On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:22:23 -0400, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>If you go to the USDA and compare white and brown cooked
>long-grain rice (not enriched) you will find that the white rice
>has a lot more thiamin, about half as much riboflavin, only
>slightly less niacin, more pantothenate, less pyridoxine, much
>more folate -- than brown rice.

That thiamin is added for shure. And i think this is the reason, why all
white rice eating people survive and don't become obese.
I looked at my only non-usda list from a german program.
i get for rice per 100g raw:
     white    whole
b1     .1       .4
b2     .0       .1
b6     .2       .6
E      .4       .8
fol. 17.8     12.8
Mg   40      120
Ca    6.      25.0
Fe     .6      2.0
(pant and niacin not available)
Folate seems to be in the white inner parts.
But all the other goodies are concentrated outside.

>It is not at all "devoid of
>vitamins."  This suggests that while some vitamins are lost in
>the polishing process, most are retained.  I don't think the data
>support the view that white rice, but not brown rice, causes
>diabetes.  The nutritional differences are not significant
>enough.  It would have to be both or neither.

I think there are laws that polished rice *has to* be enriched....
My older data semes to show this.
Luck ... for eaters of white rice....
And hope that everything necessary *is* enrichend.
(probably not alpha lipoic acid...)

Amadeus




>Todd Moody
>[log in to unmask]