Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Question about beans.........
    rubystar2 posted:
    I don't understand how the carb and fiber values of various beans can differ from brand to brand. For example, I wanted to buy a bag of dried Garbanzo beans. I looked at the 'store brand' and then La Preferida brand. Here is what I found.

    This is a brand that WalMart sells and here is the nutritional value posted on the bag.

    Garbanzo Beans from Walmart

    Here is nutritional information for Garbanzo beans from Calorie King.

    Garbanzo Beans

    What do I believe. I imagine I must believe the nutritional information that comes on the particular bag I buy but I don't understand why there is such a discrepancy. I've noticed this on several different kinds of beans. I'd appreciate any help, advice, suggestions or information on this.

    rubystar2 responded:
    Oops. I just noticed the nutritional content on my second link isn't for the 45 g. I meant to post. Please fill in the correct serving size to compare the two. I'll try it again and see if I can get the post for the 45 g.

    Garbanzo beans.....take two!

    Both nutritional values I posted SHOULD be for 45 g. I only chose that amount since that is one I could get an identical comparison on. Some give nutritional facts in grams, ounces, cups, etc.
    rubystar2 replied to rubystar2's response:
    Nope, didn't work again. Please just adjust the amount on the CalorieKing website to show 45 g. Sorry for the multiple posts here.
    EngineerGuy responded:
    Hi RubyStar2,

    The Walmart nutrition label was for 45g of dried garbanzo beans. The Calorie King was for about 90g of cooked garbanzo beans, which is why the nutrients were about the same. 45 g of dried garbanzos will weigh about 90 grams when cooked.

    One good view of beans is to take a wide variety of beans, perhaps emphasizing any particular beans that you might like.

    Fuhrman allows them without limit. The more calories you can get from beans, the better off you are. They are nutrition power houses, all of them. More beans helps reduce the whole grains.

    I eat about 1/2 of my beans as lentils, because they cook up very easily (20-30 min) and are much less gassy than most beans. The other half of my beans are assorted beans. Pinto beans are not too gassy for me, but Red Kidney beans are very gassy for me. Each person is different.

    I season my beans (and veggies) with crushed garlic, and Italian seasoning mix. (I usually add cumin to veggies.)

    Another reason for variation between brands, is that sometimes the company will calculate the components, and sometimes they will measure. There is variation.

    Sometimes salt is listed as 0 (zero) for food with no salt added. Other brands will actually analyze the salt content, and list some salt content, even though none is added.

    I would suggest you choose your beans based on what you like, with an eye towards including a variety. Comparing labels is probably less important.

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    jc3737 replied to EngineerGuy's response:
    Beans vs whole garins

    Every health newsletter I read discusses the benefits of whole grains so it would seem they are superior to beans.

    Do you know the link to the research Fuhrman uses to support his recommendation for beans over whole grains?
    rubystar2 replied to EngineerGuy's response:
    Thank you very much, EG. I didn't realize the nutritional values would be cooked or not cooked. Great observation and thanks for pointing that out to me.
    geoffreylevens replied to jc3737's response:
    "Every health newsletter I read discusses the benefits of whole grains so it would seem they are superior to beans."

    Don't know what research Dr F bases his recommendation on for beans over grains but I do know beans have lot more fiber and have considerably lower glycemic response in body. Higher sugar blood sugar levels of course correlate w/ all sorts of problems...
    jc3737 replied to geoffreylevens's response:
    Could be...but then why don't beans get the praise from researchers that whole grains get.

    I'm sure Fuhrman has some solid research behind his recommendation...i wish he would share it with us.
    EngineerGuy replied to jc3737's response:
    Hi jc,

    About beans over grains...

    Beans are sort of limited, for most people, due to their entertainment value, so to speak. I'm sure to get 1 to 3 cups of beans daily.

    As a generalization, beans have twice the nutrition per calorie, compared to whole grains. Increasing nutrition, in fewer calories, is very healthful.

    Beans also have resistant starches, which are slow to be digested. The digestion continues in the intestines, which contribute to the entertainment value. However, there are many healthful benefits to this. Wikipedia has an interesting intro to resistant starches, with references

    Dr. Fuhrman had a teleconference on beans, spending quite a bit of time alluding to the complex affects of beans, on digestion, etc. It was all verbal, so I have no references, but I notice some of the same topics in the Wikipedia references.

