# Question about Oatmeal...



## mit37 (Aug 6, 2004)

I have been using the Quaker Oats 100% whole grain oatmeal and use the mircrowave to cook them...Is this an ok brand of oatmeal and can i microwave them...Just curious because I read that instant oatmeal is bad and not sure if this is considered instant...thanx for the help in advance


----------



## P-funk (Aug 6, 2004)

if it is the original oats then it is not instant oatmeal.  It sounds like you have the right stuff.


----------



## sara (Aug 6, 2004)

If you over cook the oatmeal, would it turn out bad for you?


----------



## atherjen (Aug 7, 2004)

does it say old fashioned or large flake on it? if not.... are the peices "full" looking and not choppy? (thats the minute oats).


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 8, 2004)

What's wrong with the minute oats? I have them every morning. Either minute oats, or the flavoured oatmeal that comes in a package.


----------



## P-funk (Aug 8, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> What's wrong with the minute oats? I have them every morning. Either minute oats, or the flavoured oatmeal that comes in a package.




minute oats are processed and broken down.   Flavoured oats are not only proccessed but they are full of SUGAR!!


----------



## supertech (Aug 8, 2004)

so the quaker 1 minute oats are not good?


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 8, 2004)

sara said:
			
		

> If you over cook the oatmeal, would it turn out bad for you?


I dont even cook it.  I just eat it dry while drinking a glass of water.... am I weird?


----------



## Monolith (Aug 8, 2004)

I dont know how you guys can eat oatmeal all the time... it just seems like a hassle.  With rice you can just cook up a bunch and leave it in the fridge.  Oats you have to cook right when you want it. :/


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 8, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I dont know how you guys can eat oatmeal all the time... it just seems like a hassle. With rice you can just cook up a bunch and leave it in the fridge. Oats you have to cook right when you want it. :/


not if you eat it dry.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 8, 2004)

Eh... i dunno.  I use pinhead oatmeal usually.  That stuff is just about impossible to eat unless its cooked.  It's literally the consistency of little pebbles when its uncooked.  I dont even think itd be digestable...


----------



## sara (Aug 8, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I dont even cook it.  I just eat it dry while drinking a glass of water.... am I weird?



cooked oats have more flavor than dry oats
I blend oats with my PWO shake all the time


----------



## Monolith (Aug 8, 2004)

sara said:
			
		

> cooked oats have more flavor than dry oats
> I blend oats with my PWO shake all the time


 Err... that just makes it into a high GI shake.


----------



## sara (Aug 8, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Err... that just makes it into a high GI shake.



Do you have a data that supports it?


----------



## Monolith (Aug 8, 2004)

Well, by blending the oats, youre essentially "refining" them further. Youre creating a much larger surface area than there would be if you ate the oats whole... meaning faster absorption in the intestines.

 EDIT:

 An Examination of the Possibility of Lowering the Glycemic Index of Oat and Barley Flakes by Minimal Processing 
Yvonne Granfeldt1, Ann-Charlott Eliasson* and Inger Björck 

Departments of Applied Nutrition and Food Chemistry, and * Food Engineering, Chemical Centre, University of Lund, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden 

Differences in glycemic responses to various starchy foods are related to differences in the rate of starch digestion and absorption. In this study, the importance of the degree of gelatinization and the product thickness for postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses to rolled oats and barley were studied in healthy subjects (5 men and 5 women). Thick (1.0 mm) rolled oats were made from raw or preheated (roasted or steamed) kernels. In addition, thin (0.5 mm) rolled oats were made from roasted or roasted and steamed (processed under conditions simulating commercial production) oat kernels. Finally, steamed rolled barley kernels (0.5 or 1.0 mm) were prepared. All thin flakes elicited high glucose and insulin responses [glycemic index (GI), 88???118; insulinemic index (II), 84???102], not significantly different from white wheat bread (P > 0.05). In contrast, all varieties of thick oat flakes gave significantly lower metabolic responses (GI, 70???78; II, 58???77) than the reference bread (P < 0.05). Thick barley flakes, however, gave high glucose and insulin responses (GI, 94; II, 84), probably because the botanical structure underwent more destruction than the corresponding oat flakes. We conclude that minimal processing of oat and barley flakes had a relatively minor effect on GI features compared with the more extensive commercial processing. One exception was thick oat flakes, which in contrast to the corresponding barley flakes, had a low GI.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 8, 2004)

sara said:
			
		

> cooked oats have more flavor than dry oats
> I blend oats with my PWO shake all the time


