Oat bran is better than Oatmeal

[MCconditioner]

I have started eating oatbran because I feel it tastes better than oatmeal and is a lot more filling.

Anybody else come to this realization?

[Leafs/Pack]

Oat bran is an excellent substitute for oatmeal, I have both and just keep switching it up.

[Saul77]

I enjoy oat bran as well. It's smaller than oatmeal and easier to drink and mix with a shake.

[thajeepster]

I like to cook about a half and half oat bran to oatmeal... just cook the oat meal with extra water so its kinda soupy, then stir in the other half of oat bran and it thickens it right up, plus you get nice texture contrasts between the whole oats and the oat bran.

[thajeepster]

although have you noticed the differences between plain, bulk oat bran and the stuff you buy next to the rolled oats? Check this out:

Mothers Oat bran, ingredients: 100% Natural Oat Bran

Per 100g
364 Cals
8g Fat, 1 sat
63g carbs, 14g fiber
17g protein

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s01aj.html

Plain oat bran, raw: (of course, the ingredients are just oat bran)

Per 100g
246 Cals
7g Fat, 1g sat
66g Carbs, 15g fiber
17g protein

Now, (7gFat x 9 = 63 cals) + ( 66-15 = 51g Carbs x 4 = 204 Cals) + (17g Pro x 4 = 68 Cals) = 335 cals, at least, fiber actually has like 1.5-2 cals so it would be higher. where the hell did the extra 100 cals go?

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s04ef.html

what the hell, i never know what to go with. If you go with the latter, you get more carbs, but less cals, if you go with the first, vice versa? So confusing.

[spytechs_wife]

I have started eating oatbran because I feel it tastes better than oatmeal and is a lot more filling.

Anybody else come to this realization?

yup. love oat bran!

http://www.quakeroatmeal.com/Product...OT-OatBran.cfm

clare

[MCconditioner]

Glad to see so many people have been eating this stuff. Mine is from Bob's Red Mill and yields (per 1/3 cup dry)

120 calories
2 grams fat
21 grams carbs
5 grams of fiber
1 gram sugar
5 grams protein

[andy141]

yep i mix mine with my oats:

nutritional information:

per 100g:
Energy 791kJ/188kcal, Protein 16.3g, Carbohydrate 17.4g, sugars 5.5g, Fat 5.9g - of which saturates 1.2g, mono-unsaturates 1.2g, polyunsaturates 3.5g, Fibre (AOAC method) 44.5g, Sodium trace, Thiamin 0.4mg (29%RDA), Niacin 24.1mg (134% RDA), Vitamin B6 0.3mg (15% RDA), Folic Acid 130µg (65% RDA), Phosphorus 1600mg (200% RDA), Iron 11.7mg (84% RDA), Magnesium 442mg (147% RDA), Zinc 7.4mg (49% RDA).

[skinnyboy]

Oat bran is wonderful nutrition wise but if I eat too much it gives me the worst gas!

[The Doc]

although have you noticed the differences between plain, bulk oat bran and the stuff you buy next to the rolled oats? Check this out:

Mothers Oat bran, ingredients: 100% Natural Oat Bran

Per 100g
364 Cals
8g Fat, 1 sat
63g carbs, 14g fiber
17g protein

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s01aj.html

Plain oat bran, raw: (of course, the ingredients are just oat bran)

Per 100g
246 Cals
7g Fat, 1g sat
66g Carbs, 15g fiber
17g protein

Now, (7gFat x 9 = 63 cals) + ( 66-15 = 51g Carbs x 4 = 204 Cals) + (17g Pro x 4 = 68 Cals) = 335 cals, at least, fiber actually has like 1.5-2 cals so it would be higher. where the hell did the extra 100 cals go?

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s04ef.html

what the hell, i never know what to go with. If you go with the latter, you get more carbs, but less cals, if you go with the first, vice versa? So confusing.

