Is there actually a difference between these two? The ingredients don't tell, but the nutrition information is slightly off so I assume they're not the same. Quick Oats seem to be a little better so I get those. Difference in prep time is only a minute or two.
Steel cut oats are the way to go.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Steel cut oats are the way to go.
That is what Arnold used to eat!!!
The ingredients are the same, they're just processed differently.
An oat grain looks more or less like a piece of rice. You can buy oats this way in some health food stores and such and prepare them just as you would rice. They have to simmer for about 40 minutes to cook thoroughly. Steel cut oats are oat grains that have been cut into smaller pieces so they cook a little bit faster, maybe 10-20 minutes of simmering. Regular "Old Fashioned" oats are oat grains that have been pressed more or less flat by running them between rollers, hence the name "rolled oats". These cook even faster than steel cut oats, nominally about 5 minutes after reaching boil. The thinner the oats are pressed the faster they cook, hence Quick Oats cook in about a minute after boil and Instant Oats cook sufficiently just by adding boiling water.
Since they're all the same ingredients, the nutritional content is identical. The difference really is one of texture verses convenience. There may be a difference in glycemic index as the thinner rolled oats might digest and be absorbed more quickly, but I don't think it is that significant.
Good answer. I don't know why but I've always been told that the quick oats are not as good for you. I actually have some quick oats and old fashioned oats at the house and just took a look. You're right in that they are both the same thing. Interesting.
is there a fiber difference?
I like steel cut because of the texture, it just makes it taste better.
The less processed the better the taste IMO. I have had steel cut but usually eat old fashioned just for the conveniance. I don't really like the texture of quick oats though it's a pretty thin line between quick oats and old fashion.
Roll your own baby!
Thread Killer wrote:
is there a fiber difference?
How could there be a fiber difference if they are the same thing - one just smashed a bit thinner than the other?
Da Guvernahtor wrote:
That is what Arnold used to eat!!!
Arnold would eat anything Doris fixed for him.
I have no idea if there's a nutritional difference, but the texture and flavor of old-fashioned rolled oats are about ten-fold superior to those of quick oats. Take the extra five minutes and enjoy your breakfast.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Since they're all the same ingredients, the nutritional content is identical. The difference really is one of texture verses convenience. There may be a difference in glycemic index as the thinner rolled oats might digest and be absorbed more quickly, but I don't think it is that significant.
Citizen Runner is mostly correct, steel cut oats have a higher fiber content and a slightly better nutritional content than rolled oats.
As with grains, once you break the hull of the grain the nutritional contents begin to deteriorate.
Quick oats (the kind you add hot water) are highly processed. Higher GI and less nutritional value.
Steel cut oats I think are slightly processed and have most of the hull still intact. Lower GI and better nutrition.
I like rolled oats.
Because I have them both in front of me:
Quaker Old Fashioned Oats (rolled)
Serving Size: 1/2 cup dry (40g)
Calories: 150
Total Fat 3g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Polyunsaturated Fat 1g
Monounsaturated Fat 1g
Total Carbohydrate 27g
Dietary Fiber 4g
Soluble Fiber 2g
Insoluble Fiber 2g
Sugars 1g
Protein 5g
Calcium 0%
Iron 10%
Ingredients: 100% Natural Whole Grain Quaker Quality Rolled Oats
John McCann's Steel Cut Irish Oatmeal
Serving Size: 1/4 cup dry (40g)
Calories: 150
Total Fat 2.5g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Polyunsaturated Fat 1g
Monounsaturated Fat 1g
Total Carbohydrate 27g
Dietary Fiber 3g
Soluble Fiber 2g
Insoluble Fiber 2g
Sugars <1g
Protein 4g
Calcium 2%
Iron 8%
Ingredients: 100% Whole Grain Irish Oats
They look pretty similar to me. 0.5g difference in fat, though it looks like Quaker may just have rounded up and they're actually the same. Supposedly Quaker's rolled oats have more fiber, though it looks like McCann can't add and that're actually the same too. Quaker has an extra gram of protein, and calcium and iron differ by negligible amounts. Someone messed up something because Quaker shouldn't have more fat and more protein but the same calories, but I don't think it's worth it to get upset over those tiny differences. Eat what's more convenient and/or tastes better. The stats are pretty much the same. I don't have Quick Oats/Instant Oats because I hate the texture, but the stats will be the same on them too. As a previous poster said, the only real difference is in glycemic index, which isn't nearly as important as dieters like to pretend it is. As long as you don't eat an oatmeal with a lot of added sugar, you're fine. And even then, you can do a lot worse than sugary oatmeal, and considering you post on this board, I think you can probably afford to eat 150 calories of sugary oatmeal for breakfast.
Something ain't right here:
Sally Paradise wrote:
Quaker Old Fashioned Oats (rolled)
Serving Size: 1/2 cup dry (40g)
John McCann's Steel Cut Irish Oatmeal
Serving Size: 1/4 cup dry (40g)
1/2 and 1/4 can't both be 40g.
My $0.02 - steel cut oats taste nuttier to me...I prefer the texture as well.
Compare a cup of steel cut oats to a cup of rolled oats. The rolled oats are way less dense due to the way they're rolled. The volume is approximate, since it varies due to settling. Companies calculate nutrition stats based on weight.
My bad....I just looked at my two different types in my pantry and the whole volume vs. weight dawned on me....duh.