Hi,
I'm trying to stick to a low glycemic load (GL) diet and heard that
oats were a good choice. I thought that "steel-cut" or old-fashioned
oats (e.g. McCann's) would be better than quick-oats (i.e. rolled
oats). However, I looked up "oats" on the following page:
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
and found that steel-cut had a GL of 17.2 while quick oats had a GL of
only 13.2
Does anyone know why the "whole-grain" version of oats would have a
higher GL than the "processed" version? I would have expected the
opposite.
Info on steel-cut oats: http://www.mccanns.ie/pages/products1.html
Thanks in advance,
at
magnulus - 09 Sep 2004 23:15 GMT
Rolled oats are whole oats, they are just processed differently.
Flattened.
jmk - 10 Sep 2004 18:18 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Thanks in advance,
> at
I'm not sure where you got your GI info. I checked
http://www.glycemicindex.com/ and it lists the following:
Porridge made from steel-cut oats, cooked in water 52
Porridge made from raw rolled oats 58*
Quick Oats, instant porridge 65
* The rolled oat GI ranges from 58 to 75 in their database. This isn't
all that surprising since the GI would be related to the thickness of
the rolled oats being tested.
"There's good reason to believe too that steel-cut oats are lower
glycemic than rolled oats because of the larger particle size."
http://www.mendosa.com/low_carb_low_gi_foods.htm
Here's another site with a lot of oat info:
http://www.karenskitchen.com/a/recipe_oat.htm

Signature
jmk in NC
nospam@aol.com - 11 Sep 2004 07:36 GMT
Those values are for cooked porridge. The "quick oats" will absorb more water,
maybe a lot more water depending on how they are prepared, therefore their GL
will be lower because of their water content.
You need to compare them by dry weight.
Ora
>Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Thanks in advance,
>at