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]