DrJohn... blueberry oatmeal

[Q.]

johnka,

I read your blueberry oatmeal recipe and was wondering how it compared to my own, from a nutritional standpoint:

* 1/4 cup of 1 minute oats
* 3/8 cup of water
* several tablespoons of previously frozen blueberries
* 99 seconds in the microwave

I'm sure that your verion is better nutritionally but I guess what I'm wanting to know is how much better? I tried the steel-cut oats and there's just more time involved overall so, if the difference in benefits is minimal, my cost/benefit analysis would lean toward the quicker version.

I've been eating this breakfast for a long while and last birthday's total cholesterol was 140 - down from 240+ - with the HDL's still above 50. Of course, I don't know how much should be attributed to the oatmeal but, just looking at this one facet of the total picture, what do you think about the quicker version of the oatmeal?

[Johnka]

Quercus, If you like the taste of the regular instant, then there really isn't much difference (nutritionally) between them and SCO's. SCO's are a little closer to the whole grain, but if you look at the nutritional info, almost exactly the same.

[Q.]

Thanks! That makes things much simpler for me. Oh, and I also use the cinammon but still haven't found out what the latest and greatest on the benefits of cinammon are...???

Thanks, again, for your reply!

[Johnka]

Originally posted by Quercus:
Thanks! That makes things much simpler for me. Oh, and I also use the cinammon but still haven't found out what the latest and greatest on the benefits of cinammon are...???

Thanks, again, for your reply!

Cinnamon, like most spices, has some antioxidants (not sure the exact ones). But the best benefit of cinnamon to me is its taste [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by Johnka:
Quercus, If you like the taste of the regular instant, then there really isn't much difference (nutritionally) between them and SCO's. SCO's are a little closer to the whole grain, but if you look at the nutritional info, almost exactly the same.

John,

Why is it that all the nutritional articles suggest always using SCO? I vaguely remember something about processing and removing fiber (I think?), and have been using SC since then, but frankly, it would be a lot easier for me to use instant.

BTW, either way I add a scoop of my Lifetime Vanilla Whey Protein Isolate after the oatmeal is cooked....it makes it taste chewy and really yummy! I do remember something about not heating up whey protein though. That's why it tastes so chewy...the protein is getting heated up. Any information on this? Am I defeating the purpose?

[Johnka]

Originally posted by Kaiser:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnka:
Quercus, If you like the taste of the regular instant, then there really isn't much difference (nutritionally) between them and SCO's. SCO's are a little closer to the whole grain, but if you look at the nutritional info, almost exactly the same.

John,

Why is it that all the nutritional articles suggest always using SCO? I vaguely remember something about processing and removing fiber (I think?), and have been using SC since then, but frankly, it would be a lot easier for me to use instant.

BTW, either way I add a scoop of my Lifetime Vanilla Whey Protein Isolate after the oatmeal is cooked....it makes it taste chewy and really yummy! I do remember something about not heating up whey protein though. That's why it tastes so chewy...the protein is getting heated up. Any information on this? Am I defeating the purpose? [/quote]Hi Kaiser! It's nice to be able to chat with you again, now that I know where you've been hanging out.

As far as the instant vs. SCO's - I'm a huge SCO snob, so it pains me to say this, but the nutrients are almost exactly the same as plain instant oatmeal. So there's hardly any difference in the USDA nutrient reports, even in fiber content.

Instant oats are steamed, rolled, and dried, twice, and in the process a lot of the vitamins and minerals are removed (and a trace of the natural fats). That is why instant oats are fortified, to replace the lost vitamins.

I don't really trust fortified foods, but if you had to choose one, instant oats would be among the best. There are some studies that indicate that supplementing individual vitamin intake, as opposed to actually eating the whole foods, does not provide the same benefits (Schorah, C.J. 1999. Micronutrients, vitamins, and cancer risk. Vitam Horm 57:1-23).


Also, they add sodium to instant oats, about 300 mg per packet, which is just something to consider.

Finally, some people have said that instant oats induce a little more of an insulin response than do SCO's. I'm not sure if there are any real studies to show this though.

Anyway, sorry for the long-winded response, but in the end, it boils down to getting good vs. optimal nutrition & taste.

[Q.]

One little caveat that I wanted to throw in just in case someone reading this didn't already know it... When you say "instant oats," I'm pretty certain that you aren't referring to the little packages of flavored oatmeal that you add boiling water to that are packed with sugar. The instant, in this case, like the kind I use is the "One Minute" or "Five Minute" oats that typically come in the cylindrical containers. I'm always concerned that someone will read the "instant" part and think that the heavily sweetened kind is in any way healthy.