Are the crusts of bread really more nutritious then the rest of the loaf or was my mother just trying to get someone to eat them?

In other words, while there's no question that the crusts have a different flavor than the rest of the bread, one that many people like and many don't, it'd be a stretch to say that it's the healthiest part -- probably the opposite, in fact. Last edited by rackensack; 01-29-2007 at 05:26 PM. My mother always used to say that the patrt I didn't eat -- crust on the bread, skin on the apple, green beans in the casserole -- were always the healthiest part.

Years later, reading the bio of Charlemagne by his contemporary (either Einhard or Notker the Stammerer -- they were bound together in the same Penguin edition) I came across a description of an abbot asking Charlemagne why he didn't eat the rind of the cheese. Charlemagne picked up the rinf with his knife and made the Abbott eat it. It's Good to be the Emperor.

I copied out that section in neat calligraphic letters, framed it, and gave it to my mother. The crust should have more carcinogenic PAHs than the rest of the bread, so less healthy. The biggest differences between the crusts and the rest of the bread are moisture content and the presence of various compounds known as Maillard molecules, which result from the Maillard reactions which occur when amino acids and sugars are heated in an environment where the amount of free water is low -- in other words, when food browns as a result of heat (as opposed to the enzymatic reactions that cause cut apples and potatoes, peeled bananas, and other foods to brown when exposed to air).

They're why browned foods taste different from, and to many of us better than, cooked foods that aren't browned. There's still a considerable amount of debate about the health effects of these compounds.