Nutritional loss in milled flour

Hi. I’m interested in getting into milling my own flour but I’m trying do research on this and having a hard time finding quality information. I will just dump a few questions here and would love to hear more thoughts

Are there any recent studies that show how much nutritional loss flour experiences after being milled? I’m familiar with one 1970 study that showed rats eating old flour and becoming impotent after 4 generations…but is there anything more current? This question is kind of a roundabout way of helping me understand whether it’s “worth it” it mill my own wheat.

Can anyone share their experiences of achieving a T85 high extraction flour with a home mill? What kind of sieve do you use and how long does that take?

Same goes for, say, Type 00 flour—is this possible with a mock mill?

What are the best books that dive into this topic?

You are one generation so you’re fine. I’m sure this study doesn’t translate into humans who have been buying and eating milled flour for many generations and the human population is growing. Seven billion and counting. Buy flour that’s fresh, don’t go past the use by date and store correctly. Studies in Labs, be it rats or test tubes, doesn’t automatically translate into human beings. Haven’t studied the study but I can imagine the rats diet was extremely high in old flour and lacked other food. In other words they weren’t having a balanced healthy diet which can also affect them. I’m sure similar studies with any other off food would result in unhealthy rats.

I agree. I’m just curious if there are more recent higher quality studies that actually attempt to measure nutritional loss—is 5% or 95% over, say, 6 months of proper storage…?

I’m pretty sure we’re looking at the same paper:
https://eap.mcgill.ca/publications/EAP35.htm

With the 1970 study described in this paragraph. Also some research from the 1980s and one study from 1990. I haven’t see newer work, but will keep looking.

ADVANTAGES OF FRESH FLOUR

Because grains contain only about 12% water (or about 0.6 water activity), they are not predisposed to spoilage. However, grinding removes the protective layers and endangers the grain’s biological stability. Deterioration of sensory and nutritional qualities depends on storage conditions, such as temperature, humidity, oxygen concentration, and light exposure. The lower the water activity, the lower is the loss of vitamins (Munzing, 1987). For example, a vitamin E loss of only about 23% occurred after a 13 months of storage at a 0.6 water activity (Rothe 1963, Plasch 1984, Pelschenke 1961). In order to reduce oxidation of Essential compounds and the development of rancidity, many authors recommend storing ground flour for no more than two weeks (Solder 1984, Bruker 1984, Schnitzer 1986, Schnitzer (no year), Thomas 1982, Thomas 1986, Koerber 1986). Antioxidants present naturally in grains (vitamin E and lecithin) help prevent oxidation of the fatty acids and the associated rancidity only for a limited time, and under ‘favourable’ conditions.

Glutamic acid decarboxylase, the most sensitive enzyme in the grain, is used to indicate the health of the grain. When heated or exposed to increased humidity, even under ‘favourable’ conditions, it losses activity very quickly in wheat. It was found to be even more sensitive in rye (Muzing, 1987).

The B vitamins are liable to be destroyed by light and air, and it also seems that other substances, still unknown, are quickly destroyed (Aubert, 1989). Other deteriorations include denaturation of lipoproteins, phospholipid hydrolysis, auto-oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids of phospholipids, polymerization within lipoproteins, browning, Maillard reaction of amino groups from phospholipids and aldehyde groups from sugars, and carotene and aroma losses (Lea, 1957; Thomas, 1976).

Lipids in milled wheat are much more susceptible to enzymatic degradation, because enzymes are incorporated into the flour with fragments of bran and germ and with microorganisms from the surface of the grain. Associated with lipid deterioration are losses of carotenoids and vitamin E (Galliard, 1983).

The nutritional importance of using fresh stone-ground grains for bread-making was revealed in the results of feeding studies in Germany (Bernasek, 1970). Rats were fed diets consisting of 50% flour or bread. Group 1 consumed fresh stone-ground flour. Group 2 was fed bread made with this flour. Group 3 consumed the same flour as group 1 but after 15 days of storage. Group 4 was fed bread made with the flour fed to group 3. A fifth group consumed white flour. After four generations, only the rats fed fresh stone-ground flour and those fed the bread made with it maintained their fertility. The rats in groups 3 to 5 had become infertile. Four generations for rats is believed to be equivalent to one hundred years in humans.

Different ecological standards for flour storage set limits of 15 to 60 days (Picker & Pedersen, 1990), although rancidity has been detected as early as 2 to 14 days after milling (Larsen, 1988). Nutrient analysis studies are required to determine the exact nutrient losses accompanying the development of rancidity and thereafter.

1 Like

Although I am a scientist by training (molecular biology), like @Abe I tend to be pretty skeptical of the direct translatability of these kind of studies to what should concern us nutritionally. Nutrition is just too big and too complex and too context dependent for the necessary narrowness of a properly conducted, controlled study to have meaningful application - in my opinion.

As far as home-milling flour goes; I am a proponent and I do it for both flavor and nutritional reasons. And I think the substantially better flavor of fresh-milled flour over most store-bought flour (where it’s hard or impossible to know how long since it has been milled) actually carries far more pertinent information about the nutritional quality of it than any study could carry. We’ve evolved to identify better and worse sources of nutritional value by the use of our senses. We can be and these days often are fooled by artificial exaggerations of certain flavors, but if you wean yourself off of artificial food sources, I believe your native ability to assess nutritional value by taste and smell rehabilitates itself. Fresh-milled flour tastes better and I think it is also nutritionally better.

Practically speaking, you can probably get pretty close to T85 with a #40 mesh sifter. I think a #50 mesh filter probably gets you past T85, but it really takes a lot longer and creates a bigger mess sifting with a #50 mesh than a #40 mesh, so I’d recommend trying a #40 first and seeing if it gets you what you want. Personally, I stopped sifting flour altogether soon after I tried it some years ago. For both nutritional reasons and also out of laziness; sifting is a messy PITA to me.

You cannot get anything remotely close to a Type 00 flour with a home stone mill. Here’s a good article about the basics of grain milling that explains a lot about why:

Those kinds of studies seem more like pseudo-science to me as a physician. It is very likely that the refined flour that the rats were fed are simply not a nutritionally well rounded diet for rats, white the whole grain is closer to but still unlikely a fully well rounded diet for rats. To me that is the only conclusion I can draw from such a study assuming I’m looking at the correct one that was quoted in the paper Melissa linked to.