i saw a you tube thing where there was some *delicious* looking strawberry cheesecake thingie- all raw-, and the bottom was oatmeal? i thought you had to cook oatmeal???
ok what grains like oatmeal may i eat if i am raw vegan 100% at least temporarily??
i am confused and ignorant and all virginal like, please aide moi *hugs* ; )

Hi Smoothie! You can soak and process oats. It also could have been ground nuts of some sort.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2007 08:22PM by Peony.

raw fooders can eat oats??? OMG fab xx cos they are LIVE i guess xx

You want to get oat groats. These are the unprocessed "raw" oats. Many raw recipe books have recipes for "raw" oatmeal.

Patty

You don't have too cook oatmeal to eat it. I make shakes all the time using this recipe:
1.5 cups raw steel cut oat meal
1 banana
lots of cinnamon
agave nector
3-4 raw eggs
4-5 cups water or coconut water

In order to make this so I can drink it, I usually bend it for 2.5 minutes otherwise it taste gritty. This is probably one of the best breakfast meals you can make, and besides, it taste great!

Also, oats are an excellent source or carbohydrates (they are far superior than fructose).

thank yoooooooooooooooooo do they count as raw/live though?

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, oats are an excellent source or
> carbohydrates (they are far superior than
> fructose).


brendan,

firstly, you are mixing terms.
oats are not comparable to fructose.
one is a supposed food source
the other is a component of many foods.

secondly, why do you think oats are far superior to fructose (perhaps you mean oats are superior to fruit?) in what way?

I don't know if steel cut oats count as being live. I would venture to guess they are not because that are the whole oat chopped into pieces. If you get the whole grain oat and it is not processed in anyway, you can actually sprout the oat. I have yet to try this with oats, but I used to do it with other grains such as millet, amaranth, and quinoa,. I could only digest these grains by cooking them. I wanted to steer myself away from that, so I quit using those kinds of grains.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> brendan,
>
> firstly, you are mixing terms.
> oats are not comparable to fructose.
> one is a supposed food source
> the other is a component of many foods.
>
> secondly, why do you think oats are far superior
> to fructose (perhaps you mean oats are superior to
> fruit?) in what way?

Will what I am saying is, the carbohydrates that come from fruit are different than the carbohydrates that come from oats.
I know some will argue with this, but fructose, a main sugar in fruit, isn't the 'greatest' carb source for keeping body fat to a minimum.

But, fructose isn't the ONLY carb source in fruit. Some fruits actually have higher amounts of dextrose than fructose, if I remember correctly. And when you add in any fiber, along with the vitamins and minerals, fruit has many benefits.

One, often overstated misconception about fructose is that it can 'only' be stored as liver glycogen.
This isn't true.
Fructose, can and will be stored as muscle glycogen.
It's initial storage will usually be more predicated to liver storage, as the liver is what controls blood sugar levels, but fructose will be stored in muscle tissue as well.

In fact, in a glycogen depleted state, one could argue the possibility that fructose is good for restoring glycogen, as it will only be more predisposed for muscle glycogen storage in a muscle glycogen depleted state, and at the point when muscle glycogen levels are beginning to reach effective levels of fullness, the fructose has another viable option of storage in the liver....don't know if you'll find any studies on that though. lol

But, you can find studies showing some BENEFITS of muscle glycogen storage with fructose.

One particular study examining the effects of fructose intake (20% of the diet...a high amount of pure fructose as a total percentage of the diet) found this result: "These results indicate that both long-term intake of the fructose diet and exercise training synergistically increased glycogen in both tissues."

So, long term intake of a high fructose diet showed higher glycogen levels in the liver AND muscle.

Don't get me wrong. I am in no way saying fruit is bad for you. I am just saying there are better sources of carbohydrates available.

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Will what I am saying is, the carbohydrates that
> come from fruit are different than the
> carbohydrates that come from oats.
> I know some will argue with this, but fructose, a
> main sugar in fruit, isn't the 'greatest' carb
> source for keeping body fat to a minimum.

i suppose one could argue about anything, but we can't even discuss it without some evidence to support your position. this can be difficult, since mainstream science is a bit muddled and tends to misinterpret relationships and causation, as well as compartmentalizing nutrition, but still it would be enlightening to see it. i don't see the gain in getting into such details as liver glycogen and the like. can we decide what to eat from a bigger picture? i would think that animals have evolved to enjoy the food that they eat. do you find oats tasty in their natural state? (oops, i used the word natural - sorry anaken)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2007 10:34PM by fresh.

Do I find oats tasty in their natural state? As in being raw and unprocessed? I would have to say no. Nor do I feel that they would be digestible either. But, when mixed and ground with other foods, they can not only be digestible, but they can also have great taste. While I do like my food to be enjoyable to eat, this is not my top priority. I see whatever i stick in my body as "fuel." As such, I try to give my body the best possible fuel (the majority of the time), regardless of taste.