This question really tested my abilities to recall useless information from my past . I actually had to go back and read some old notes just so I could explain this without making your head explode .

The first thing you need to know is that carbs are usually estimated in nutritional values. They take 100g and then subtract the Protein, Fat, Water and Ash content and the number that's left is the Carbs. Now after that is done they can use different "systems" of evaluation to get the nutritional info to put on the package. In the 2 examples you have above the Mothers Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater General Factor System and the Plain Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater Specific Factor System (which was actually introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt ).

The Atwater General Factor System is the one most people know where the values are based on METABOLIZABLE ENERGY (ME), or the amount of energy available for total (whole body) heat production at nitrogen and energy balance. We know these numbers as:
1g fat=9 calories
1g protein=4 calories
1g carbs=4 calories
50% of all fiber in undigestable

The Atwater General Factor System is how the Mothers numbers were figured out.

Fat: 7.9g x 9 = 71.7 calories
Protein: 17.025g x 4 = 68.1 calories
Carbs: 63g-7g fiber = 56g x 4 = 224 calories
Total calories = 363.8

Now The Atwater Specific Factor System, a refinement based on re-examination of the Atwater system, was introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt. It integrates the results of 50 years of research and derives different factors for proteins, fats and carbohydrates, depending on the foods in which they are found. So the above numbers have little to do with figuring out the nutritional value except for the fat. You actually have to look at the energy factor of the source of carbs, and the Protein Rating of the protein source to get your nutritional values.

Here's how they figured out the nutritional values for the Plain Oat Bran using The Atwater Specific Factor System.

The conversion factor for the digestible portion of the fat is 37 kJ/g (9 kcal/g).
Fat: 6.533g x 9 = 58.8 calories or 6.533 x 37= 241.72 divided by 4.18= 57.8 calories, so there's actually a 1 calorie discrepancy in the math.

Calculating the Protein Rating

% Protein = 14.2
Reasonable Daily Intake = 30g
Protein in a Reasonable Daily Intake = 0.142 X 30 g = 4.26/4.3
PER = 1.8
Protein Rating = 4.3 X 1.8 = 7.74
7.74 x 17g protein = 131.58 kj divided by 4.18 kj/g= 31.47 calories/31.5

Carbs: 15g (fiber) x .06(energy value fiber)=.9, 66g - 0.9= 65.1 x 10kj=651kj, 651 kj divided by 4.18kj/g = 155.74 calories/156
Total calories= 246.3

So as you can see the nutritioal information is actually at the mercy of the manufacturer if they want to represent it as direct analysis or food energy conversion factors. You can safely use the smaller numbers if you believe that different foods require more energy for the body to digest thus leaving less for the body to use or store accordingly. That is basically why there is a difference in the 2 values.

The Doc

[thajeepster]

you sure you dont have a phd doc? thanks for the info

[JMillion]

Anyone happen to know the GI of Oat Bran? Just wondering.

[Saul77]

Why does pasta have a lower gi than oat bran? Oat bran is like 78 and pasta is in the 40's.

[Dosquito]

This question really tested my abilities to recall useless information from my past . I actually had to go back and read some old notes just so I could explain this without making your head explode .

The first thing you need to know is that carbs are usually estimated in nutritional values. They take 100g and then subtract the Protein, Fat, Water and Ash content and the number that's left is the Carbs. Now after that is done they can use different "systems" of evaluation to get the nutritional info to put on the package. In the 2 examples you have above the Mothers Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater General Factor System and the Plain Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater Specific Factor System (which was actually introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt ).

The Atwater General Factor System is the one most people know where the values are based on METABOLIZABLE ENERGY (ME), or the amount of energy available for total (whole body) heat production at nitrogen and energy balance. We know these numbers as:
1g fat=9 calories
1g protein=4 calories
1g carbs=4 calories
50% of all fiber in undigestable

The Atwater General Factor System is how the Mothers numbers were figured out.

