A lot of people think that grains have low nutrition in them, I have to disagree basing it off these comparisons, looks like oats are very nutritious if you ask me! You may be thinking I am a vegetarian- I am not. I love meat..I loves eggs and oats! I just get so annoyed with people claiming that grains are not nutritious. Annoyed with people saying there is more fibre in fruit and veg-there isn't. If you do not tolerate grains thats fine, but we don't need to make stuff up to prove our point do we?
I also don't think we should be comparing 2 totally different foods, Why compare apples with oranges anyway?
But here we are comparing them anyway! lol....only because I am annoyed with people dissing oats and comparing them to eggs and other meats.
So looking at this comparison above we see that 100g oats contain more iron, thiamine, niacin, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, and manganese than 100g eggs (2 eggs) Oats also have 11g fibre, including soluble fibre and beta glucans.
Beta-glucan has been shown to enhance the human immune system's response to bacterial infection. Beta-glucan not only helps neutrophils (the most abundant type of non-specific immune cell) navigate to the site of an infection more quickly, it also enhances their ability to eliminate the bacteria they find there.
In addition, oats contain more than 20 unique polyphenols, avenanthramides, which have shown strong antioxidant activity in vitro and in vivo. The polyphenols of oats have also recently been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and anti-itching activity, which may provide additional protection against coronary heart disease, colon cancer, and skin irritation.
Another point people going on about the GI of foods. (oats)
Glycemic Index (GI) is a measurement carried out on carbohydrate-containing foods and their impact on our blood sugar.
Typically, a food is consumed in whatever serving size will provide 50 grams of available carbohydrates. Available carbohydrates are carbohydrates that get readily digested, absorbed, and metabolized by our body. These carbohydrates have a much greater impact on our blood sugar level than carbohydrates in general because carbohydrates in general include substances that aren't readily digested, absorbed, and metabolized. Insoluble fibers, for example, are carbohydrates that do not have an immediate impact on our blood sugar level because they cannot be readily digested. As a very general way of estimating available carbohydrates in a serving of food, researchers take the total amount of carbohydrates and subtract out the total amount of fiber. Available carbohydrates are what's left.
The GI of a food isn't really that helpful, there are some pretty unhealthy food that have a low GI rating, just like there is healthy food with a high GI.
Low GI is 0-55
Medium GI is 56-69
High GI is 70 or more
1 cup of porridge (234g)
Porridge has a GI of 58
21 net carbs
Glycemic load of 12
The glycemic load is a bit more useful as this measures in a serving size you are likely to be eating. So the more of that food you have the high the glycemic load becomes.
Glycemic index x Grams of carbohydrates / 100
so for oats a GI of 58 x 21g net carbs and divided by 100 =12
Now the the Insulin Index is not the same as a glycemic index, which is all relative to eating 100% glucose, as this index is relative to eating white bread (glycemic index of ~70 to 75). Glycemic Index and Insulin Index scores show the increase in the blood concentration of each. A higher satiety score indicates how much less was eaten from a buffet after participants ate the listed food.
The Insulin Index is based on the consumption of 1,000kJ of the given food.
What was found was a high correlation between glycemic index and insulin index measurements. High protein, virtually no-carb foods like meat and eggs, while low on the glycemic index, measured high on the insulin index. In other words, while the meat and eggs didn’t cause a spike in blood sugar the way most carbohydrates do, they did result in an unexpectedly significant rise in insulin. (Baked goods, with their high levels of refined carbs, elicited a very high rise in insulin as well.
Porridge- glycemic index score of 60 ± 12
Inusulin score of 40 ± 4
satiety index 209
Eggs- glycemic index score 42 ± 16
Insulin score 31 ± 6
Satiety score 150
± indicate uncertainty in the data. For example 60 ± 12 means that there's a 95% chance the score is between 60-12 (48) and 60+12 (72), 60 being the highest probability assuming a bell curve. In practice this means that if two foods have large uncertainty and have values close together then you don't really know which score is the higher.
to see more foods
"If we put two people to work doing labour, one eating oats, one eating eggs, I know which one would have the longer endurance for the task"
Well this is just one persons opinion have a read below at he satiety index
240 calories of porridge won over 240 calories of eggs.
Studies by Australian researcher Dr. Susanna Holt and her associates at the University of Sydney have developed one of the most exciting diet concepts ever. Called, the "Satiety Index," Holt's tool ranks different foods on their ability to satisfy hunger.
Holt et al. drew up the Satiety Index by feeding 240-calorie portions of 38 different foods to volunteers. The foods were served from under a hood to minimize the influence of appearance, and, if possible, they were served at the same temperature and in the same size chunks.
After eating, the volunteers told the scientists what their appetite ratings were, but they were not allowed anything else for the next two hours. Then, after two hours, they were then allowed to eat from a small buffet, where the scientists measured how much they nibbled from a variety of other foods. Their consumption was closely monitored, and every 15 minutes they were questioned about their hunger to see if their subjective impression of satisfaction matched their eating behavior.
Using white bread as the baseline of 100, 38 different foods were ranked. In other words, foods scoring higher than 100 are more satisfying than white bread and those under 100 are less satisfying.
eggs were ranked at 150%
porridge was ranked at 209%
boiled potatoes were ranked at 323%
for more info
Another thing I saw was oats don't have that much fibre compared with fruit and vegetables but again I disagree. These oats are 11g fibre per 100g so that gives us 11% fiber. So I went looking for high fibre fruit and veg and got these figures. Maybe not as high as you thought?