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do I find oats tasty in their natural state? As
> in being raw and unprocessed? I would have to say
> no. Nor do I feel that they would be digestible
> either. But, when mixed and ground with other
> foods, they can not only be digestible, but they
> can also have great taste. While I do like my
> food to be enjoyable to eat, this is not my top
> priority. I see whatever i stick in my body as
> "fuel." As such, I try to give my body the best
> possible fuel (the majority of the time),
> regardless of taste.

thank you for your candor. i have eaten a lot of things that i did not find tasty, for what i thought were sound nutritional reasons. i find now that i'm thriving while attending to taste. it's much more enjoyable this way..

so i'm saying, question your assumptions about the pros and cons of grains.
perhaps read Grain Damage by D. Graham, if you have not already.

Brendan,

The body must convert the starch in oats into glucose. This takes some energy, and depletes your body of the enzyme necessary to convert starch into sugar. On the other hand, it takes almost no energy for the fructose in fruit to be utilized by the body, in fact some of the fructose is actually absorbed in the mouth. In any case, the body can use fructose and glucose directly, but starch needs to be converted into glucose.

Having glycogen stores is a good thing. This allows people to do useful things like physical activity without having food in the belly. Having available glycogen is far superior to burning fat for fuel.

By the way, your smoothie sounds like a recipe for oatmeal cookies, minus the raisins. I could see why you like your smoothie!

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, oats are an excellent source or
> carbohydrates (they are far superior than
> fructose).


If you are comparing purified fructose to whole oat groats, yes.

If you are comparing whole oat groats to whole fruit, no.

See:

Metabolism. 2001 Apr;50(4):494-503.
Effect of a very-high-fiber vegetable, fruit, and nut diet on serum lipids and colonic function.
Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Popovich DG, Vidgen E, Mehling CC, Vuksan V, Ransom TP, Rao AV, Rosenberg-Zand R, Tariq N, Corey P, Jones PJ, Raeini M, Story JA, Furumoto EJ, Illingworth DR, Pappu AS, Connelly PW.
PMID: 11288049

You also get more antioxidants, soluble fibers, and protective phytochemicals per kcal with fruit.

Being that oatmeal takes much longer to digest than fruit, doesn't oatmeal stabilizes blood sugar levels much more efficiently? This being the case, oatmeal causes very minimum spikes in insulin. As many of us know, spikes in insulin can cause the body to store fat more efficiently (if it is not used). For an individual not engaged in any physical activity, this increase in energy is stored. Fructose, sucrose, dextrose, and especially "high frutose corn syrup" offer almost immediate spikes in insulin. While I feel that increases in insulin after physical activity can be beneficial, I see no benefit to increased insulin for non physical demanding involvement.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Brendan,

Fruit has soluble fibers which slow down the transfer of sugars from the digestive system into the bloodstream. For a healthy person, eating fruit does not results in extraordinary insulin spikes in the blood. For most people, it turns out eating a high fat diet causes insulin resistance, which leads to insulin spikes and high blood sugar whenever a sugar is consumed.

But then there is how it feels. If I were to eat a bunch of oats, they would dehydrate me, constipate me, and bring down my energy. For me and where I am in my raw process, I don't need this extra burden. But for a person transitioning, they may not have the kind of reaction I have when eating a raw starch like oats.

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being that oatmeal takes much longer to digest
> than fruit, doesn't oatmeal stabilizes blood sugar
> levels much more efficiently?

i'll give my brief view and let the others get into more detail.
what you have written is what is commonly thought to be true but in my view, but in addition to it not being valid, we should not concern ourselves with managing our blood sugar. we should eat the best foods for our body, using the proper criteria, and let our body do its job.


> This being the
> case, oatmeal causes very minimum spikes in
> insulin.

again, i don't see the point in getting into nutritional details such as insulin.

if you'd never heard of insulin spikes, what would you eat?

from a real life perspective, i have gone through periods of high activity and low activity and in either case, i have not stored extra bodyfat.

perhaps others can give you the science you desire.

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being that oatmeal takes much longer to digest
> than fruit, doesn't oatmeal stabilizes blood sugar
> levels much more efficiently? This being the
> case, oatmeal causes very minimum spikes in
> insulin. As many of us know, spikes in insulin
> can cause the body to store fat more efficiently
> (if it is not used). For an individual not
> engaged in any physical activity, this increase in
> energy is stored. Fructose, sucrose, dextrose,
> and especially "high frutose corn syrup" offer
> almost immediate spikes in insulin. While I feel
> that increases in insulin after physical activity
> can be beneficial, I see no benefit to increased
> insulin for non physical demanding involvement.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong.