Fat: 7.9g x 9 = 71.7 calories
Protein: 17.025g x 4 = 68.1 calories
Carbs: 63g-7g fiber = 56g x 4 = 224 calories
Total calories = 363.8

Now The Atwater Specific Factor System, a refinement based on re-examination of the Atwater system, was introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt. It integrates the results of 50 years of research and derives different factors for proteins, fats and carbohydrates, depending on the foods in which they are found. So the above numbers have little to do with figuring out the nutritional value except for the fat. You actually have to look at the energy factor of the source of carbs, and the Protein Rating of the protein source to get your nutritional values.

Here's how they figured out the nutritional values for the Plain Oat Bran using The Atwater Specific Factor System.

The conversion factor for the digestible portion of the fat is 37 kJ/g (9 kcal/g).
Fat: 6.533g x 9 = 58.8 calories or 6.533 x 37= 241.72 divided by 4.18= 57.8 calories, so there's actually a 1 calorie discrepancy in the math.

Calculating the Protein Rating

% Protein = 14.2
Reasonable Daily Intake = 30g
Protein in a Reasonable Daily Intake = 0.142 X 30 g = 4.26/4.3
PER = 1.8
Protein Rating = 4.3 X 1.8 = 7.74
7.74 x 17g protein = 131.58 kj divided by 4.18 kj/g= 31.47 calories/31.5

Carbs: 15g (fiber) x .06(energy value fiber)=.9, 66g - 0.9= 65.1 x 10kj=651kj, 651 kj divided by 4.18kj/g = 155.74 calories/156
Total calories= 246.3

So as you can see the nutritioal information is actually at the mercy of the manufacturer if they want to represent it as direct analysis or food energy conversion factors. You can safely use the smaller numbers if you believe that different foods require more energy for the body to digest thus leaving less for the body to use or store accordingly. That is basically why there is a difference in the 2 values.

The Doc

You are the best member ever

[Oddball8945]

although have you noticed the differences between plain, bulk oat bran and the stuff you buy next to the rolled oats? Check this out:

Mothers Oat bran, ingredients: 100% Natural Oat Bran

Per 100g
364 Cals
8g Fat, 1 sat
63g carbs, 14g fiber
17g protein

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s01aj.html

Plain oat bran, raw: (of course, the ingredients are just oat bran)

Per 100g
246 Cals
7g Fat, 1g sat
66g Carbs, 15g fiber
17g protein

Now, (7gFat x 9 = 63 cals) + ( 66-15 = 51g Carbs x 4 = 204 Cals) + (17g Pro x 4 = 68 Cals) = 335 cals, at least, fiber actually has like 1.5-2 cals so it would be higher. where the hell did the extra 100 cals go?

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s04ef.html

what the hell, i never know what to go with. If you go with the latter, you get more carbs, but less cals, if you go with the first, vice versa? So confusing.

This question really tested my abilities to recall useless information from my past . I actually had to go back and read some old notes just so I could explain this without making your head explode .

The first thing you need to know is that carbs are usually estimated in nutritional values. They take 100g and then subtract the Protein, Fat, Water and Ash content and the number that's left is the Carbs. Now after that is done they can use different "systems" of evaluation to get the nutritional info to put on the package. In the 2 examples you have above the Mothers Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater General Factor System and the Plain Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater Specific Factor System (which was actually introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt ).

The Atwater General Factor System is the one most people know where the values are based on METABOLIZABLE ENERGY (ME), or the amount of energy available for total (whole body) heat production at nitrogen and energy balance. We know these numbers as:
1g fat=9 calories
1g protein=4 calories
1g carbs=4 calories
50% of all fiber in undigestable

The Atwater General Factor System is how the Mothers numbers were figured out.

