Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: Oatmeal- Quick Cooking Vs Old Fashioned

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
December 29, 2010 10:30 AM
I have been cooking the Quick Cooking version of regular oatmeal- not the packaged, presweetened stuff. I really like the smoothness and the texture. However, when I ran out- I purchased a larger container of the regular old fashioned oats that are not "quick cooking" so they take around 5 minutes to cook on the stove top. The texture comes out so much "nuttier" and I really don't like it as much.

So- is there any nutritional difference between the quick cooking and the regular oats? Am I sacrificing any nutritional benefits by eating the quicker stuff? I'll stick to the longer cooking oats if they are better for me in the long run. Sorry if this is a stupid question!

** Just to clarify again- I am NOT referring to instant oatmeal in the packets- I am only referring to the quick cooking old fashioned oats in the canister vs the ones that just state old fashioned oats in the canister (there is about a 3 minute difference cooking time***
Edited by NikkisNewStart On December 29, 2010 10:47 AM
December 29, 2010 10:37 AM
well any time something is processed you start losing nutritional value. the more processed the more that is lost.

That being said... if you like the other better and it gets you eating that instead of, for example, an egg mcmuffin... then do it.

one thing i do find, for myself though, is that if i make myself eat something that i "sort of" like enough, i do come to prefer that over the other thing. (that probably made no sense...lol)

Just saying that maybe you will come to like the old fashioned stuff more if you ate it more. hard to say.

no matter how much i tried, i would never come to like fried chicken or okra. ;-)
  2590246
December 29, 2010 10:38 AM
Old Fashioned, never get instant oatmeal, it's pretty darn unhealthy. But that quick cooking inbetween, I'm not sure about. Read the nutritional label, and the ingredients. Is it the same? Then you're probably ok.
Edited by lordofultima On December 29, 2010 10:39 AM
  1978400
December 29, 2010 10:40 AM
Old fashioned is better. Not only nutritionally, but it 'sticks to your ribs so you dont get hungrier as quickly as you would with instant. Slap some peanut butter in it and it tastes like a cookie!
  2053704
December 29, 2010 10:42 AM
Just to clarify- I'm not referring to the instant stuff.... just the kind in the canisters. The old fashioned oats that are quick cooking and then the old fashioned oats that are "regular" or not quick cooking. I didn't know if a lot of nutritional value was lost in the process of making it quick cooking but I guess, like yarnpiggie stated, the more processed, the more nutritional value is compromised. I guess I should google... lol
December 29, 2010 10:43 AM
Not to go against the grain here, but the difference between old fashioned versus quick oats is pretty minimal. We're not talking about those sugar-filled instant packets here, but the stuff in the cardboard tubes, and having looked at quakeroats.com nutritional information, there is no discernable difference between the two. They have the same number of calories, fiber, fat, etc. Eat what you like, or you'll hate eating healthy. :)
Edited by rmkorama On December 29, 2010 10:43 AM
  1544076
December 29, 2010 10:44 AM
I was using the quick cooking that took about 2 minutes to cook and then ran out. We had the old fashioned in the cupboard that takes about 5 minutes to cook. They seem to have the same caloric value but thats the only number that I checked this morning as I was making them. Personally, I like the old fashioned ones better. They seem a lot fluffier and more filling.
  2151558
December 29, 2010 10:45 AM
QUOTE:

well any time something is processed you start losing nutritional value. the more processed the more that is lost.

That being said... if you like the other better and it gets you eating that instead of, for example, an egg mcmuffin... then do it.

one thing i do find, for myself though, is that if i make myself eat something that i "sort of" like enough, i do come to prefer that over the other thing. (that probably made no sense...lol)

Just saying that maybe you will come to like the old fashioned stuff more if you ate it more. hard to say.

no matter how much i tried, i would never come to like fried chicken or okra. ;-)


This makes total sense... lol I bought a HUGE canister of it from Target b/c it ended up being about 2/100s of a penny cheaper per ounce than the smaller canister or something silly like that... lol I am all about getting the most for my $$. So- I will be eating this canister for the next 10 years it seems and hopefully, by then, I'll be used to it... hahahaha
December 29, 2010 10:45 AM
Buy organic whole rolled oats. Put 1/2 cup of oats and 1 cup skim milk in a covered bowl and put in microwave for 100 to 120 seconds depending on the microwave. Let stand and sweeten as you like. I use trivia and fruit. I promise you will like it. Even kids like it this way.
  1638501
December 29, 2010 10:52 AM
Thanks Ray- I usually just make mine with 1/2 cup oats and 1 cup water with 2 tsp brown sugar blend Splenda. My hubs makes his with milk but I just never liked it that way for some reason and he hates drinking milk and I used to drink a gallon every 2 days!!! Weird how that is. So glad I found this site and don't drink milk so much anymore.

