After reading a lot of back-and-forth about Quick Oats vs. Quaker Oats, I thought I'd go to the source, and ask Mr. (Ms.?) Quaker.
In particular, I was looking to understand two things which are the subject of discussion on bb.com:
1. Do Quick Oats have a different glycemic index than Old Fashioned Oats?
2. Do Quick Oats contain different nutritional values than Old Fashioned Oats?
Note that none of this pertains to any instant oatmeal product
So, I sent the email below, and received the response below that.
Unfortunately the answer is not absolutely definitive, but I think I can infer the following:
1. Any difference in glycemic index is only due to a difference in the size of the particles. Once blended into a shake, then, there would be no difference in GI. Any such difference would apply only to the oats cooked whole or eaten raw. And, even cooked whole, both will fall apart somewhat during cooking, leading to probably a nearly identical GI. So, in general, I take Question 1 to be answered "no."
2. Except as noted above, the products are nutritionally identical. They provide identical levels of fiber, vitamins, etc.
Originally Posted by My emailOriginally Posted by Quaker reply
10-28-2005, 12:33 PM #1
Quick Oats vs. Old-Fashioned Oats: an answer (sort of)
03-02-2006, 07:36 AM #2
03-02-2006, 08:02 AM #3
What I'm curious about is the difference between quick oats (the variety I eat) and steelcut oats. What is the nutritional comparison look like?Controlled Labs Green MAGnitude tester w/White Blood -
My Megadosed Cissus Rx + Symmetry X Log - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=795553
I am NOT a cop.
03-02-2006, 09:03 AM #4
03-02-2006, 01:46 PM #5
Kind of off topic for what is being discussed, but at my work we have a cafeteria. They made oatmeal a few days ago which I was way stoked on and I had a cup of it, but it was almost pearly, like little tiny beads. It tasted much different than old fashioned or the quick cooking oats. Do you guys happen to know what kind of oatmeal it was? Perhaps steelcut? I don't know, I've never had those.
03-02-2006, 04:09 PM #6Originally Posted by AllusionDB
I would guess steel cut are lower GI, even after cooking. I don't think it takes much imagination to make that statement if you have ever cooked them.
Nutritionally they should be close. How much is bio-avalable might depend on the cooking. Personally I wouldn't sweat it. Remember though oats are not 'low' GI. Moderate, perhaps, as the Quaker reply states.
03-02-2006, 04:13 PM #7
- Join Date: Jan 2004
- Location: New York, New York, United States
- Posts: 1,566
- Rep Power: 748
03-02-2006, 04:23 PM #8
03-02-2006, 04:28 PM #9
03-02-2006, 04:36 PM #10
03-02-2006, 04:50 PM #11Originally Posted by beerbaron105
I know I have seen stuff posted here that says one is better than the other. Personally I don't buy it - GI might be slightly different raw, or slightly cooked and if that is healthier, OK.
Otherwise I just can't see how there is much difference.
Just for interest, I'd like to read the article if it is scientific - or my someone who really knows how these foods are processed.
03-02-2006, 05:01 PM #12
03-02-2006, 05:08 PM #13
Oats are unique in that particle size reduction doesn't seem to increase their glycemic effect:Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Apr;47(4):675-82.
Particle size of wheat, maize, and oat test meals: effects on plasma glucose and insulin responses and on the rate of starch digestion in vitro.
Heaton KW, Marcus SN, Emmett PM, Bolton CH.
University Department of Medicine, Bristol Royal Infirmary, UK.
When normal volunteers ate isocaloric wheat-based meals, their plasma insulin responses (peak concentration and area under curve) increased stepwise: whole grains less than cracked grains less than coarse flour less than fine flour. Insulin responses were also greater with fine maizemeal than with whole or cracked maize grains but were similar with whole groats, rolled oats, and fine oatmeal. The peak-to-nadir swing of plasma glucose was greater with wheat flour than with cracked or whole grains. In vitro starch hydrolysis by pancreatic amylase was faster with decreasing particle size with all three cereals. Correlation with the in vivo data was imperfect. Oat-based meals evoked smaller glucose and insulin responses than wheat- or maize-based meals. Particle size influences the digestion rate and consequent metabolic effects of wheat and maize but not oats. The increased insulin response to finely ground flour may be relevant to the etiology of diseases associated with hyperinsulinemia and to the management of diabetes.
Even given all that, I don't think it makes much nutritive difference at all which type you choose of the 2 in question.
03-02-2006, 07:30 PM #14
03-02-2006, 10:28 PM #15
03-03-2006, 08:03 AM #16
03-03-2006, 09:05 AM #17
- Join Date: Mar 2003
- Location: San Jose, California, United States
- Posts: 4,367
- Rep Power: 6792
03-03-2006, 09:17 AM #18
did you get any coupons or anything from them? I love emailing product companies because they always give coupons for free stuff with their replys.
The other day i emailed bb.com about samples and they gave me tons of protein powder and pre wo energy supplement samples. Ive done this with tuna also and got coupons for free tuna.
03-03-2006, 10:13 AM #19