Calories in Oats
Here's one for you nutrition experts out there. Now that the weather here in the midwest is pretty cold I've been starting out my day with steel cut oats instead of my regular Fiber One (the orig., with the 57% of the daily value of fiber). Although I should have done this first I decided to check the nutrion value of the oats compared to the Fiber One. To my extreme disappointment the oats come in at a whopping 150 calories for a 1/4 cup serving compared to Fiber One which has only 60 calories for a 1/2 cup serving! Since one serving of oats for me at a standard breakfast is 1/4 cup, but I consume 1/2 cup of Fiber One at breakfast this quantity comparison is valid for me to define my caloric intake for this meal. Although both contain no saturated fats, the quantity of calories from fat is about double for the oats vs. the Fiber One as well. I really don't want to go back to Fiber One during the cold weather, but am totally bummed about the caloric differences. So my question is why such a significant diff. when we're talking just the whole oat grain here? Unless I don't cut back my intake of something else or increase the rate at which I burn calories to compensate I'm afraid I'll pack on the pounds.
You've noted that your Fiber One yields a larger serving in terms of volume, but have you measured the weight of the two cereals? This is going to give you a truer comparison. Also, there may also be a difference in the way the body treats the two cereals; I believe original Fiber One has an incredible amount of fiber, right? I don't have the knowledge to speak to this issue. I'm sure others are better sources of information on that front.
Which cereal keeps you feeling full and energized longer? That's the one I would choose. It's not like either is an unhealthful choice.
The health benefits of eating oats (regular thick rolled oats or steel cut/pinhead oats...not any kind of 'instant' oats) outweighs any concerns about calories or carbohydrate content.
Other than that, eatsbread's advice above is spot on: eat the one that satisfies you best, or even better, switch back and forth.
both eatsbread and THe Professor make valid points. in any case, i don't think you have to worry about "packing on the pounds" from your oatmeal. oats break down slowly and will likely keep you fuller a little longer. your satisfaction from them both physically and psychologically may alter how you eat the rest of the day anyway. give it a week or two, and judge for yourself. you certainly can't "pack on the pounds" in that time. or, if it makes you feel better, alternate your breakfasts, one day oatmeal, one day Fiber One.
I think it would be more appropriate to compare the final, prepared volume of both products, as opposed to comparing Fiber One to unprepared (dry) steel cut oats. I usually prepare oatmeal for breakfast--although I use one cup of oats, the amount I actually end up consuming is something like three cups worth of oatmeal due to the addition of water.
Emme is right though--you need to see what makes you feel "full" longer. Although oatmeal has a higher caloric content than other breakfast choices, it keeps me fuller longer and with a more even blood sugar level than "lower calorie" cold cereals.
+1 to comparing final cooked volumes, and see which satisfies you more.
I love steel-cut oats. I usually make 1/3 cup for a serving, which translates to roughly 200 calories, and for that I get a big, steaming hot bowl -- usually at least a cup's worth, cup and a half, maybe -- of hearty, stick-to-your-ribs breakfast.
Steel-cut oats also have about three times the protein per serving of Fiber One, as far as I know.
1/2 cup of dry cereal would be unsatisfying to me, even as a light snack -- I'd still be looking for more. If you have even 1/2 cup of milk with your 1/2 cup of Fiber One, you're looking at 140 calories or thereabouts anyway -- so for me, at least, it'd be a no-brainer. Steel-cut all the way.