The kids love the way I make it. I'm going to start making the switch to organic foods. Some things I only buy organic and others I don't... but I'm ready to make the switch. :)
December 29, 2010 11:00 AM
QUOTE:

Not to go against the grain here, but the difference between old fashioned versus quick oats is pretty minimal. We're not talking about those sugar-filled instant packets here, but the stuff in the cardboard tubes, and having looked at quakeroats.com nutritional information, there is no discernable difference between the two. They have the same number of calories, fiber, fat, etc. Eat what you like, or you'll hate eating healthy. :)


This seems like a good answer to me! :) And to stray off topic just a little... I used to eat the instant flavored packets (I know that's not what you're talking about) and made the switch to the old fashioned (not quick cooking) kind. Blech. It was horrible. But I played with it a bit and ended up liking it. On Christmas day, the stove was already in use so I reverted to the old flavored packet. It was so sweet that I gagged and dumped it down the drain! So I guess that's evidence that we can change our tastes a bit.

But, since there appears to be the same nutritional info, I would also say go for what you like!
December 29, 2010 11:00 AM
QUOTE:

Buy organic whole rolled oats. Put 1/2 cup of oats and 1 cup skim milk in a covered bowl and put in microwave for 100 to 120 seconds depending on the microwave. Let stand and sweeten as you like. I use trivia and fruit. I promise you will like it. Even kids like it this way.


Thanks so much for giving microwave directions on the rolled oats. I eat breakfest at work b/c I'm horrible at getting up in the morning. I've been using the packets with teh fruit at work...(which this group makes sound like I at a candy bar for breakfest) I just don't like ciniman and maple and stuff. I like the peach ones.

which fruits do you recomend putting in the oatmeal?
  3150954
December 29, 2010 11:03 AM
I use the Old-fashioned Oats in the microwave. One bowl takes 2 minutes to fully cook (I just use water), two bowls (for hub and myself) takes 3 minutes. Hub adds his stuff in his bowl, I add my stuff (generally a touch of Splenda Brown Sugar Blend and some unsweetened vanilla soy milk). Oh, I add dried fruit to my oatmeal before I cook it so it gets all plumped up. Microwave is the key to shortening the time to equal your quick-cooking 2 minutes time.
December 29, 2010 11:07 AM
I use to do the Quick Cooking, but switched to the Old Fashion. Only difference I've found is the Old Fashion is thicker. I cook mine in the microwave. Before I cook it, I take frozen (or fresh) strawberries and microwave them in the water, mash it up then cook the oatmeal in the strawberry water with a little more water, add splenda and, mmmmm, it's delicious. You can do that with bananas too. I'm telling you, the taste is out of this world!!!!!
  2577656
December 29, 2010 11:19 AM
NO DIFFERENCE in the way they are broken down - its a matter of preference.
December 29, 2010 11:30 AM
My understanding is the only difference is the "quick cooking" is made to be thinner to cook quicker...no nutritional value lost. Hence why the "old fashioned" seems thicker to you :) I think if it's what you like and you'll eat it then go for it!!
December 29, 2010 11:44 AM
There actually is quite a difference between instant and steel cut or whole rolled oats. I'd have to look up what the difference is in the quick old fashion, I'm not sure. But I think it's in between steel cut (irish, or scottish oats) and instant.

But the instant has two issues, first, they break up the oats far more in instant, which is why they absorb the liquids so fast, but it also makes them digest much faster in the body, which means a higher Glycemic index, which means a sugar spike and more fat storage. The second issue is fiber, much of the husk (the bran) is removed to make instant oatmeal out of oats, and the husk is where much of the fiber is, fiber is not only a nutritional enhancer, but it also forces your body to digest the food slower, thus increasing the time it takes to digest and further lowering the Glycemic index. Yes the nutritional amounts of the oats is essentially the same, but instant oatmeal is not anywhere near as good for you as the far less processed versions.
December 29, 2010 11:45 AM
Fresh blueberries also make it sooooo yummy! Thanks everyone for the responses! I think I'll get used to it but will probably go back to my quick cooking after this huge canister is finished... lol. I generally eat oatmeal every morning b/c it fills me up and warms me up too!
December 29, 2010 11:47 AM
Have you tried cooking the oatmeal in a rice cooker? I put vanilla amond milk, cinnamon, sometimes pumpkin pie spice, and vanilla in it, maybe some golden raisins and some brown sugar...it is sooo good. What I like is that I make a big enough batch to last all week and because it was cooked in the rice cooker it is smooth and creamy and delic!
December 29, 2010 11:47 AM
QUOTE:

