08-28-2005, 07:19 AM #1
oats, raw or cooked, does it make a diff??
I have an easier time to stomach them raw, been blending them up in my shakes. Does cooking them make them better for you in any way? Or is it all for naught?
08-28-2005, 07:23 AM #2Originally Posted by Evil Predator
08-28-2005, 07:31 AM #3
I find oatmeal easier to stomach when it is raw.
08-28-2005, 09:16 AM #4
dont quote me on this but I seem to remember that oats should be boiled since raw oats contains something that hinders nutrient absorbation. Not that I think its a big deal at all. But coocked is defenetly better form that point of view.
From the GI list I have seen cocked oatmeal also has a bit lower gi(raw 89 cocked 76).
08-28-2005, 01:37 PM #5Originally Posted by johan
sorry i'm being immature - and i'm bored
i eat mine non cocked incidently
08-28-2005, 01:44 PM #6Originally Posted by G-Force
08-28-2005, 02:55 PM #7
ya, i like oatmeal without cock too
08-28-2005, 03:53 PM #8
lol damn I never learn how to spell that word right
08-28-2005, 05:09 PM #9
I like it warm, not cooked. I think it goes down easier raw.
08-28-2005, 07:06 PM #10Associate Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
just from what Ive read: not necessary what is 100% accurate
Grinding grains into flour may not change their nutritional info, but they will be more rapidly absorbed which raises their GI and II. O.K. for bulking, but not good for cutting.
08-28-2005, 07:35 PM #11Associate Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- dirty south
i just put some in a zip lock bag and add a little water, golden.
08-29-2005, 08:12 AM #12
Grinding oats does not alter its GI score, this is one of the few carbs that work this way.
08-29-2005, 08:21 AM #13Originally Posted by Giantz11
are you sure. On GI lists I have seen that oatmeal with thinner "flakes"(cant think of any other word on english) has a higher gi then those with thick flakes. seems like grinding them would increase even more. Maby its 2 different kinds of oatmeal though
08-29-2005, 08:24 AM #14
i see how they would be digested quicker? but why would this effect the GI?
08-29-2005, 08:27 AM #15
GI is very much determined by digestion. Faster digestion means the carbs will hit the blood faster and cause higher glucose levels.
I think(not sure) that is why fats lower gi since it makes gastric emptying slower.
08-29-2005, 08:30 AM #16
thats also why lowering the stomachs ph makes gi lower since carbs needs high ph to be broken down.
08-29-2005, 08:53 AM #17
m J Clin Nutr 1988 Apr;47(4):675-82 Related Articles, Links
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 <b>insulin responses (peak concentration and area under curve) increased stepwise: whole grains less than cracked grains less than coarse flour less than fine flour.</b> <i>Insulin responses</i> were also greater with fine maizemeal than with whole or cracked maize grains but <i>were similar with whole groats, rolled oats, and fine oatmeal.</i> 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.
08-29-2005, 08:56 AM #18
thats cool. I wonder why. Do they present any full explanation in the whole article?
08-29-2005, 09:02 AM #19
Didn't read the full text, I'll check it out though.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)