Question about Oatmeal...

[leykis1o1]

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]

...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]

lol...thanks Luke...

I live to serve

 

[jaim91]

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]

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]

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]

9g per packet?

 

[Monolith]

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.

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]

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

 

[Pirate!]

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]

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]

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]

yay for gelatin and high gi!!!