Fat: 7.9g x 9 = 71.7 calories
Protein: 17.025g x 4 = 68.1 calories
Carbs: 63g-7g fiber = 56g x 4 = 224 calories
Total calories = 363.8

Now The Atwater Specific Factor System, a refinement based on re-examination of the Atwater system, was introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt. It integrates the results of 50 years of research and derives different factors for proteins, fats and carbohydrates, depending on the foods in which they are found. So the above numbers have little to do with figuring out the nutritional value except for the fat. You actually have to look at the energy factor of the source of carbs, and the Protein Rating of the protein source to get your nutritional values.

Here's how they figured out the nutritional values for the Plain Oat Bran using The Atwater Specific Factor System.

The conversion factor for the digestible portion of the fat is 37 kJ/g (9 kcal/g).
Fat: 6.533g x 9 = 58.8 calories or 6.533 x 37= 241.72 divided by 4.18= 57.8 calories, so there's actually a 1 calorie discrepancy in the math.

Calculating the Protein Rating

% Protein = 14.2
Reasonable Daily Intake = 30g
Protein in a Reasonable Daily Intake = 0.142 X 30 g = 4.26/4.3
PER = 1.8
Protein Rating = 4.3 X 1.8 = 7.74
7.74 x 17g protein = 131.58 kj divided by 4.18 kj/g= 31.47 calories/31.5

Carbs: 15g (fiber) x .06(energy value fiber)=.9, 66g - 0.9= 65.1 x 10kj=651kj, 651 kj divided by 4.18kj/g = 155.74 calories/156
Total calories= 246.3

So as you can see the nutritioal information is actually at the mercy of the manufacturer if they want to represent it as direct analysis or food energy conversion factors. You can safely use the smaller numbers if you believe that different foods require more energy for the body to digest thus leaving less for the body to use or store accordingly. That is basically why there is a difference in the 2 values.

The Doc

wow very confuseing on the macro.

Sorry to bring up an old thread.

Well i got oatbran and it stated on the bulk bin the nutrition facts 100g=246 calories.

but then you have oatbran in boxes that have the latter info. Now i think ill log what the bulk bin said, but what about people really strictly counting calories. If you have 3 servings of oatbran, and take the first one over the 2nd youll be off by a good 200 calories.

.........whatever.

///

[Sixpack]

Oatbran is great I usually switch it up every morning.

[Oddball8945]

Oatbran is great I usually switch it up every morning.

yea its delicious, cept the nutrition facts can drive someone into a nut house with the giant difference

[Sixpack]

NO diffeence on mine 1/2 cup is the same as oats. 1/4 cup is 75 cals, 15 carbs

yea its delicious, cept the nutrition facts can drive someone into a nut house with the giant difference

[Oddball8945]

NO diffeence on mine 1/2 cup is the same as oats. 1/4 cup is 75 cals, 15 carbs

mine from whole foods bulk bin said 100g of raw oatbran is 246 calories

or 40g is 100ish

[Sixpack]

so they are different...I don't stress

mine from whole foods bulk bin said 100g of raw oatbran is 246 calories

or 40g is 100ish

[Oddball8945]

so they are different...I don't stress

yea ill try not to either, its not like im counting or planing my calories out anymore anyway so it doesnt matter if its wrong or off by a little i guess, as long as everything is relative and proportoned meal wise i wont be in to big an excess of calories.

[skinnyboipgh]

Here's a recipe 4 low-fat oatbran muffins:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3525391

[Oddball8945]

This question actually touches on the different ways to calculate calories for food. Sometimes the exact same portion of the exact same food can have two completely different sets of nutitional information.The quick and easy answer is that the interpertation of the information is up to the manufacturer themselves and which method they choose to use determines what you read on the box. This was brought to my attention when 2 different containers of Oat Bran had vastly different nutritional info for the same quantity of the same food.