    Just for clarity, Fuhrman does not prohibit whole grains. He just encourages us to get as many calories as possible from vegetables, beans, fruit, nuts and seeds (within limits) and then fill in with whole grains. The only whole grain I eat consistently is oatmeal and shredded wheat (yes, the shredded wheat is sub-optimal, but I like it, and I limit it.) On Pritikin, I got most of my calories from whole grains. Now, not much. :-)

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    jc3737 replied to EngineerGuy's response:
    EG,I can see why beans might be better for those who have trouble with wheat(gluten)but thats a very small percentage of people.

    But so many researchers and health newsletters(Harvard,Johns Hopkins,Mayo Clinic,Cleveland Clinic and many others)praise the nutritional value of whole grains and connect them with a wide variety of health benefits.They clearly trump beans(according to them).

    I wondered what different data or research Dr Fuhrman has to rate beans over whole grains.The link about resistant starch does not say much except to point out that beans are healthy,but mentions nothing that puts them in the class with whole grains.
    DeadManWalking56 replied to jc3737's response:
    America eats a lot of bread. There is a huge grain industry. One seldom see beans advertised, though one would think the growers would like to see an increase in sales. The grain industry may just be concerned, what with people trying to make easy weight loss choices. Less bread is not the problem, less dietary fat is, though many people use bread as just the non-greasy "handle" to eat their fatty foods, then blame it for the calories they need to cut.

    With double the nutrition for beans as stated by EG, that is very significant.

    My wife is thinking to go meatless more often with our evening meals, and beans will likely be a major replacement component. I should probably look to eat more hummus, or make my own.

    Yours in music,

    geoffreylevens replied to jc3737's response:
    "But so many researchers and health newsletters(Harvard,Johns Hopkins,Mayo Clinic,Cleveland Clinic and many others)praise the nutritional value of whole grains and connect them with a wide variety of health benefits.They clearly trump beans(according to them)."

    A lot of what gets in "newsletters" and even promoted by researchers is driven (in addition to $ from industries) by what they think people will actually pay attention to and do. I would bet that another reasons beans get shorted is that those doing the reporting just do not believe folks will eat much of them. Likely they are right on average.
    EngineerGuy replied to jc3737's response:
    Hi jc,

    Re: They [whole grains> clearly trump beans(according to them).

    Did the newsletters ever say that whole grains are better than beans?

    Grains are a staple for most people, especially white flour. Shifting from refined grains to whole grains would be a vast step, for most people. People eat far fewer beans. It just seems that the newsletters are giving advice according to what people eat, as GeoffreyLeven pointed out.

    Actually, I did not know how valuable beans were, until I followed Fuhrman. Most dieticians would not put as much emphasis on beans, as Fuhrman.

    Re: newsletters(Harvard,Johns Hopkins,Mayo Clinic,Cleveland Clinic and many others)...

    If you wait for these mainstream "moderation" newsletters to catch up, before following any dietary advice, aren't you stuck with the moderate (read that "ineffectual") American Heart Association diet?

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    jc3737 replied to geoffreylevens's response:
    Its hard to think the Mayo and Cleveland Clinic would let pressure affect their recommendations but it probably does to some extent.

    The grain industry probably has more influence than the bean industry and that may account for some of the research.

    But I wish Fuhrman would show us his research...that puts beans in the class with whole grains.
    jc3737 replied to EngineerGuy's response:
    The mainstream newsletters have had a long time to catch up(and may be caught up) so we have to consider the possibility that the popular low fat vegan diets greatly overstate their case.

    Lets also keep in mind that Essee once worked at the Cleveland Clinic so I'm sure his influence is still felt.

    The newsletters I read do not state that whole grains are better than beans...but...they pass on to their readers study after study showing associations of whole garins with a wide assortment of powerful health benefits....and...

    they don't do the same for beans....could be the result of industry influence...but you would think the Mayo and Cleveland clinic would be aware of this.If we can think of it I'm sure they can also.

    Spotlight: Member Stories

    I am a retired teacher and reading specialist. Love to travel! Enjoy volunteering with International English classes and activities. Family comes firs...More

    Helpful Tips

    Easy Fluoride Treatments for your teeth
    Hi folks, Background info: ============ My dentist prescribed some prescription grade fluoride toothpaste. For about $8, I got the ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    11 of 22 found this helpful

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.