Timeline for What makes steel-cut oats different?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2012 at 16:16 | comment | added | Wayfaring Stranger | Whole oat groats will cook nicely in a (fuzzy) rice-cooker set on 'Brown rice/porridge'. You have to cycle the cooker twice (~2h tot) and add a little water before the second cycle, but the end result is reliably good. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 13:36 | comment | added | Adam Shiemke | @Rebekah Good catch, I didn't notice. If you compare the weights, the rolled are 4g more, so by weight, there might be more nutrient. The numbers aren't accurate enough to tell. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 12:57 | comment | added | Rebekah | @Adam Shiemke: Thanks for checking on that. The serving size for the steel cut oats is 1/4 cup and the serving size on the rolled oats is 1/2 cup (and is 4 g larger), but perhaps they make the same amount of hot cereal? | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 13:24 | comment | added | Adam Shiemke | Upon further research: bobsredmill.com/steel-cut-oats.html vs. bobsredmill.com/regular-rolled-oats.html Same. Quaker is a bit lower in fiber, although their quick oats are the same as rolled/steel cut, which is not the vase for bob's. Looks like I was wrong (I compared the bob's steel cut with the Quaker rolled I had at hand). | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 22:31 | comment | added | Rebekah | @Adam Shiemke: Do you have a source for that? The link in @Michael Pryor's comment above claims that there is no difference (of course, it's lacking a source, too; the author just says "I looked it up"). | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 17:26 | comment | added | Adam Shiemke | Steel cut oats are also higher in fiber and some nutrients (the rollers remove some of the bran, where the fiber and some nutrients are). | |
| Aug 17, 2010 at 17:02 | history | answered | Satanicpuppy | CC BY-SA 2.5 |