1)Mothers Oat bran, ingredients: 100% Natural Oat Bran

Per 100g
364 Cals
8g Fat, 1 sat
63g carbs, 14g fiber
17g protein

2)Plain oat bran, bulk, raw: ingredients: 100% Natural Oat Bran

Per 100g
246 Cals
7g Fat, 1g sat
66g Carbs, 15g fiber
17g protein

Now how can the Oat Bran that has 3g more carbs and only 1g less of fat have 118 fewer calories than the other package of Bran? Is it somehow different than the other product even though they are both simply 100% Natural Oat Bran? No, the companies just used 2 totally different methods of obtaining their nutritional info. I'll explain:

The first thing you need to know is that carbs are usually estimated in nutritional values. They take 100g and then subtract the Protein, Fat, Water and Ash content and the number that's left is the Carbs. Now after that is done they can use different "systems" of evaluation to get the nutritional info to put on the package. In the 2 examples you have above the Mothers Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater General Factor System and the Plain/Bulk Oat Bran is valued using the Atwater Specific Factor System (which was actually introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt ).

The Atwater General Factor System is the one most people know where the values are based on METABOLIZABLE ENERGY (ME), or the amount of energy available for total (whole body) heat production at nitrogen and energy balance. We know these numbers as:
1g fat=9 calories
1g protein=4 calories
1g carbs=4 calories
50% of all fiber in undigestable

Most people accept this at face value since it is so easy to use and understand even though it is not entirely accurate. Depending on the food source the actual calories per gram vary for protein, carbs, and fat:


Protein: 2.44-4.36 calories per gram
Carbs: 2.70-4.16 calories per gram
Fats: 8.37-9.02 calories per gram

The Atwater General Factor System is how the Mothers numbers were figured out.

Fat: 7.9g x 9[/color] = 71.7 calories
Protein: 17.025g x 4[/color] = 68.1 calories
Carbs: 63g-7g fiber = 56g x 4[/color] = 224 calories
Total calories = 363.8

Now The Atwater Specific Factor System, a refinement based on re-examination of the Atwater system, was introduced in 1955 by Merrill and Watt. It integrates the results of 50 years of research and derives different factors for proteins, fats and carbohydrates, depending on the foods in which they are found. So the above numbers have little to do with figuring out the nutritional value except for the fat. You actually have to look at the energy factor of the source of carbs, and the Protein Rating of the protein source to get your nutritional values. This method has a lot to do with "Food Energy".

Here's how they figured out the nutritional values for the Plain Oat Bran using The Atwater Specific Factor System.

The conversion factor for the digestible portion of the fat is 37 kJ/g (9 kcal/g).
Fat: 6.533g x 9 = 58.8 calories or 6.533 x 37= 241.72 divided by 4.18= 57.8 calories, so there's actually a 1 calorie discrepancy in the math.

Calculating the Protein Rating

% Protein = 14.2
Reasonable Daily Intake = 30g
Protein in a Reasonable Daily Intake = 0.142 X 30 g = 4.26/4.3
PER = 1.8
Protein Rating = 4.3 X 1.8 = 7.74
7.74 x 17g protein = 131.58 kj divided by 4.18 kj/g= 31.47 calories/31.5

Carbs: 15g (fiber) x .06(energy value fiber)=.9, 66g - 0.9= 65.1 x 10kj=651kj, 651 kj divided by 4.18kj/g = 155.74 calories/156
Total calories= 246.3

As you can imagine this actually took me about 10 hour of reading and research to find all of the equations and ratings to prove the numbers mathematically (yeah, I need a life ).So as you can see the nutritioal information is actually at the mercy of the manufacturer if they want to represent it as direct analysis or food energy conversion factors. You can safely use the smaller numbers if you believe that different foods require more energy for the body to digest thus leaving less for the body to use or store accordingly. That is basically why there is a sizable difference in the nutritional values of the same portions of the same food.

I hope that wasn't to complicated .

The Doc


^ found that in another post by the doc. guess it makes sense then

[Sixpack]

OB quit stressing the difference is like 100cals or 80 cals or whatever , but whatever brand and read the lable and go with it