oatmeal in the rice cooker

[JC Dill]

Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal? I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions. Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.

jc

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....

I could type in a crockpot recipe, but I haven't tried it myself.

[The Ranger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....
I could type in a crockpot recipe, but I haven't tried it
myself.

Crockpots do work better. We have a smaller (2 qt Rival) from
my Sainted Mother(tm) that is perfect for this task. Our rice
cooker doesn't "hold" the oatmeal at as convenient a
temperature as any of my crockpots (cooking time is faster but
as JC noted, it's suboptimal). Alton Brown provided a recipe
for such that is easy and convenient.

The Ranger

[axlq]

Crockpots do work better. We have a smaller (2 qt Rival) from my
Sainted Mother(tm) that is perfect for this task. Our rice cooker
doesn't "hold" the oatmeal at as convenient a temperature as any of
my crockpots

If you have one of the better "fuzzy logic" rice cookers with a
"porridge" setting, it should make oatmeal just fine and hold it at
a good temperature.

We have one of those and use it all the time to make rice porridge
(sometimes called "congee" in restaurants) but haven't tried it
for oatmeal. I think it would work though, at the 1-hour setting
(the porridge setting gives you a choice of 1-3 hours in 1/2 hour
increments, depending on how gooey you want the end product).

My recipe for congee:

3/4 cup rice
6-8 cups water or chicken broth or combination
1/2 cup dried baby anchovies
1 teaspoon salt

Cook the above in rice cooker on the porridge setting, at least 2
hours (normal single-setting rice cooker should work too, given the
large amount of liquid here). 1/2 hour from finishing, mix in:

3 raw eggs
2-3 Tilapia fillets, cubed

Mix the above around a bit and let cook for the remainder of
the time. Serve with dried seaweed paper to mix in while
eating. Optional slice of toast for dipping.

This really hits the spot when you have a cold, flu, or morning
sickness.

-A

[Geoff Miller]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....

Why would anyone want to do either?



Geoff

--
"Wagner did for opera what Curtis LeMay
did for diplomacy." -- Rick Gordon

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....

Why would anyone want to do either?

"Real" oatmeal takes a half-hour to cook, requiring attention to
prevent scorching and boilovers. I make one-minute oats myself -- it
fits within my attention span.

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....

Why would anyone want to do either?

"Real" oatmeal takes a half-hour to cook, requiring attention to
prevent scorching and boilovers.

No it doesn't.

"Real" traditional American oatmeal is made from rolled oats. It only
takes about 5 to 10 minutes to cook, depending how fast you can get the
water (or milk) to boil on the stovetop. (And it can usually be cooked
faster in a microwave oven if desired.)

What JC was inquiring about was preparing oatmeal made from steel-cut
oats (not rolled oats) using a rice cooker. While that is a type of
oatmeal, it is not what I (or many others) would consider the
traditional "real" oatmeal that is served at breakfast in most homes,
restaurants and cafeterias across America.

- Peter

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Lawrence
What JC was inquiring about was preparing oatmeal made from steel-cut
oats (not rolled oats) using a rice cooker. While that is a type of
oatmeal, it is not what I (or many others) would consider the
traditional "real" oatmeal that is served at breakfast in most homes,
restaurants and cafeterias across America.

I weep for our nation.

[JC Dill]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?

My understanding is a crockpot works better....

Why would anyone want to do either?

"Real" oatmeal takes a half-hour to cook, requiring attention to
prevent scorching and boilovers.

No it doesn't.
"Real" traditional American oatmeal is made from rolled oats. It only
takes about 5 to 10 minutes to cook, depending how fast you can get the
water (or milk) to boil on the stovetop. (And it can usually be cooked
faster in a microwave oven if desired.)
What JC was inquiring about was preparing oatmeal made from steel-cut
oats (not rolled oats) using a rice cooker. While that is a type of
oatmeal, it is not what I (or many others) would consider the
traditional "real" oatmeal that is served at breakfast in most homes,
restaurants and cafeterias across America.

I'm interested in any oatmeal recipes that work in a rice cooker. If my
problem was in trying to cook steel-cut oats, and there's a recipe that
works good with regular oats, I'm game to try it.

I haven't had good luck trying to cook regular oatmeal in a microwave.
I can cook regular oatmeal fine the old fashioned way on the stove, but
it requires fairly constant attention (I can't go do something else in a
different room) and extensive clean-up. I'm looking for easy "set it
and go do something else" recipes using the microwave or rice cooker.

jc

[David Arnstein]

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal? I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions. Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.

I use a rice cooker to prepare breakfast cereal. I mix up
steel cut oats (2 cups)
cracked wheat (1 cup)
whole millet (1 cup)
whole flax seeds (1 cup)
coarse corn meal (polenta) (0.5 cup)
Sometimes I add some rye, wheat berries, whole oats, or whatever for
variety. All of this stuff is available at Whole Foods, and it is
cheap.

I mix two parts dry grains to three parts water.

I try to obtain a granular consistency. Almost like steamed rice,
although a bit more adhesive.