2.2g fibre per 100g potato
1.6g fibre per 100g celery
7g fibre in 100g avocado
6g fibre in 100g raspberries
2.6g fibre per 100g broccoli
2.5g fibre per 100g cabbage
2.6g fibre per 100g banana
3.1g fibre per 100g pear
Here is a comparison to some other foods with protein:
14g protein in 100g quinoa
17g protein in 100g oats
7g protein in 100g white rice
15g protein in 100g spelt
25g protein in 100g chicken
13g protein in 100g eggs (2 eggs)
17g protein in 100g oats
Oats are not a complete protein like eggs are, which is true. But we now know that we do not have to protein combine for each meal. This myth is so old i'm surprised people are still saying this:)
A complete protein is usually defined as a single or combined protein source which has all eight of the essential amino acids. Meat, for example, is said to be a complete protein, and so are eggs, dairy products, soybeans and many nuts.
The body has its own amino acid pool to draw from to supply amino acids which may be missing from dietary sources. Needed amino acids may be withdrawn from those already in circulation, or the necessary amino acids may be released by the liver or other cells into the circulatory system. The amino acid pool thus acts as the supplier of the essential amino acids missing from incomplete proteins.
If you take 60g oats and soak overnight with 100g greek yoghurt you have yourself 15g protein, the dairy is a complete protein anyway. 2 eggs has 13g protein and 3 has 18g protein. In the scheme of things it does not matter that oats are not a complete protein. A plant based diet is very beneficial to you, don't let anyone tell you it isn't!
Watch where you get your info from..are they biased?
and question everything!.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS BOTH ARE VERY NUTRITIOUS FOODS!
How often do we hear the arguments of why or why we shouldn’t consume dairy? Heaps yeah? Have you ever stop to think about the argument? Is it based on your own beliefs, ethics, moral, medical reasons or are they based on science? Does it matter?
How does one prove or disprove if we are meant to consume dairy? Ever wondered about the history of dairy and how it came about? I don’t want to get into the whole it’s all about what they have done to the milk, I really want to talk about the evolutionary aspect.
Some of us can and do drink it and some don’t and cannot, no one is right or wrong. Consume it or don’t consume it doesn’t matter to me! We are all unique.
Let me ask you this…If we were not “meant” to drink it why did lactase persistence spread so quickly? There must have been some evolutionary advantageous reason for this surely?
The reason that really gets my goat is the one we are not “meant” to consume it, whatever that means…according you who, cause you say so? What are you basing this off, and of course they say we are the only mammals who drink milk after weaning, but that is not true either. We are supposed to be the most intelligent mammal and hopefully have intelligent arguments. Most mammals do not have the capacity to get the milk for a start, yes they can suckle but they don’t have opposable thumbs to actually milk! and if they did they would drink it!
In southern Europe, lactase persistence is relatively rare — less than 40% in Greece and Turkey. In Britain and Scandinavia, by contrast, more than 90% of adults can digest milk. So why do we have lactase persistence if we weren’t “meant” to consume it??? Did evolution screw this up? Think about it. It was advantageous to have it. Why? Will talk more about this later.
Most mammals lose the ability to digest the milk sugar lactose after weaning because of an irreversible reduction in expression of the intestinal enzyme lactase. This pattern is also seen in most humans, but some continue expressing lactase throughout adult life [lactase persistence (LP)]. This trait is common in populations of northern and central European descent and shows intermediate frequencies in southern and Eastern Europe. Africa and the Middle East show a more complex distribution.
It has been suggested that the modern frequency of LP in Europe is the result of a relatively recent and strong selection process. Although not fully understood, the biological advantages of LP probably include the continuous availability of an energy- and calcium-rich drink that enables a farming community to overcome poor harvests. This gene is quite recent and spread pretty rapidly which in turn means in must have conferred an advantage strongly selected for by evolution.
Given that dairying in the Middle East started thousands of years before the LP allele emerged in Europe, ancient herders must have found ways to reduce lactose concentrations in milk. It seems likely that they did so by making cheese or yogurt. (Fermented cheeses such as feta and cheddar have a small fraction of the lactose found in fresh milk; aged hard cheeses similar to Parmesan have hardly any.)
Milk fat on pottery in the Middle Eastern Fertile Crescent going back at least 8,500 years offers clear evidence that herders in Europe were producing cheese to supplement their diets between 6,800 and 7,400 years ago. By then, dairy had become a component of the Neolithic diet.
That next step happened slowly, and it seems to have required the spread of lactase persistence. The LP allele did not become common in the population until sometime after it first emerged. Mutations in samples of ancient human DNA and has found it only as far back as 6,500 years ago in northern Germany.
As Middle Eastern Neolithic cultures moved into Europe, their farming and herding technologies helped them to out-compete the local hunter-gatherers. As the southerners pushed north, the LP allele started spreading.
Lactase persistence had a harder time becoming established in parts of southern Europe, because Neolithic farmers had settled there before the mutation appeared. But as the agricultural society expanded northwards and westwards into new territory, the advantage provided by lactase persistence had a big impact.