Rolled vs. Steel Cut vs. Stone Ground

[terraj]

from nutrition data news.


First, some quick definitions. Steel-cut oats are hulled, toasted, oat grains that have been coarsely chopped into chunks about the size of a sesame seed. Stone-ground oats are the same thing, only ground into smaller pieces, closer to the size of a poppy seed. To make old-fashioned rolled oats, they steam the hulled toasted grains and then run them between rollers to create flakes.

The biggest differences between rolled, steel-cut, and stone-ground oats are in the texture and cooking times. They are all considered "whole grains" in that they all contain the germ, endosperm and bran of the original grain.

Any differences in nutrition would be due to the different processing methods, but the differences are minor. Some nutrients will be lost to heat and moisture during the steaming of the rolled oats, for example. On the other hand, the steel-cut oats have to be cooked for longer (losing nutrients along the way) so it's probably just about a wash. Similarly, the stone ground oats may have a slightly higher glycemic impact than the steel cut because they've been reduced to smaller particles. But I really wouldn't get too hung up on that --all three forms are considered to be low-glycemic foods.

Because these minor differences aren't going to make much of a difference in the big picture, I'd go with whichever you prefer.

Note: Quick-cooking and instant oats are a whole different story--as are the kind that are packaged with flavors and sweeteners. I'd regard all of these as nutritionally inferior.

[Twist]

good post.