Perhaps you could describe how your results were "sub-optimal." Too
gooey? Not cooked all the way through? With a rice cooker, the main
variable is the amount of water added. My method is to use the minimum
amount of water possible. But your taste may be different.

This stuff takes a long time to cook, maybe 40 minutes. My rice cooker
has a timer, so I set it up at night and it is finished the next
morning.

[James Silverton]

Post by David Arnstein

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal? I'm
looking for proven recipe suggestions. Last week I tried
using the rice cooker to make oatmeal with steel-cut oats,
and the results were sub-optimal.

I use a rice cooker to prepare breakfast cereal. I mix up
steel cut oats (2 cups)
cracked wheat (1 cup)
whole millet (1 cup)
whole flax seeds (1 cup)
coarse corn meal (polenta) (0.5 cup)
Sometimes I add some rye, wheat berries, whole oats, or
whatever for variety. All of this stuff is available at Whole
Foods, and it is cheap.
I mix two parts dry grains to three parts water.
I try to obtain a granular consistency. Almost like steamed
rice, although a bit more adhesive.
Perhaps you could describe how your results were
"sub-optimal." Too gooey? Not cooked all the way through? With
a rice cooker, the main variable is the amount of water added.
My method is to use the minimum amount of water possible. But
your taste may be different.
This stuff takes a long time to cook, maybe 40 minutes. My
rice cooker has a timer, so I set it up at night and it is
finished the next morning.

A contrarian comment: oatmeal does not require cooking and I like it
that way dry with, perhaps, a few raisins.

[Dan Abel]

Post by James Silverton

Post by David Arnstein
I use a rice cooker to prepare breakfast cereal. I mix up
steel cut oats (2 cups)
cracked wheat (1 cup)
whole millet (1 cup)
whole flax seeds (1 cup)
coarse corn meal (polenta) (0.5 cup)
Sometimes I add some rye, wheat berries, whole oats, or
whatever for variety. All of this stuff is available at Whole
Foods, and it is cheap.
This stuff takes a long time to cook, maybe 40 minutes. My
rice cooker has a timer, so I set it up at night and it is
finished the next morning.

A contrarian comment: oatmeal does not require cooking and I like it
that way dry with, perhaps, a few raisins.

Never seen anybody cook up the oats before feeding them to a horse.

:-)

Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always still has a lot
of consistency, in my experience. I like that. I'm not sure how well
my digestion would like it uncooked, though.

[Geoff Miller]

Post by Dan Abel
Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always
still has a lot of consistency, in my experience.

Forty minutes to cook oatmeal? I always figured the whole
point of cereal, even hot cereal, is that it's less time-
and labor-intensive than traditional hot breakfasts like,
say, bacon and eggs or even pancakes. Given that there's
such a market for *instant* oatmeal, it seems strange that
anyone would be willing to invest more than half an hour
cooking the stuff.

I'm a Zoom, Malt-O-Meal and Cream Of Wheat man, myself.
My method is to use milk instead of water, and to dump
two packets of Equal into it just before I add the raw
cereal, then sprinkle on some cinnamon.

(Just as some people call lunch "dinner" and dinner "supper,"
some people call pancakes "hotcakes." Is that a regionalism,
or just a variant that's more or less evenly distributed
geographically?)



Geoff

--
"Wagner did for opera what Curtis LeMay
did for diplomacy." -- Rick Gordon

[Chester]

Post by Dan Abel
Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always
still has a lot of consistency, in my experience.  

Forty minutes to cook oatmeal?  I always figured the whole
point of cereal, even hot cereal, is that it's less time-
and labor-intensive than traditional hot breakfasts like,
say, bacon and eggs or even pancakes.  Given that there's
such a market for *instant* oatmeal, it seems strange that
anyone would be willing to invest more than half an hour
cooking the stuff.

From what I understand, instant oatmeal, due to the processing, does
not have as much nutrition and fiber and is higher on the glycemic
index. Still better than eating totally processed cereals (even if not
cartoonishly sugared ones), but not as good as steel-cut, especially
thickly-cut.

Also: I think you can bring down the cooking time dramatically by pre-
soaking the steel-cut oats overnight...to around 10 minutes or so.

Chester

[Ciccio]

Post by Chester
From what I understand, instant oatmeal, due to the processing, does
not have as much nutrition and fiber and is higher on the glycemic
index.

The impact of those factors are dwarfed by the fact that steel-cut has
twice the carbs and twice the calories of the instant. That, along
with the hassle involved with steel-cut or regular oatmeal, and that I
can hardly taste the difference, makes instant oatmeal my choice hands
down.

Ciccio

[Chester]

Post by Ciccio

Post by Chester
From what I understand, instant oatmeal, due to the processing, does
not have as much nutrition and fiber and is higher on the glycemic
index.

The impact of those factors are dwarfed by the fact that steel-cut has
twice the carbs and twice the calories of the instant.

I think that's the case if you measure by volume. But if you measure
by weight, then steel cut oats are comparable, I believe. And, I
think, in terms of weight-minded nutrition (calories/carbs), steel-cut
oats should come out on top for being lower on the glycemic
index...slightly more than rolled oats and a good deal more than
instant oatmeal (which isn't just rolled, but chopped up more finely).

