ExRx.net
http://exrx.net/forum/

Raw Oats
http://exrx.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7226
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Jebus [ Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:23 am ]
Post subject:  Raw Oats

Can you eat oats raw?

Author:  callipygian50 [ Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:59 am ]
Post subject: 

Eating raw oats won't kill you, so the literal answer is yes, you can eat raw oats. Most commercial oats are precooked. So, unless the oats specifically say they are raw, they probably aren't.

You can read a more detailed discussion from a dietician here:
http://www.roadtonutrition.com/archives/000800.html


I prefer to cook my rolled oats, but do use dry oats when I make granola, which I cook to make crunchy.

Author:  stuward [ Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:22 am ]
Post subject: 

Assuming you're talking about rolled oats, the easy answer is yes. In fact muesli contains raw oats. I used to mix raw oats into my protein shakes for the fibre. Make sure you take them with liquid of some type.

On the other hand, there is contorversy about the anti-nutrients in grains. Usually cooking the grains improves this, and is required for most grains. Oats don't seem to be as much of a problem, and what problems do exist, aren't solved by cooking. The main anti-nutrient in oats is phytic acid. Steaming the oats (as in quick oats) does reduce these. The problem with most grains is Lectins which are not as big a problem in oats. They're the reason other grains need to be cooked, soaked or fermented.

Author:  Jebus [ Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks Stu and Callipygian. Yea I am using them with a liquid, just in my shakes to get extra calories.

I just thought you had to cook all grains, but was a bit curious about oats.

Author:  frogbyte [ Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:36 am ]
Post subject: 

If you just want extra calories seems like there are many better options.

Author:  Haffy13 [ Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

stuward wrote:
Assuming you're talking about rolled oats, the easy answer is yes. In fact muesli contains raw oats. I used to mix raw oats into my protein shakes for the fibre. Make sure you take them with liquid of some type.

On the other hand, there is contorversy about the anti-nutrients in grains. Usually cooking the grains improves this, and is required for most grains. Oats don't seem to be as much of a problem, and what problems do exist, aren't solved by cooking. The main anti-nutrient in oats is phytic acid. Steaming the oats (as in quick oats) does reduce these. The problem with most grains is Lectins which are not as big a problem in oats. They're the reason other grains need to be cooked, soaked or fermented.


Yah, so I've heard stuff about grains being bad for you. I generally eat a lower amount. I gulp down a cup of raw oats for breakfast and have a wrap for lunch, but generally don't eat grains aside from that except on occasion. So, while I don't think it is a problem for myself, I still am curious. Can you provide a reliable link with some information on this?

Thanks, I'd be very interested to read about this.

Author:  stuward [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:30 am ]
Post subject: 

Haffy, I don't have time to put a lot into this but look up "The truth about grains" by Leslie Cordain. Joe Mercola wrote a book on it (The No Grain Diet). The Wetston A Price Foundation people write about it constantly. There is some new research on Peter Guyette's site and Denice Minger just published a new analysis on Wheat as part of her China Study work. I'm sorry I don't have time to provide links to all this.

Stu

Author:  frogbyte [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:13 am ]
Post subject: 

There's almost no nutrition in grains. Make every calorie count - eat high-nutrition foods.

Author:  stuward [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

frogbyte wrote:
There's almost no nutrition in grains. Make every calorie count - eat high-nutrition foods.


This is an important point that a lot of people miss. Nutritionists like to talk about the great nutritional density of whole grains. In fact, when compared to almost any vegetable, the best grains are crap. They are only good when compared to refined grains. Just because they are less crappy doesn't make them good. The best single thing you can do for you nutritional health is to substitute vegetables for grains. Every time you eat grains you remove the opportunity to eat something better.

Author:  bam [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

News to me.
How about a side-by-side? Here's the nutritional value for oats (per Wikipedia)...
    Oats Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
    Energy 1,628 kJ (389 kcal)
    Carbohydrates 66 g
    Dietary fiber 11 g
    Fat 7 g
    Protein 17 g
    Pantothenic acid (B5) 1.3 mg (26%)
    Folate (Vit. B9) 56 μg (14%)
    Iron 5 mg (40%)
    Magnesium 177 mg (48%)
    β-glucan (soluble fiber) 4 g
OK mostly carbs, but then wow! Protein, B5, Magnesium and Iron.... hmmm?

OK, here's broccoli...
    Broccoli, raw (edible parts), 100 g Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
    Energy 141 kJ (34 kcal)
    Carbohydrates 6.64 g
    Sugars 1.7 g
    Dietary fibre 2.6 g
    Fat 0.37 g
    Protein 2.82 g
    Water 89.30 g
    Vitamin A equiv. 31 μg (3%)
    - beta-carotene 361 μg (3%)
    - lutein and zeaxanthin 1121 μg
    Thiamine (Vit. B1) 0.071 mg (5%)
    Riboflavin (Vit. B2) 0.117 mg (8%)
    Niacin (Vit. B3) 0.639 mg (4%)
    Pantothenic acid (B5) 0.573 mg (11%)
    Vitamin B6 0.175 mg (13%)
    Folate (Vit. B9) 63 μg (16%)
    Vitamin C 89.2 mg (149%)
    Calcium 47 mg (5%)
    Iron 0.73 mg (6%)
    Magnesium 21 mg (6%)
    Phosphorus 66 mg (9%)
    Potassium 316 mg (7%)
    Zinc 0.41 mg (4%)

Not bad but are grains really that bad for you? Be fair.

Author:  pdellorto [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, but 100g of broccoli has a lot less kcals than 100g of oats - it's less than 1/10th. You could also normalize for calories. Not that you'd really want to eat 1600 kcals of broccoli, but it would have 10x the listed micronutrients...the grains are more calorically dense than nutrient dense.

Author:  bam [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

yeahbut, I guess I'm just thinking from a practical perspective that committing to such an extreme diet is not really sustainable. I live in China, so the prospect of eating a raw veg only diet has other risks. But aside from that, I just think moderation in general is the key to sustainability. I'll leave it at that.

Author:  frogbyte [ Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, if you want to feed an army and keep them just barely alive enough to keep working, using the least possible land, then grains is the way to go.

Also, not sure where "raw veg only" came from - pretty much everyone on the exrx forums are pro-meat.

Author:  Jungledoc [ Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Grains are highly glycemic, so if you want to keep your diet to a reasonably low amount of high-glycemic carbs, you've got to reduce grain products. There just ain't no other way to do it.

Author:  bam [ Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Interesting topic.
According to this site, some grains are low glycemic and some are high glycemic.
http://www.glycemicindex.com/ Checkout the GI Database.

Slightly related: What's glycogen?
According to this page, it seems like eating carbs directly after your workout is something you'd want to do.
Quote:
Increased storage [of glycogen] can double duration of exhaustive work...
Approximately 50% more glycogen can be stored if carbohydrates are consumed immediately following strenuous exercise as opposed to waiting 2 hours after exercise.
http://www.exrx.net/Nutrition/Glycogen.html

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/