Green - in post #167122, I quoted Mercola from his website. As for white rice, far better that what? Brown? THAT again goes against the SOP which Dedication quoted. I will agree that white rice is better than most American diets. I'll take the SOP over the websites you quoted any day.

Poisoning the well... Let me quote Mercola: "Grains should represent a small part of your diet, regardless of your age. I personally seek to avoid most grains, except rice." He then quotes "experts", one says avoid all grains, the other says a few non-toxic grains. Mercola says white is better that brown, but is the evidence quoted valid?

As for white rice, far better that what? Brown? THAT again goes against the SOP which Dedication quoted.

A plant of the genus Oryza, and its seed. The calyx is a bivalvular uniflorous glume; the corol bivalvular, nearly equal, and adhering to the seed. There is only one species. This plant is cultivated in all warm climates, and the grain forms a large portion of the food of the inhabitants. In America, it grows chiefly on low moist land, which can be overflowed. It is a light food, and said to be little apt to produce acidity in the stomach. Indeed it seems intended by the wise and benevolent Creator to be the proper food of men in warm climates.

Wherever fruit can be grown in abundance, a liberal supply should be prepared for winter, by canning or drying. Small fruits, such as currants, gooseberries, strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries, can be grown to advantage in many places where they are but little used and their cultivation is neglected. {MH 299.3}

She DOES say that one should have a "liberal supply" of fruit. To my mind, this could easily mean that more fruit than grains should be eaten.

Considering that the rice-eating Japanese are among the most long-lived on earth, white rice, and not brown rice--it appears that white rice cannot be held directly responsible for higher rates of mortality.

Yeah - I read Mercola like EGW, I read all around and don't take just a sentence here and there. As a whole, I'll pass on Mercola. As for EGW, it is hard for you to accept all she says...

Here is one of your sound bites: Quote Green:"In your quote, you included the first sentence which said "Grains should represent a small part of your diet, regardless of your age." Does that suddenly mean that we should not have grains in our diet at all? You see, you and I interpret differently. "

Now, did you keep reading what Mercola said? NO. You stopped with the first sentence. Mercola goes on to say, "I personally seek to avoid most grains, except rice. " Does that fit your interpretation of what he said? Nope.

There are those in my family who are very fond of beans, while to me beans are poison.

I cannot eat beans, for they are poison to me; but for me to say that for this reason no one must eat them would be simply ridiculous.

Mrs. White was teaching that beans are poison, according to APL and his famous logic.

When Dr. Mercola said that he personally chose to avoid grains, he was not making a rule for others, any more than Mrs. White was making a rule for all to avoid beans as she did. APL chose to ignore the word "personally."

I hope your Bible study is not like the pick-and-choose with news articles of this thread to support your own personal dietary desires, for the the truth becomes very obscure. The popular press has taken up the theme that "carbs are bad" and protein is good. And scientific studies have been published that say white rice is associated with an increase in diabetes. The "Green" title would be that white rice causes diabetes and maybe we should jail parents who feed their children white rice.

The following is from Dr. Rosane Oliveria's blog, of the University of California Davis (UC Davis) August 10, 2016.

The single most important staple food on the planet, rice currently feeds almost 50 percent of the world’s population.

Americans alone consume an average of a half-cup of cooked rice daily, more than three times of what they ate in the 1930s.

While white rice consumption is not linked to an increased risk of heart attack or stroke, it does seem to be associated with a higher incidence of diabetes.

Specifically, a meta-analysis of seven studies spanning two decades and 350,000 people showed an association between higher intake of white rice and an elevated rate of type 2 diabetes. It concluded that a single white rice serving per day could increase the risk of diabetes as much as 11 percent. It also noted that risk of developing diabetes was particularly high in Asian populations.

Japan has a higher incidence of diabetes relative to the US despite having eight times less obesity, while the Chinese diabetes rate rivals that of Americans (10 percent for China, 11 percent for the US) even though the former is seven times less obese.

Up until the year 2000, the Chinese enjoyed one of the lowest diabetes rates in the world. What has really changed in the last two decades is an increased consumption of animal-based foods.

Over the past 20 years, pork intake rose a dramatic 40 percent, oil consumption went up 20 percent and the amount of rice in the diet dropped 30 percent!

Since diabetes skyrocketed even though rice consumption decreased, this begs the question: Is the increase in diabetes linked to white rice or the rise of animal food intake?

Moreover, the dramatic uptick in diabetes incidence may also be explained by a little-known fact: combining animal protein with a refined carbohydrate like white rice sends your insulin soaring.

For example, if you feed people mashed white potatoes (a starchy, high carbohydrate food like white rice) and then add an animal protein like tuna fish to the meal, you get twice the insulin spike. Similar results are seen when you combine white flour spaghetti with meat.

Simply put, the addition of the animal protein will make the pancreas work overtime.

It is not the rice, it is the animal products. Should we jail everyone who feed their children meat? Green?

Abstract
The effect of brown rice with low protein intake was studied in five healthy young men. Feces were weighed, the digestibility of nutrients was determined, and blood tests were made. Each subject followed a diet consisting mainly of polished rice for 14 days and one consisting mainly of brown rice for 8 days. Both diets contained 0.5 g protein per kg of body weight. The brown rice diet had 3 times as much dietary fiber as the polished rice diet. On the brown rice diet, fecal weight increased, and apparent digestibility of energy, protein, and fat decreased, as did the absorption rates of Na, K, and P. The nitrogen balance was negative on both diets, but more negative on the brown rice diet. The phosphorus balance on the brown rice diet was significantly negative, but other minerals were not affected by the diet. The levels of cholesterol and minerals in the plasma were not significantly different on the polished rice diet and the brown rice diet. Comparing these results with data on standard protein intake (Miyoshi, H. et al (1986) J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol., 32, 581-589.), we concluded that brown rice reduced protein digestibility and nitrogen balance.