I actually perfer it dry.... (quaker oaks)


----------



## sara (Aug 8, 2004)

It might be higher in GI, but it's better than having Processed carbs for PWO


----------



## aztecwolf (Aug 8, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> I dont know how you guys can eat oatmeal all the time... it just seems like a hassle.  With rice you can just cook up a bunch and leave it in the fridge.  Oats you have to cook right when you want it. :/


i usually cook my oatmeal the night before and throw it in the fridge, flavors come out, especially if you put some blueberris in it or something, also it taste good cold too


----------



## Jodi (Aug 8, 2004)

Wow big hassle.  It takes 3 minutes in the microwave


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 9, 2004)

3 minutes is how long is takes to cook the normal oatmeal? Then what's the diff. between the 3 minute stuff and the 1 minute stuff?


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 9, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> what's the diff. between the 3 minute stuff and the 1 minute stuff?


 
2 minutes


----------



## trHawT (Aug 9, 2004)

Yeah, definitely stay away from the "white death" oatmeal (i.e., flavored in packets).


----------



## Jodi (Aug 9, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> 3 minutes is how long is takes to cook the normal oatmeal? Then what's the diff. between the 3 minute stuff and the 1 minute stuff?


The gi is lower in the old fashioned oats.


----------



## BulkMeUp (Aug 9, 2004)

i dont bother cooking oats anymore. I simply throw in a cup of dry oats + a cup of milk into a blender... blend for 15-20 seconds. Makes a thick but slightly grainy shake.. that can be done and drunk in < 5 mins..for flavour throw in a handful of blueberries, or a tbsp of PB or even a tbsp or two or maple syrup!!


----------



## BlueX_v1 (Aug 9, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Well, by blending the oats, youre essentially "refining" them further. Youre creating a much larger surface area than there would be if you ate the oats whole...



So, don't chew them up either?

Don't forget that if they are blended in a shake, they have not softened to the extent that they would if they were cooked. Your stomach churning about can smush and liquefy a cooked oat faster than a small piece of a raw one. Think of how easy it is to destroy a cooked oat between your fingers, then try the same with a raw one. A gooey moving mass in your gut will allow faster absorption than small raw flakes floating around I believe.

In a blender it is most likely that the oat will be cut across the long wide face, which would only increase surface area by maybe 5%, because you are only adding two new small edges. If somehow most of the oats happened to be sliced thinner along the plane of the long wide face like with a deli meat shaver, I could see your argument might be worth concern.


----------



## Monolith (Aug 9, 2004)

BlueX_v1 said:
			
		

> So, don't chew them up either?
> 
> Don't forget that if they are blended in a shake, they have not softened to the extent that they would if they were cooked. Your stomach churning about can smush and liquefy a cooked oat faster than a small piece of a raw one. Think of how easy it is to destroy a cooked oat between your fingers, then try the same with a raw one. A gooey moving mass in your gut will allow faster absorption than small raw flakes floating around I believe.
> 
> In a blender it is most likely that the oat will be cut across the long wide face, which would only increase surface area by maybe 5%, because you are only adding two new small edges. If somehow most of the oats happened to be sliced thinner along the plane of the long wide face like with a deli meat shaver, I could see your argument might be worth concern.


 While your post is overflowing with such orgasms of intellectual delight as "smush" and "gooey moving mass," im going to have to disagree.

 When i cook oats, i add water and microwave them. That turns them into what can be best described as paste. Now, last i heard, you really cant chew paste. I have no doubt that youve tried very hard to do so, but it just really doesnt work. Also, I'm not sure what kind of blender you have, but i have no idea how a blender could know to cut each oat only once and only down its length. Putting oats in a blender creates a powder, which is what makes it possible to _drink oats in a fucking glass_. Now if youre using this magic blender that only separates oats into little hemispheres, your argument could have some merit. But then again, you'd be arguing about something no one is even talking about - regular oats.

  Now, i just went through all that because i was bored, basically... because all i should have really had to do is quote this, _again_:



			
				Monolith said:
			
		

> An Examination of the Possibility of Lowering the Glycemic Index of Oat and Barley Flakes by Minimal Processing
> Yvonne Granfeldt1, Ann-Charlott Eliasson* and Inger Björck
> 
> Departments of Applied Nutrition and Food Chemistry, and * Food Engineering, Chemical Centre, University of Lund, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden
> ...


  If you feel like continuing the argument, im sure the University of Lund would love to hear from you.