There actually is quite a difference between instant and steel cut or whole rolled oats. I'd have to look up what the difference is in the quick old fashion, I'm not sure. But I think it's in between steel cut (irish, or scottish oats) and instant.

But the instant has two issues, first, they break up the oats far more in instant, which is why they absorb the liquids so fast, but it also makes them digest much faster in the body, which means a higher Glycemic index, which means a sugar spike and more fat storage. The second issue is fiber, much of the husk (the bran) is removed to make instant oatmeal out of oats, and the husk is where much of the fiber is, fiber is not only a nutritional enhancer, but it also forces your body to digest the food slower, thus increasing the time it takes to digest and further lowering the Glycemic index. Yes the nutritional amounts of the oats is essentially the same, but instant oatmeal is not anywhere near as good for you as the far less processed versions.


By instant do you mean the instant kind in the little brown envelopes or by the quick cooking version of old fashioned oats in the cardboard cylinder canister?
December 29, 2010 11:54 AM
QUOTE:

QUOTE:

There actually is quite a difference between instant and steel cut or whole rolled oats. I'd have to look up what the difference is in the quick old fashion, I'm not sure. But I think it's in between steel cut (irish, or scottish oats) and instant.

But the instant has two issues, first, they break up the oats far more in instant, which is why they absorb the liquids so fast, but it also makes them digest much faster in the body, which means a higher Glycemic index, which means a sugar spike and more fat storage. The second issue is fiber, much of the husk (the bran) is removed to make instant oatmeal out of oats, and the husk is where much of the fiber is, fiber is not only a nutritional enhancer, but it also forces your body to digest the food slower, thus increasing the time it takes to digest and further lowering the Glycemic index. Yes the nutritional amounts of the oats is essentially the same, but instant oatmeal is not anywhere near as good for you as the far less processed versions.


By instant do you mean the instant kind in the little brown envelopes or by the quick cooking version of old fashioned oats in the cardboard cylinder canister?


by instant I mean the instant kind in the packages. But put it this way, the longer the cooking time with oats, the less processing there is involved (I mean real cooking, not microwave, no ideal how that would translate). It's a good way to judge almost any bean or grain, if you soak it, if it takes a long time to become soft, then it's probably going to take longer to digest as well, which means a lower Glycemic index and less sugar spike.

so if your oats take 5 minutes to cook, and steel cut oats take 20 minutes to cook (which they do) then steel cut oats probably have a better source of fiber and a lower GI (which they do as steel cut oats have the lowest glycemic index of all oats)
December 29, 2010 1:20 PM
I make steel cut oats in my counter-top convection oven. I find it works much better than on the stovetop, no babysitting. I also heard it's great to cook oatmeal in the slow cooker (crock pot)

I usually make enough for 2 days, so I don't have to cook it again the next morning. But I can shower, get dressed, etc while it's cooking in the oven. Love multi-tasking!
  250781
December 29, 2010 1:33 PM
Mr. Boss man, - interested in your references to the glycemic index, as I have done some reading about how different foods can effect this. Do you have a book or website URL to reference that are a good tool for understanding foods that fall into the "good" or "not so good" categories?
  1739169
January 25, 2011 5:44 AM
another thought is to make it in a crock pot at night. You'll have enough for a few days!
  3258849
January 25, 2011 6:49 AM
QUOTE:

Mr. Boss man, - interested in your references to the glycemic index, as I have done some reading about how different foods can effect this. Do you have a book or website URL to reference that are a good tool for understanding foods that fall into the "good" or "not so good" categories?


well, there are 2 points you should read up on, GI (glycemic index) and GL (glycemic load). They are interdependant and both have implications.

I would start by reading the wiki on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load

then if you want further reading I would read something like this:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index

Reply

Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

Posts by members, moderators and admins should not be considered medical advice and no guarantee is made against accuracy.