, we're looking for specific compositions and chemicals that pose risks to our health. Much like the natural/unnatural dichotomy refinedness provides almost zero explaining power in regards to the normative question of what is good for you.