----------



## stu_20_uk (Aug 10, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> Also, I'm not sure what kind of blender you have, but i have no idea how a blender could know to cut each oat only once and only down its length. Putting oats in a blender creates a powder, which is what makes it possible to _drink oats in a fucking glass_. Now if youre using this magic blender that only separates oats into little hemispheres, your argument could have some merit. But then again, you'd be arguing about something no one is even talking about - regular oats.


Where can i get one of these magic blenders? are they expensive?


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 10, 2004)

lol...thanks Luke...but really. Why are they so different?


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 10, 2004)

Never mind...Jodi answered my question. Thanks


----------



## SJ69 (Aug 10, 2004)

I just bought the 1-minute oats   as a first step towards a diet low in fast sugars in order to have more consistant energy levels and to lower bodyfat.  I guess this is better than eating Apple Jacks though what do you think?
I also mix them with milk rather than water.
Would eating them cold in a bowl of milk slow down absorption?


----------



## leykis1o1 (Aug 10, 2004)

i heat up water in my coffee maker and then pur it over natural flavor instant oatmeal ..its only about 100 calories,,i dont eat the sugary brown sugar crap


----------



## BlueX_v1 (Aug 10, 2004)

Monolith said:
			
		

> ...When i cook oats, i add water and microwave them. That turns them into what can be best described as paste. ...i have no idea how a blender could know to cut each oat only once and only down its length... Putting oats in a blender creates a powder...blender that only separates oats into little hemispheres...you'd be arguing about something no one is even talking about - regular oats...all i should have really had to do is quote this, _again_:


I made two assumptions in the posting of my first reply:

1. When cooking oats, typical preparation does not result in a paste. I based this assumption on my own means of preparation in accordance with directions on Quaker Old Fashioned Oats, and that of others I have observed, who tend to prepare them in such a way that quite a bit of defined solid texture remains present in the bowl among the more fluid components of the food. 

2. When blending an oat-protein powder shake, the preparer will only operate the blender as long as necessary to mix the ingredients, and not specifically to break the oats down into a smooth imperceptible texture resulting in an oat powder.

In the case of assumption number one, the greater one cooks their oats into a paste-like consistency, the greater the likelyhood that the oats will be broken down beyond what would occur in a blender and that the total surface area will be increased. However, within the scope of this discussion, the fact that someone prepares oats into a paste that does not require any chewing is quite irrelevant, because whether heavily cooked or lightly cooked and chewed, both sets of oats are going down the esophagus with similar amounts of processing and break down, resulting in a similar degree of _gooeyness of moving mass_ in the stomach.

In the case of assumption number two, If someone is in fact blending the oats to such an extent that a powder results, then the effect on the GI value of the raw powdered oats compared to cooked whole oats may yet be negligible and warrants discussion and investigation.

The premise of my argument is in no way at odds with the quoted study's abstract. The variable discussed there concerning the oat samples was only the thickness of the oat. It is simple probability that in a blender, the oat will be cut across the surface which presents the greatest surface area a greater number of times, that being the face of the oat. Therefore, an absolute direct comparison between the study and our discussion can not be made. The study does not factor in levels of cooking vs. particle size. 

You must also factor in the effect of cooking the oat, which will not occur in a blender. Reading further into the same Lund study, it also discusses the resulting increase in glucose response when consuming oats gelatinized by heat and water. Unfortunately it does not test raw oat fragments against cooked thick oat paste. If you can refer to a study which does make this direct comparison, I'd be very interested in it.


As an aside (not really relevant, but as a matter of personal curiosity):

Please explain what you mean by a blender cutting the oats into little hemispheres? I never put forth the argument that a hemispherical shape might have any special effect. Seeing as how the oat is a relatively flat object, and a hemisphere is the result of a sphere being cut, I'm not sure what that statement was designed to imply.

Also, could you please refer me to the post that discusses the specific type of oat being used in the shake blend? I must have missed where using regular oats as opposed to quick oats was specified.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 10, 2004)

jaim91 said:
			
		

> lol...thanks Luke...


I live to serve


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 10, 2004)

Luke9583 said:
			
		

> I live to serve



 

And the sugary brown stuff IS NOT CRAP! It is what I live for. That, and the peaches and cream flavour. Sometimes, I even go for the dino eggs. The packages average between 120 - 200 cals per pack. I love it!!!


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 10, 2004)

Maple and brown sugar used to be my fave. followed closely by the cookies and cream one.  But now it's just plane jane quaker oaks for me! 

for some reason I dont seem to mind it.


