I really like oatbran. In my opinion it is just as good as real oats. I like it because you get more volume for a given calorie content (and I am aOriginally Posted by thajeepster
so more for less calories is always better!
).
The macro ratio's are slightly different:
For 100g oatbran -
245 cals
Carbs = 66g (15g fibre)
Protein = 17.7g
Fat = 7g
For 100g Wholegrain rolled oats -
380 cals
Carbs = 67g (10g fibre)
Protein = 16g
Fat = 6.5g
So the oatbran has slightly more protein and fibre and the GI of oatbran is slightly lower as well.. But they are much of a muchness.
ps: Don't ask me HOW oatbran only has that many calories - because it doesn't add up... But that is what the stuff in my cupboard says... And that is what the calorie counters on the web say as well...![]()



Reply With Quote
so more for less calories is always better!
).


That is weird.
I think Quaker seems pretty accurate in their nutrition data.
So VERY confusing!!!
and it says only 118 cals for 1/3 cup and all the macros add up
There is nothing wrong with eating rolled oats like this. Although things like oatbran and scotch oats you should probably cook [same with real 'oatmeal' (that is, a meal made of finely ground whole oats)], rolled oats are steamed and pressed as they are made. This means they are already 'pre-cooked' to a certain extent and you don't actually have to cook them. Instant oats/quick oats are then usually steamed twice and chopped into fine peices - which is why they cook even faster than rolled oats.

