Bean sprouts seem to be little altered from beans, yet they are cruchy and tasty-more like vgetables. Do they have more nutriments? Or are they basically the same as the unsprouted beans?
I believe the sprouts convert some of the starches into sugars, among other changes. Barley is sprouted in the process of making beer. Sprouted brown rice (GABA rice) is supposed to be more nutritious than ordinary brown rice.
That doesn’t answer the question.
It does. Starches and sugars are nutrients.
Same question, phrased differently. The answer would seem to be no—until photosynthesis occurs, you’re actually losing a little.
It says barley and rice are more nutritious, it didn’t say anything about beans. Not only that, but it says that they convert sugars into starches. If both sugars and starches are nutritious, why is it more nutritious to convert one into another?
Sprouted beans might more digestible. I don’t know, just speculating, but if sprouting converts complex starches into simple sugars your body may be able to extract more from the sprouts, which would mean sprouts would have more usable nutrition. Maybe. If that’s what’s really going on.
In addition, some kind of beans should not be eaten raw - they contain stuff that’s either indegistible for humans, or even mildly toxic (depending on the type of bean). Sprouting however starts enzymatic processes that might break down those compounds.
(I don’t remember which type of bean, but the author of a vegetarian cookbook told of how several years back, at a big vegetarian meeting in a Swiss hotel, the local cook decided that the vegetarians would like beans, and all that green stuff is the same anyway, made a meal from raw beans, and the attendees all got very sick.)
So the question is: raw sprouts vs. cooked beans?