Sure. You aren't considering several things, how foods act when you eat a number of them at once instead of just a single serving of a particular item, area under the curve (total exposure over the course of a day), and soluble fibers in the context of a very high fiber diet. 100 kcal of apple has 33% more fiber than 100 kcal of oats.

The study I posted earlier is by David Jenkins, who shows very clear benefits in substituting fruit for starch. He is in fact also the father of the glycemic index (ref below, this was the original paper).

Jenkins, David J.A., et al. "Glycemic Index of Foods: a Physiological Basis for Carbohydrate Exchange." The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 34, March 1981, pp. 362-366.

Dr. Jenkins is continually vexed by the fact that so many people micromanage his findings. He never intended for anyone to stop eating carrots or eat less fruit.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also get more antioxidants, soluble fibers,
> and protective phytochemicals per kcal with fruit.

When comparing an apple (which is higher in fiber than most fruits, i believe), unprocessed oatmeal contains over 4 times as much fiber (although I can't find any information on the soluble fiber ratio, I believe oatmeal is much higher). As for the antioxidants and phytochemicals, I couldn't agree with you more.
I am having a great time having this discussion with you guys, and I am learning some things. I have some stuff to do, so i probably won't get to post anymore on this till later tonight or tomorrow.

Brendan,

When you are comparing fiber between oatmeal and apples, make sure you use the metric that arugula mentioned, which is fiber per calorie. Because if you just look at fiber per weight, you are going to get a completely different metric.

If you are enjoying your oatmeal, don't feel that we are telling you to change your habits. However, while many transitioners will eat oatmeal, there are very few long time raw folk who are eating it. This realization that oatmeal is not ideal wasn't derived from reading books, but simply by seeing how it feels. If you want to have an experience of this, you have to go without oatmeal (or any other starches) for a few months so your body can get used to its absence, and then start eating it again. Or if you stay all raw long enough, the desire will just go away.

Ahhh, I was thinking in terms of portion size (cups) when she said that fruit has more fiber than oatmeal. I skipped over the kcal part, but I can believe that to be true. I know from my personal experience with bodybuilding that when using fruit as my primary source of carbohydrates I tend to have much high body fat levels, and it is nearly impossible to get my body fat lower than 15% (i have heard this from many other people in the sport as well). When I use oats as a primary source I have no problem dropping far below this level (around 5-7%). It is possible to drop body fat levels simply by dropping kcal amounts (and you would have to drop it quite a bit if you were consuming lots of fruit), but by doing this it can have very negative consequences on not only how you look (aesthetically with muscle definition), but it also puts your muscules in a catabolic state (state of muscle decay). I still think fruits are where people start getting confused. They think that by trading in their oatmeal (or other grains) for a couple apples they are eating even healthier. And they are...to a point. Fruit is broken down to fructose and the only organ in the body that can process fructose is the liver. Liver glygocen stores are filled very easily and rapidly. Once they are filled there is no where else for the fructose to go so it gets converted to triglycerides and stored in your love handles or on your hind end. Fruits are very healthful foods and provide a host of benefits but no matter how you slice it you can not avoid the fact that eating a lot of fruit will make you fatter. Another main reason I like oats is that they are much higher in carbohydrates (per portion) than fruit, and they also have a respectable amount protein along with a good dosage of fiber.

As they say, food for thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2007 07:33AM by Brendan B.

I was going to post something similar to that before, but I wasn't sure I was correct. I looked over my nutrition book, and I got a lot of the information out of there to confirm myself.

so Bryan, are you saying that *i* am not healthy, then? that i cant eat two bananas three plums and two peaches on an empty tummy and not feel woozy and shakey??? i think most poeple cant. in fact, i know msot people cant. hence adding greens or whatever, i dont like to be given an image of myself as unhealthy...it dosent hlep me in my quest to do this, it puts me off : (

i am so confused now. should i be eating raw rolled oats or not? i am more concerned with getting thru this transition in one piece than being 100% techinically correct or with nutritionally contraversial data, i am more concerned with doing it as safely and painlessly as possible...therefore, if i try eating oats what sort should they be please?

i appreciate your adding to this thread very much but i feel it became a jargon competition and what i need it practical help!!!

i only say that lightly, you are all great (((you all)))but please aide moi xx

: )

Brendan B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I know from my
> personal experience with bodybuilding that when
> using fruit as my primary source of carbohydrates
> I tend to have much high body fat levels, and it
> is nearly impossible to get my body fat lower than
> 15% (i have heard this from many other people in
> the sport as well).

it's not valid to make a judgement like this based on that experience.

first it requires that you are all raw for a while. eating cooked disturbs the equation.

secondly, there is a period of time during which the body cleans itself out when eating more fruit, and the body will change in an effort to rebuild.

thirdly, eating the typical foods that bodybuilders eat which are stimulative and irritating, these foods will tend to cause the muscles and other body tissues to retain water to dilute the toxicity. this will give the appearance of fullness.

this is not MORE muscle, but just the appearance of more muscle.
but i suspect this is too antithetical to your current position for you to give it any credence.

and would you say that fruitarian one who posts here, or i are FAT? we both eat virtually all fruit, and both do strength training.

