Rude Food by Vir Sanghvi: Going against the grain
2 months ago | 5 Views
It wasn’t until I went to boarding school in north India that I realised that many people thought of rice as a soft or flabby food that made people fat. Wheat, on the other hand, was hailed as the food of champions and strongmen. (It was a boys-only school so we had no idea what made women strong.)
In keeping with the north-Indian ethos, rice was served at the school dining hall only on certain days of the week. Wheat, on the other hand, was served three times a day. At breakfast, not only did we get wheat toast but we also ate cereal made from cracked wheat rather than the more traditional oats.
I found this very odd. I am a Gujarati, so at home we ate both wheat and rice with every meal (along with besan and other flours) without thinking too much about it. In Gujarat, the wheat comes first (as chapatis, puris, or whatever) but rice is usually the second course.
I knew already, because I had grown up in Mumbai, that many rice eating communities flourished: South Indians, Goans, Bengalis and many coastal communities. The north Indians believed that all of these people had suffered as a consequence of their love for rice.
North Indians were in no doubt that one reason they were so much stronger than south Indians was because they were macho wheat-eaters, compared to the namby-pamby rice eaters in the south. Bengalis were not in the same league as brave north Indians and for Gujaratis, the less said the better.
Looking back, I find this characterisation of rice not just nonsensical, but also ironic, especially as the tables have now turned. These days, it is wheat that is cast as the villain because people complain about gluten, and restaurants often notice that because of a no-gluten policy on the part of their guests, more and more people are not touching the bread baskets.
Gluten-free is a difficult concept to understand because it suggests that all gluten is bad for you. And yet, our ancestors have been eating gluten for centuries. The most likely explanation is that modern farming has caused us to plant new seeds and the wheat that grows out of these, usually lab-created seeds, is different from the stuff our ancestors would eat.
The global backlash against wheat is probably excessive, but I do know many people who feel better now that they’ve given up wheat. Even in my own case, I find myself uncomfortably bloated and slightly ill after eating certain kinds of wheat. The problem is that you can’t really tell, when you start eating, which wheat product is going to do this to you. So, there is an element of roulette to it.
Wheat is not as major a problem for us in India as it is in the United States, where the obesity epidemic is directly linked to excessive consumption of wheat at fast-food restaurants. The fast-food industry is effectively a means of selling wheat: In buns for hamburgers and hotdogs, in pizzas, desserts, in the breads and cookies at coffee bars, etc. So far, at least, that has not worried us too much in India. But it probably will in a few years.
At the same time, all of India seems to have become more familiar with rice. Biryani is now the most ordered dish in the country. South Indian food, which has a higher rice content, has spread to all parts of India. Suddenly rice is getting its due.
This is only right. India gave rice to the world. There are two theories about how our rice got to the west. One is that Alexander the Great’s men took rice back to Europe and the Arabs who they encountered along the way, picked up the habit from them. Another theory said the Arabs had to wait until the seventh century, when they conquered Sindh, discovered rice and took it back. That may have been the turning point: There is no mention of pilaf in Middle Eastern cuisine until the Middle Ages. The Arabs then took rice to Spain and Italy, where it is ubiquitous, though it remains a relatively recent entrant into the cuisine. The first risotto recipe only dates back to 1809.
Obviously, our ancestors knew a thing or two when they gave rice to the world. They must’ve known that it was healthier (or at least potentially healthier) than wheat.
Doctors will tell you to consume food that releases glucose slowly into the bloodstream and stabilises your blood sugar levels; crucial in regulating both diabetes and your own weight. The rate at which foods release sugar within the body is recorded by something called GI (glycaemic index); the higher the GI in a food, the worse it is for your blood sugar.
White bread has a GI of between 70 to 85, depending on where the bread is from and how it is made. In contrast white Basmati has a GI of between 50 to 58.
So, it is really a no contest. Rice is much better if you want to battle today’s health crises. Of course, there are other factors. The fibre content matters and white Basmati is not the best source for that. Doctors will tell you that brown rice contains much more fibre. They are right, but there are two problems with this. One is that most people don’t really love brown rice. And the other comes from my own experience. I experimented with eating white rice and brown rice on different days and tested my sugars afterwards. I found it did not matter what kind of rice I ate. The levels stayed the same with brown and white rice.
But once you realise that rice may be better for your sugar levels, it gets more complicated. What breed of rice are we talking about?
The general rule, which sounds counter intuitive, is that long grain is better in GI terms than most short-grain rices. This is because it has (sorry to get technical) a higher content of amylose, which slows down the digestion and the release of sugar into the blood.
More counter intuitive is the fact that jasmine rice (used by Thai and Chinese restaurants) has a far higher GI and quickly releases sugar into the blood. Arborio and other risotto rices are the same; sugars flood the blood. Asian sticky rice may be among the worst when it comes to GI.
Not only does Basmati come off better than most international varieties, it also has a lower GI than most Indian short-grain south Indian varieties. They are delicious but they do have a higher GI than long grain rice, especially Basmati.
This is not always obvious, because a recent attempt has been made to trumpet the virtues of Sona-Masoori, developed from two different species of rice (Sona and Masoori) in south India, especially around Andhra Pradesh. There is a lot to say in favour of Sona-Masoori which is delicious but no, it does not have a lower GI than Basmati despite what you may have seen on YouTube.
There is one more fact worth remembering. Scientists have found that parboiled rice can have a lower GI than fresh rice. There is something about the par-boiling process that changes the character of the rice and makes it healthier. I don’t know if it’s the same principle but a similar argument has been made over the last two years for cooling and reheating cooked rice.
If you cook rice and then leave it overnight in the fridge, or if after cooking, you leave it in a cool place for six hours or so, the composition of the rice will change. The only explanation possible is technical so I have no choice but to use jargon! Apparently , the natural starches in the rice get converted into what is called resistant starch. Resistant starches are created when starch molecules become tightly packed after the rice is cooled. In resistant starch, the sugar molecules are not as easily broken down in the body and do not spike your sugar levels so much.
Even if you reheat the rice, the resistant starch advantage remains.
What this means is that if you want to eat rice that has less effect on your blood sugars or does not make you put on much weight, then go by the GI numbers, and in this case, go with the lower GI of rice that has been cooked and cooled before you reheat it again.
When I think back to all the schoolboy prejudice, I wish I could travel back in time and tell the north Indian champions that they were on the road to disaster. Wheat breeds would evolve, many new breeds would harm the gut and gluten intolerance would become a huge problem. Rice, which they regarded as namby-pamby would hold its own even as new varieties were created. There would be no allergies or intolerances of the kind we see with gluten. Rice would have a much lower GI index and if you used a few tricks, you could lower that even further.
I sometimes see guys from my school, and they are now struggling with gut issues, sugar problems and obesity.
It would be wrong to blame that on wheat alone. But honestly, shouldn’t they have cut through their macho prejudices and eaten more rice?
