I’ve been searching informations about these two types of wheat. Clearly, we all know that whole wheat is healthier because of bran and germ, which contain fiber, vitamins and minerals, which endosperm doesn’t have on its own.
Now, what I’m wondering, how can whole wheat be better, if there is a lot of “anti-nutrients” in bran and germ (phytic acid, tannins…).
Refining wheat also increases it shelf life. Aren’t bran and germ just protectors of endosperm, so humans could safely consume endosperm?
Do these compounds actually have any role that is good for us? How can whole wheat be better if it has these chemicals in it?
This is a serious question, so please don’t reply if you only have google knowledge. (I would appreciate if someone with actual degree in some sort of school about nutrition (or a professional) answers this, thank you.)
I was watching this Nutrition Made Simple video, specifically the FAQ at the start and he said some things about anti nutrients.
>In nutrition science, [anti-nutrients] just means something that can interfere with the digestion and absorption of other nutrients. It doesn’t carry a negative connotation, necessarily. It’s more like a property. It could even be a good thing in some contexts. If we eat some whole grains like oatmeal, for example, the carbohydrates get absorbed gradually, so we get a normal response in terms of blood sugar levels, unlike what happens if we eat a bunch of refined table sugar.
>In nutrition science, saying something is an anti-nutrient is not a statement about the overall health value.
So basically, you need to be more specific about what these anti-nutrients you’re referencing are and what health outcomes they produce. You’d also need to consider the quantities of these anti-nutrients.
It seems unlikely that they’d completely cancel out the positive health effects of whole grains. Indeed, there’s a reason why they’re usually recommended as part of a healthy diet.