Quinoa, famous for protein and fiber content, still contains less protein and fiber than, say, oatmeal. It's okay - hyperventilating paleo bloggers have raised concerns about saponins -- but the whole "superfood" frenzy about quinoa is just a tad off base. It's okay, not bad for you, probably better than white rice or processed food, but most of what quinoa has going for it is simply that it is real and unmodified. If it "took over the world", it would be sweetened, boiled, extracted, and fried into chips with none of the nutritional benefits people are seeking therefrom anyway.
"Quinoa is a low-calorie, gluten-free, high-protein grain that tastes great." says the author.
It's low-calorie compared to butter maybe, and high-protein compared with a cucumber. But compared with the usual suspect of dinner alternatives like pasta or couscous it's just the same. Just by looking at the macros, there's no need to buy quinoa, especially if it's more expensive than other options. This is of course disregarding that it's gluten free and not looking at the micronutrients.
Maybe I'm going cross eyed from a long day, but looking at that result... how can Quaker oatmeal have 2g of protein and be 5% USRDA, while quinoa has 4g of protein yet 7% USRDA? Shouldn't that be 10% USRDA for quinoa?
Probably rounding issues, maybe intentional. Food vendors are known to fudge numbers in the low digits, legally, which result in problems like this when you extrapolate.
It's gluten free, which is important for some people (a lot if you buy into wheat belly). It's another source of a complete protein, which is important for vegans.
Not all popular health foods get converted into crap. There might be unhealthy variants of these, but fruits, vegetables, legumes, fish and soy tend to be popular and healthy. I'd even say that processed foods which are based on these, like french fries, are better than those based on sugar (like a chocolate bar).
It's about perspective. In a world where people eat fabricated sugars and fat, you're doing a disservice to it. It is, categorically, healthy.
> It's gluten free, which is important for some people (a lot if you buy into wheat belly).
Gluten is most likely not the problem for most people with digestive problems, although there is a strong belief that gluten is bad.
The most likely reason why many people have problems digesting wheat, is because it contains fructans. Nobody can digest it, but it causes more problems for some than for others, e.g. if you have IBS (which about 1 in 7 people has). Spelt, an ancient variety of wheat, also contains gluten, but has low levels of fructans, and is thus more easily digested.
There is a pretty well-researched diet for people with IBS, called the Low FODMAP (Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides, and Polyols) diet. It tries to reduce the amount of complex carbohydrates (which are not easily digestible) from the diet to a level where they do not cause digestive problems.
Unfortunately, it is not widely known yet, so a lot of people buy into all kinds of wishful thinking (that often comes with a price tag).
I'm afraid you've forgotten about what is, likely, the most critical piece of dietary advice in the past 30 years. Specifically, that unnatural trans-isomer fatty acids should never be consumed. Glutens, saponins, oligosaccharides etc are irritants; elaidic acid is basically toxic. Unfortunately, while some stable non-hydrogenated oils like palm oil have become popular, it seems that popular opinion at large generally forgot trans fats existed after 2009. They still exist and they're still really bad for you. So don't eat french fries, is what I'm saying. Or other deep-fried things from restaurants that haven't eliminated hydrogenated oils from their cooking. In-N-Out is ahead of the curve on this. Five Guys is as well.
>"Probably better than processed food"
Originally that sentence just said "probably better than rice", and was modified until it sounded silly...
Would you use Oatmeal in place of rice though? I couldn't picture a healthy curry or stir-fry that used Oatmeal instead of Quinoa in place of rice, could you?
Good question. I've never thought about why there aren't more savory foods out there that use oatmeal. Seems like all the oatmeal-based foods I've seen are sweet.
I suppose that's because they are rolled. And most likely steamed as well. If you subjected wheat or corn to a similar processing, the outcome would certainly be the same.
Traditionally yes, and oatcakes are pretty common here as well. Bulk produced oatcakes are sometimes sweetened and rather compressed, proper oatcakes aren't sweetened and have a much rougher texture.