> When I use oats as a primary
> source I have no problem dropping far below this
> level (around 5-7%). It is possible to drop body
> fat levels simply by dropping kcal amounts (and
> you would have to drop it quite a bit if you were
> consuming lots of fruit), but by doing this it can
> have very negative consequences on not only how
> you look (aesthetically with muscle definition),
> but it also puts your muscules in a catabolic
> state (state of muscle decay).

it's not catabolic but simply a change due to body fluid content.

>I still think
> fruits are where people start getting confused.
> They think that by trading in their oatmeal (or
> other grains) for a couple apples they are eating
> even healthier. And they are...to a point. Fruit
> is broken down to fructose and the only organ in
> the body that can process fructose is the liver.
> Liver glygocen stores are filled very easily and
> rapidly. Once they are filled there is no where
> else for the fructose to go so it gets converted
> to triglycerides and stored in your love handle
> how you slice it you can not avoid the fact that
> eating a lot of fruit will make you fatter.

if you separate your thought process from book learning and look around to nature you may discover what the proper foods for primates are. we are primates, not simply the exalted human, requiring artificial foods. go into a field of oats and come back and tell me how you did. unless you are saying that nature made a mistake by not providing oats in cooked, or ground, or blended form.

> Another main reason I like oats is that they are
> much higher in carbohydrates (per portion) than
> fruit, and they also have a respectable amount
> protein along with a good dosage of fiber.
>

what kind of fiber?
is high protein better than the right amount of protein?
nobody ever talks about excess protein and the problems that causes.

you're not going to truly learn anything new if you hold onto these nonwholistic concepts. or at least to be able to fairly examine what people are trying to present to you.

smoothie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i am so confused now. should i be eating raw
> rolled oats or not? i am more concerned with
> getting thru this transition in one piece than
> being 100% techinically correct or with
> nutritionally contraversial data, i am more
> concerned with doing it as safely and painlessly
> as possible...therefore, if i try eating oats what
> sort should they be please?
>
> i appreciate your adding to this thread very much
> but i feel it became a jargon competition and what
> i need it practical help!!!
>
> i only say that lightly, you are all great (((you
> all)))but please aide moi xx
>
> : )

Whole unprocessed oats would be the best. I believe them to be call "oat groats", but I am not 100% sure. It's easy to find oats, but it's a different story to try to find oats that haven't been processed in any way. The majority of the time time distributes heat their oats quite a bit which i believe it to damage the oat. I am sure there are people on this site that could give you a link to where you could buy the unprocessed ones. As for me, I am off to work, and I will be back later.

Hope this helps

Fructose doesn't cause huge insulin spikes like other simple sugars. Sorry Brendan B but I agree with Bryan on this topic 100%.

Whole grains may not be high on the gi index but they are high on the weigh you down and sap your energy index.

For raw bodybuilding, I like this guys site [www.charliesgym.info]

i wish i hadnt asked !

. smoothie:

...sometimes, as another poster mentioned in another topic, threads DO get "hijacked". Just let the information flow..and keep posting your legitimate questions. You don't have to agree or understand or absorb everything. Sometimes I have no idea what people are talking about! haha!

. oats probably are better eaten cooked, not to mention they are sitll in the gluten family. better options would be the non-gluten 'seed variety' grains like amaranth, buckwheat, quinoa etc...many of which can be sprouted. Un-sprouted grains should NOT be eaten raw.




. my two sense about this carb topic is that anyone coming from a non-raw paradigm really needs to understand the basic difference behind how conventional science sees isolated nutrients, tenants of nutrition and performance and - as pointed out - a more holistic view of health and proper body function.

. in the Raw Summit. F1 discussed how its quite possible to put on muscle mass in a variety of different ways...mostly this is retaining water weight to dilute toxins. So while a conventional body builder might have more success in the short term - building or maintaining muscle with oatmeal as opposed to light fruits (which eating strictly with other light raw foods would dissolve such toxins and observed 'muscle mass'), it really speaks nothing about what is really going on..at a cellular level. ESPECIALLY what constitutes health long term. I'm sure you can get access to this interview (for a price) or check out the info free on his site.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2007 03:22AM by anaken.