----------



## atherjen (Aug 10, 2004)

> And the sugary brown stuff IS NOT CRAP! It is what I live for. That, and the peaches and cream flavour. Sometimes, I even go for the dino eggs. The packages average between 120 - 200 cals per pack. I love it!!!



sure calorie intake is not bad but the added sugars arent appealing.


----------



## Luke9583 (Aug 10, 2004)

9g per packet?


----------



## Monolith (Aug 10, 2004)

BlueX_v1 said:
			
		

> I made two assumptions in the posting of my first reply:
> 
> 1. When cooking oats, typical preparation does not result in a paste. I based this assumption on my own means of preparation in accordance with directions on Quaker Old Fashioned Oats, and that of others I have observed, who tend to prepare them in such a way that quite a bit of defined solid texture remains present in the bowl among the more fluid components of the food.
> 
> ...


 Among others, they served 16% gelatinized thick oats and found a GI/II response of 70/59.  Similar gelatinization in the thin oats produced a much higher GI/II response of 97/84.  In 0% gelatinized thick oats (yes, they did test raw rolled oats), the GI/II response was 78/74.  Gelatinization lowered the GI/II response in thick oats marginally, but did fuck all in thin oats.  The authors attribute it to "a lowered accessibility to amylase when the outer layer of the endosperm and/or the cell walls are less disrupted."  In other words, thinner oats - or more disrupted/chopped/blended/hacked oats - are easier to digest, regardless of gelatinization, by rupturing the endosperm to a greater extent than the thick oats.  So, blending != cooking.

 And, as i already stated, my oats are unrolled steel-cut.  That would make them spherical.

 I have no idea what youre talking about re: quick oats vs. regular oats.


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 11, 2004)

Ain't nothing wrong with a little sugar pick me up before school or a workout in the morning. It feels good...


----------



## Pirate! (Aug 11, 2004)

A little added sugar is not bad for you at all. In fact, sucrose has a lower GI than most grains. This is because sucrose is half fructose, half glucose. The fructose has a very low GI. Sucrose typically scores around 59 on the GI index--not much different than oats. http://www.glycemicindex.com/


----------



## BlueX_v1 (Aug 11, 2004)

It is of no concern what type of oats _you_ use. The only concern is the type the person would be using to blend in a shake. She did not specify the type. That is my point. I don't know why you responded with: "you'd be arguing about something no one is even talking about - regular oats"

I maintain that the study does not address the differences between oats cooked into a porridge compared to raw oat fragments. The amount of gelatinization results from the processing of the oat into consumable form, and does not specify that it was prepared by cooking prior to being consumed, so I suppose we have to assume they were eaten Swiss style with the 200ml of milk. The thick raw oat sample it refers to is soaked in water for an hour and then rolled. The gelatinized samples were steamed and/or roasted and then rolled. That is all. We are trying to compare a microwaved bowl of oatmeal to blended up raw oatmeal, that both went through the same manufacturing process correct?

As I wrote:
"Unfortunately it does not test raw oat fragments against cooked thick oat paste. If you can refer to a study which does make this direct comparison, I'd be very interested in it."

I understand your point of physical breakdown resulting in faster digestion, but I would like to see something that addresses the breakdown due to intense cooking that turns the oats into a paste to see which causes the most damage and results in faster absorbtion, especially if the raw broken down particles are going to be in the presence of whey protein and probably milk as well.

Blending != Cooking is exactly my point. On which side is the equation unbalanced, and is it enough difference to warrant concern in the real world? I wouldn't want the many people that blend oats into their shakes to unnecessarily stop doing so.
The Lund sez: "...the effect of raw or a low-to-intermediate degree of gelatinization in realistic foods must be studied in more detail."

I've been looking for a study that compares typical North American oat preparation to raw oat fragments or flour, but I don't know if one exists. Please feel free to prove me wrong if you have the time ;-)


----------



## Monolith (Aug 11, 2004)

This conversation was annoying the shit out of me at first, but im beginning to enjoy it.  Props to you for putting up with my arrogant shit. 

 Still, though, im gonna have to assume that even high amounts of gelatinization wont effect the GI... and if anything will lower it even further, as the data seems to suggest.  Blended oats, on the other hand, are cut open... i.e. theyre "damaged" to an equivelent - if not more so - amount than oats rolled thinly.  And the thinly rolled oats had a much higher GI.

 While its probably not fair to say 90% gelatinized oats wont have a linearly lower GI, i think it is fair to say that chopped oats will, as the endosperm damage is similar.


----------



## jaim91 (Aug 12, 2004)

yay for gelatin and high gi!!!


----------

