Quick Oats vs. Old-Fashioned Oats: an answer (sort of)

[JamesInLA]

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.

My question concerns both Quaker Old Fashioned Oatmeal and Quaker Quick Oats (the one-minute kind, not instant).

As a recreational bodybuilder, I sometimes choose foods high in quality carbohydrates, but with a low glycemic index. At other times I prefer a higher glycemic index.

Can you tell me the glycemic index for these two products?

On a related note, does the manufacturing process for the Quick Oats result in any different nutritional characteristics from the Old Fashioned Oats? The nutrition labels look the same with respect to all the nutrients noted. Can you describe how the Quick Oats differ from the Old Fashioned Oats, aside from the obvious fact that one cooks faster than the other?

Thanks!

Thanks for your OatMail about Quaker Oats.

Whenever a consumer takes the time to contact us, we are eager to respond. Old Fashioned and Quick Quaker Oats have an intermediate Glycemic Index. Many factors affect the glycemic index of a food including the form of the food (raw, processed, etc.), method of preparation, as well as the age, gender and health of the person eating the food.

Old Fashioned Quaker Oats and Quick Quaker Oats are whole grain cereals. Nothing artificial is added and no nutrients are removed during processing. Our Quick Cooking Oats are just cut into several pieces to shorten the cooking time. There is no difference in the nutritional values for these products.

We hope this information is helpful.

Rashana

[Brainoverride]

That's a good post since I was asking myself that question... I am located in Québec/Canada, and groceries here only carry Quick Oats... I've been searching for a long time for a place to get Old fashioned oats, but I think I'll stick to quick oats.

[Abe the Cop]

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?

[ksamurai]

'O' is for oatmeal, it's very good for me! mmmmmmmmmmmmm

[AllusionDB]

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.

Thanks

[Jules Verne]

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.

Thanks

Sounds like steel cut - they tend to be more circular and definitely tase different. Some say more 'nutty'. Often they will be more crunchy.

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.

[Hardgainer2000]

i always thought quick oats tasted better.

[beerbaron105]

if you want the healthiest oats get the old fashioned ones, i have quick oats, they arent too bad, but they are still more refined then the oldschool ones

[Jules Verne]

if you want the healthiest oats get the old fashioned ones, i have quick oats, they arent too bad, but they are still more refined then the oldschool ones

Now how do you come to that conclusion?

Did you even read the thread, or are you just quoting from 'common knowledge'?

[beerbaron105]

Now how do you come to that conclusion?

Did you even read the thread, or are you just quoting from 'common knowledge'?

i read another article a little while back on the differences, ill try to dig it up tho

[Jules Verne]

i read another article a little while back on the differences, ill try to dig it up tho

Quaker stated there was no nutritional difference. Do we not believe them.

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.

[bobburn]

I'd follow what quaker says, if they say it's the same, then it's probably true. They have no motive to lie, no extra sales, no increased interest.

[alan aragon]

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.

Researchers can only guess why this is so, but they aren't Mother Nature herself, so they may never really know. My guess is that this is due to the gum component of oats increasing as particle size decreases. So the more surface area you create by either flattening or grinding, any anticipated increase in glycemic effect gets counteracted by an increase in "gumminess" of the oats upon contact with liquid. This gives oats more viscosity, & keeps their absorption slow either way. Make sense?

Even given all that, I don't think it makes much nutritive difference at all which type you choose of the 2 in question.

[legends159]

Lets all take Alan's advice and just dead this common myth that 'instant oats' are bad just because they're quicker to make and steamed and rolled and cut up to smaller pieces.

Oats are oats, as long as they dont have unnecessary additives or flavoring or sugar in it, its good for you.

[1quick1]

Thank you for your OATMAIL. Anyone else LOL when they seen that?

Very good info and thanks for taking the time to contact them.

[debuofcourse]

Thank you for your OATMAIL. Anyone else LOL when they seen that?

Very good info and thanks for taking the time to contact them.

Yeah that was funny!! LOL!

[corpsedub]

quick oats grind better in my grinder so i use them instead. that's my factor

[thajeepster]

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.

[armz_ha]

That's a good post since I was asking myself that question... I am located in Québec/Canada, and groceries here only carry Quick Oats... I've been searching for a long time for a place to get Old fashioned oats, but I think I'll stick to quick oats.

i live in bc, canada and the only good oats i can find is "quick oats" too.