Dr. Harris recently said on his blog that he is eating a large bowl of Rice Krispies with half and half and adding starchy veggies to his once very low carb diet. He says that Rice Krispies contain no added sugar...but I've searched online and also looked at a box.. and it shows added sugar. (He also mentions carb levels up to 20% and that starchy veggies provide vitamins).
I know he is "panu" and not strickly paleo but can someone help me justify eating a processed, sugary breakfast cereal with milk every morning?
Dr Harris addressed this on his forum before getting pissed at forums and closing it down.
Basically, whenever he says "Rice Krispies", he's talking about some sort of generic "toasted rice". It may contain some amount of added sugar, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that significant (sweet potatoes contain sucrose too). His goal was to up his starch intake to help deal with a period of additional physical activity and probably had something to do with his changing views on ketosis.
From his perspective, "processing" is largely irrelevant, since "processing" includes such things as cooking, cutting or doing virtually anything other than killing and immediately eating something. Toasting some rice to make it crisp isn't any more a big deal than cooking a steak or boiling vegetables.
So whatever he's eating, it's not very sugary, its processing is minimal/irrelevant, and Harris has always been a milk-neutral sort of person (drink it if you tolerate it, don't if you don't).
PaNu is "Paleo". It's what Paleo should be, at least: use ideas about the past to generate hypotheses and then test them using modern science. If Paleo means stopping short of the test, then no, Panu isn't Paleo. If Paleo can handle getting tested, you'd get PaNu.
I think he said on his blog that he meant generic rice krispies. The actual brand contains barley malt which contains gluten. It is a common mistake of beginning gluten-intolerant and celiacs to think Rice Krispies cereal is safe. It is also full of sugar. Not my first choice if I am going to waste some empty carbs.
Actually, Harris talks about carb levels from 5% to much higher than 20%. I believe Guyenet and Jaminet and others are ones recommending 20% carb being a minimum.
PaNu is a much more progressive/scientific version of Paleo. Based upon the remarks here, maybe it shouldn’t be lumped in with Paleo at all. I wouldn’t discount it though without reading more about what PaNu is all about.
It's not necessarily sweetened, so it would just be puffed rice. Rice isn't all that bad, it's just a nutrient-poor starch. Those nations who largely eat rice to their heart's content while eating low amounts of fructose are far leaner than other nations. The conventional wisdom offered by the lipid hypothesis states that it's the low amount of fat in their diets that keeps them lean. We know this to not be true, obviously.
It depends on whether he's talking about the literal Kellogg's cereal or whether he's doing that ubiquitous name brand thing like where all disposable handkerchiefs are Kleenex even if they're Puffs or store brand.
That, and maybe the name brand Rice Krispies didn't always have sugar in it. The big cereal companies change formulation all the time. I remember Krispies tasting real plain when I was a kid, and not being really crazy about them. At some point they tasted better to me. Maybe the difference in sugar content is why. So maybe Dr. Harris is operating from previous knowledge of the product and hasn't checked the label lately. It happens.
If it is just puffed rice I wouldn't see quite as much concern with it. Rice is probably the least harmful of the true grains. (Quinoa and amaranth are broadleaf seeds. Grains come from grasses.) At that point my only real concern is whether the cereal is extruded. If so, I still wouldn't eat it--I have heard from the Weston Price folks that extrusion warps the proteins in ways that aren't terribly good for us.
Tonight, I was ravenous, but didn't feel like cooking. I had a box of Trader Joe's Crispy Rice cereal from several months ago unopened in the pantry, and recalled this thread. It had been 7 weeks since I've had any (significant amounts of) grains, but I figured; hell, why not? I poured a bowl, but I didn't want to use milk. I think I do okay with dairy, but I just didn't feel like breaking too many "rules" this night. I instead poured enough heavy cream on the cereal to get the cereal wet, but not enough to get the cereal soaking, to provide a vaguely milky flavor and texture and went to town.
Eating the Crispy Rice cereal has a minor amount of what I call the 'heavy gut' feeling (many here have said happens) when I eat grain or starches. However, the small amount of cereal I had filled me up quite nicely (which, back in my SAD days would not have; I would have had to eat at least twice the amount I had tonight, with much more milk). I didn't experience any headaches or strange stomach pains I usually get with grains/starches either.
All in all, it isn't something I would do often as weight loss is a goal, but for a quick and "dirty" meal, it could have been worse. Just felt like sharing! :)
That sounds tasty...I haven't had those in many years, but with some many vitamin-rich starches...why???? My favorite starches are plantains cooked in coconut oil, cassava, and purple yam.
PaNu Forum Closed 7 Answers
Dr. Kurt Harris 3 Answers
Adding Rice to your Paleo Template? 13 Answers
Corn, egg, or rice noodles? 13 Answers