Brennans Bread 'Sourdough'

rustyzip

For people that know their breads and nutrition...
Is this good for you?! In terms of sourdough being good for you?!

http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=290920395

Mellor

I can't imagine it's any different nutritionally to any other white/commercial bread

Dial Hard

"True" sourdough doesn't contain any raising agents so is a good option for people with yeast sensitivity.

I haven't seen the ingredients on the Brennan's one though so I have no idea how authentic or otherwise it is.

Dtp1979

Dial Hard wrote: »

"True" sourdough doesn't contain any raising agents so is a good option for people with yeast sensitivity.

I haven't seen the ingredients on the Brennan's one though so I have no idea how authentic or otherwise it is.

http://brennansbread.ie/image/var/files/product/sourdough_nutrition.png

Dial Hard

Thanks for that. Lots of adulterations going on there.

To me, sourdough is flour and water, and maybe a pinch of salt. That's it.

Mellor

Dial Hard wrote: »

"True" sourdough doesn't contain any raising agents...

It doesn't added bakers yeast. But it's not true that there are no raising agents (as it wouldn't rise if that was the case).

njs030

Dial Hard wrote: »

"True" sourdough doesn't contain any raising agents so is a good option for people with yeast sensitivity.

I haven't seen the ingredients on the Brennan's one though so I have no idea how authentic or otherwise it is.

What flour would you use that doesn't have raising agents in it?

Dial Hard

Mellor wrote: »

It doesn't added bakers yeast. But it's not true that there are no raising agents (as it wouldn't rise if that was the case).

Ok, no "added" raising agents. The starter will have natural yeasts from being left to air for the first day or so.

notjustsweet wrote: »

What flour would you use that doesn't have raising agents in it?

Pretty much any good, plain flour. I'm looking at the ingredients on my Matthew's Strong Flour here and it's literally just "Wheat Flour". Same with the Organic version I also have, which just says "Organic Wheat Flour". I also a bag of their Tipo 00 which I use for making pizza and the ingredients are "Wheat flour, calcium carbonate, Iron, niacin & thiamin". None of which are raising agents, afaik, calcium carbonate being inactive.

Mellor

Dial Hard wrote: »

Ok, no "added" raising agents. The starter will have natural yeasts from being left to air for the first day or so.

Which is exactly what I said.

Raising agents aren't unhealthy. There might cause issue if you are intolerant, but that's a different matter. For some the "unhealthy" aspect of white bread is the flour, for others it's the additives.

The biggest issue in my eyes is overeating. The rest is a distant after thought.

Day Lewin

The expression "sour-dough" denotes, or should, that the dough is raised by natural fermentation by a wild airborne yeast. Back in the old days on the pioneer trail, if you didn't have real live baking yeast, you would just mix a wet dough and leave it for a few days until it began to lightly and spontaneously ferment.
It gets quite smelly. And may even discolour. All normal.

Use some of that "sponge" to rise a new batch of dough, and save a bit, which you mix with the sponge: so it is always getting saved on for the next batch.

So it IS, or should be, "yeast-risen", just not the commercial predictable kind.
You could give a piece of your sour dough to a new baker just arrived out west, to help him or her get started on having their own for fresh risen bread.

I don't believe the modern fashion for "sourdough" is really risen that way: its just that they are going for the very "wheaty" or "bready" flavour produced by very long slow fermentation, a very welcome change from the light bland spongy stuff now produced by fast-rise yeast with enhancers for extra speed.

What gives bread its characteristic flavour is fermentation of wheat, and TIME.

Regarding "good for you" : -
The early pioneers would have been quick to tell you that the only time bread is not good for you is when there isn't enough of it to eat.

However, you may like to consider that long, slow fermentation - as in a true sourdough - breaks down a lot more gluten than the fast modern factory processes which are accelerated for profit, and even have extra gluten added to very strong flour for better holding of the bubbles and standing up in the crumb.

Mellor

katemarch wrote: »

I don't believe the modern fashion for "sourdough" is really risen that way: its just that they are going for the very "wheaty" or "bready" flavour produced by very long slow fermentation, a very welcome change from the light bland spongy stuff now produced by fast-rise yeast with enhancers for extra speed.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine that "sourdough" in a modern commercial sense refers to dough that it is raised with the bacteria and yeasts found in sourdough. As opposed to plain bakers yeast.
I wouldn't have any expectation that it is produced traditionally.

Out of curiosity, when you say "fast-rise" yeast. Does this means a shorter proof time, or also a shorter baking time?

Regarding "good for you" : -
The early pioneers would have been quick to tell you that the only time bread is not good for you is when there isn't enough of it to eat.

Early pioneers would have also had less convenient access to food, much less food stored at home. And in general a much lower intake compared to todays society.
The reason obesity wasn't an issue had nothing to do with eating real sourdough.

Dial Hard

Mellor wrote: »

Raising agents aren't unhealthy. There might cause issue if you are intolerant, but that's a different matter. For some the "unhealthy" aspect of white bread is the flour, for others it's the additives.

And that's exactly what I said.

Latatian

Why would it be good for people with yeast sensitivity when it has yeasts in it? They might be different kinds, sure, but are people really sensitive only to particular strains of yeast?

Day Lewin

Mellor wrote: »

Out of curiosity, when you say "fast-rise" yeast. Does this means a shorter proof time, or also a shorter baking time?


Early pioneers would have also had less convenient access to food, much less food stored at home. And in general a much lower intake compared to todays society.
The reason obesity wasn't an issue had nothing to do with eating real sourdough.

Yes: Long proving. I am no chemist, but have made my own yeast bread for thirty years. Consistently, the best "bread" flavour comes from using a quite small amount of fresh yeast and letting it rise slowly overnight: more flour, kneading and rising in the morning: it might go into the oven by early afternoon. It is memorably good, if I do say so!

and what I meant was, that those who have known hunger or food scarcity are far less likely to fuss about whether some foodstuff is "good for you"
They KNOW that food is good for you; and lack of it is bad for you.