Whole Wheat or Enriched White???

I credit my interest in this subject to growing up in California.  I've been told for decades (lots) that white flour is empty of nutrition.  So, why use white bread flour for bread making is my question.

Whole wheat, in the olden days, meant grinding up a bunch of wheat berries and then the customer got the stone - ground everything - the bran, the germ, the endosperm - even a little sand as the stone wheel ground some of the other stone wheel.  All from that batch of wheat berries.

Time goes by and milling methods change; markets change; international markets change.  Efficiency is king and most stone mills were retired and steel wheels are used to progressively strip the bran and germ and grind the endosperm ending up with white flour.  The greatest markets are for white flour.

Because the most efficient way of making flour these days is to make white flour - the whole wheat flour we buy in the stores is white flour with some of the bran and germ added back.  And, that's an extra step, so the cost is greater than for white.

But, whole wheat flour doesn't get 'enriched' like white flour does - based on a FDA rules.

Enriched flour?  They add some vitamins so that it's not empty when the kids eat it (and what kid wouldn't prefer white bread to that brown stuff?).  In theory, they were adding vitamins to replace what was lost by removing the bran and germ - at least as they knew the loss back when they started doing it in the 1920's.

I am reading Nancy Silverton's "Breads from the La Brea Bakery".  She says that the vitamins added back to white bread are more easily assimilated than the natural vitamins in whole wheat flour.  Wikipedia says that the bran in whole wheat products slows the digestion of the product and therefore has a lower glycemic index rating than similar products made with white flour.  Silverton's book was copyrighted in 1996 (almost 20 years ago), but she said that almost all of her breads were made with unbleached white flour.

So - what's better?
I don't know.

But - as to making bread, both flours have much different characteristics.

100% Whole wheat flour (whether 'reconstructed' or milled and bagged as whole wheat) has these qualities
    heavier, more dense bread due to less of a rise (the bran cuts the gluten strands inhibiting the rise).
    has different moisture absorbing qualities than white flour
    more flavorful - but not a flavor that all people enjoy.
   
There is a version of wheat berry "hard white winter wheat" or "hard white spring wheat", that has less harsh a flavor and removes some of the offensive qualities normally cited in whole wheat products.

100% white bread flour has these qualities:
    can create very light and airy breads
    doesn't have much flavor when baked using traditional methods.
    Versatile
   
I read that up to 1/4 or 1/3 of the entire flour content can be whole wheat (with white being the remainder) which provides some of the whole wheat flavor but the lightness of white flour.  And, the addition of 'flour conditioners' can help to soften the crumb and help the rise.  There are natural and synthetic flour conditioners.  Natural ones include vinegar, lecithin, potato flakes.

So, is it better to bake for nutrition and not for flavor and utility?   I don't think so.  Not to say that there shouldn't be some breads available for those who want the full grain effect - but that's probably not a mainstream bread.

Bread should be baked so people will eat it.  In my little test group (4 homes made up of 11 people) I am amazed at the difference in personal preferences as to desired crustiness, flavor boldness, even how they use bread including whether they eat sandwiches or not.  So, what will people eat?

I think there will ALWAYS be someone to eat good bread.  Like a lot of things, too much is not good.  But, good bread is something special and doesn't come along all the time, so you eat it when you can get it - whether made from whole wheat or from white flour.