Message Boards » Food and Nutrition

TOPIC: Quaker type oats vs. Steel Cut

 
Ic_disabled_photos
Topic has been inactive for 30 days or more and images have been disabled.
Display All Images
September 18, 2012 11:40 AM
I was wondering what's the difference between Quaker- type oats vs. Steel Cut? Is one more beneficial than the other? I have never seen them in grocery stores. (Small town I guess) I may try looking in a nearby natural food store.
  11162063
September 18, 2012 11:56 AM
steel cut are less processed supposedly, which causes them to be more expensive for whatever reason. Looking at the back of the boxes I never saw enough reason to justify the extra expense. Just get the Quaker Oat types without the added flavors and you should be good.
  28959455
September 18, 2012 11:57 AM
I think it's just the way the steel cut ones are processed.

I have both and I'm not a fan of the steel cut oats.
September 18, 2012 12:05 PM
For me it's a texture thing..... I don't know about nutrient factor


Instant oats have a texture like baby food.

Old Fashioned oats (are instant too) ... these cook in 5 minutes & hold some of their texture. Happy medium, I guess.

Steel cut cook in 20 minutes .... but are available in an instant form (Coaches brand) and cooks in 5 mintes. The texture of these is so much better than rolled oats.

Because rolled oats are steamed & then rolled ... perhaps some of the nutrients are lost in the steaming process ... not sure.
September 18, 2012 12:07 PM
Thanks pals! I guess its Quaker oats.
  11162063
September 18, 2012 12:17 PM
I just get Quaker Old Fashioned Oats for my protein smoothies because they make them noticeably thicker (which is what I want). Steel cut just doesn't thicken them enough unless I double the serving size. Due to the extra price tag, it's not worth it.

Rolled oats are steamed slightly to make them cook faster and are "rolled" flat. In comparison, steel cut are cut in halves. Other than that, there is no significant difference - they're essentially just cut differently.
  17993426
September 18, 2012 12:28 PM
I like both- but steel cut takes forever to cook, so they're more of a weekend food for me. Steel cut takes a half hour on the stove top. Rolled oats cook in 3-3:30 in the microwave, so they're much more work-week friendly. I like the textures of both kinds, but they are different.

I've heard claims that the extra steaming and rolling of Old-fashioned oats vs cutting of steel oats makes them less nutritious because of the extra processing. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, unless you plan on eating them uncooked. Cooking IS processing, and so you have to "process" the steel cut oats at home more than Rolled oats. It's a wash.

If you prefer the texture of one over the other that's a legit reason to choose it. If you like the cooking time of rolled oats, that's legit too. Or the price even- rolled oats are dirt cheap, steel cut a bit more expensive. The nutrition argument IMO holds no water.
  20711900
September 18, 2012 12:29 PM
I eat Quaker old-fashioned oats and I like them. One thing I will say, is I once bought generic old-fashioned oats from the grocery store and I noticed that they really made a gelatinous oatmeal rather than what I was used to with Quaker, so brand may matter.
  16759922

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.