But if you're eating oatmeal of just about any variety, you're already
ahead of the curve.

Chester

[Ciccio]

Post by Chester

Post by Ciccio
The impact of those factors are dwarfed by the fact that steel-cut has
twice the carbs and twice the calories of the instant.

I think that's the case if you measure by volume. But if you measure
by weight, then steel cut oats are comparable, I believe.

Yeah, and that's how I eat oatmeal - by the bowl, not by the gram. One
bowl of instant oatmeal has half the calories and half the carbs as
the same bowl of steel-cut oatmeal.

Post by Chester
And, I think, in terms of weight-minded nutrition (calories/carbs), steel-cut
oats should come out on top for being lower on the glycemic
index...slightly more than rolled oats and a good deal more than
instant oatmeal (which isn't just rolled, but chopped up more finely).

My take on the glycemic index is that is overrated or over-
prioritized. My priorities for everyday health activities are: 1.
Exercise. 2. Exercise. 3. Exercise. 4. What I feel like eating, then
if those choices are about equal; 5. Calories, then those being about
equal; 6. Satiety, that being about equal then; 7. Nutrients, then
those being about equal; 8. Lipids, GI, fatty acids, fiber, etc.

Post by Chester
But if you're eating oatmeal of just about any variety, you're already
ahead of the curve.

That's what they say. That's the only hot cereal I eat. My cold
cereals are generally Wheaties or Cheerios. My Sunday breakfasts at
home are frequently a frittata.

Ciccio

[Chester]

Post by Ciccio

Post by Chester
I think that's the case if you measure by volume. But if you measure
by weight, then steel cut oats are comparable, I believe.

Yeah, and that's how I eat oatmeal - by the bowl, not by the gram.

I'm the same way. But, for others, it might be useful to know that
steel-cut oats are a lot denser and that they can just simply cut down
on the portion volume.

Post by Ciccio
My take on the glycemic index is that is overrated or over-
prioritized.

I feel the same way. I'd rather exercise more and eat whatever I feel
like eating. But, for some who aren't going to be getting as much
exercise as they should -- or who are training for competition -- then
I think it's a useful metric to be mindful of.

And even for those who are burning off everything, it's still probably
a good idea to not allow high-glycemic foods to predominate.

Post by Ciccio
That's what they say. That's the only hot cereal I eat. My cold
cereals are generally Wheaties or Cheerios.

Give Kashi GoLean a try. That's my favorite healthy cold cereal. Lots
of folks think it's too bland, but I like the texture and, with some
dried berries, I think it's tasty.

Chester

[Dan Abel]

In article

Post by Chester

Post by Ciccio

Post by Chester
I think that's the case if you measure by volume. But if you measure
by weight, then steel cut oats are comparable, I believe.

Yeah, and that's how I eat oatmeal - by the bowl, not by the gram.

Yeah, so whipped cream is much lower in calories than cream. Good to
know.

Post by Chester
I'm the same way. But, for others, it might be useful to know that
steel-cut oats are a lot denser and that they can just simply cut down
on the portion volume.

Post by Ciccio
My take on the glycemic index is that is overrated or over-
prioritized.

I feel the same way. I'd rather exercise more and eat whatever I feel
like eating. But, for some who aren't going to be getting as much
exercise as they should -- or who are training for competition -- then
I think it's a useful metric to be mindful of.

I think that it is very valuable to understand. We all had it beaten in
to us as kids that complex carbohydrates hit the blood slower than
simple sugars. Well, that's no longer true.

[sf]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:12:46 -0800 (PST), Ciccio

Post by Ciccio
Yeah, and that's how I eat oatmeal - by the bowl, not by the gram. One
bowl of instant oatmeal has half the calories and half the carbs as
the same bowl of steel-cut oatmeal.

Too bad. Although I haven't made steel-cut oatmeal myself, it has
been one of those must do's one thinks about occasionally. My
maternal grandparents ate it (and eggs) daily, but they weren't
overweight and didn't have cholesterol or heart problems.

[Ciccio]

Post by sf
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:12:46 -0800 (PST), Ciccio
Too bad.  Although I haven't made steel-cut oatmeal myself, it has
been one of those must do's one thinks about occasionally.  My
maternal grandparents ate it (and eggs) daily, but they weren't
overweight and didn't have cholesterol or heart problems.

I'm sure that there were other factors contributing to that. Most of
us know someone like the proverbial 90 year old who has been smoking
cigarettes since he was 12, etc.

Like I said, it's not just the calories and the carbs...It's the
calories, the carbs, the increased hassle over instant, and that I
discern little difference between the two. Believe me, if I found
steel-cut far more tastier than the instant, I'd eat the steel-cut
far more frequently.

Ciccio

[Julian Macassey]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Dan Abel
Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always
still has a lot of consistency, in my experience.

Forty minutes to cook oatmeal? I always figured the whole
point of cereal, even hot cereal, is that it's less time-
and labor-intensive than traditional hot breakfasts like,
say, bacon and eggs or even pancakes. Given that there's
such a market for *instant* oatmeal, it seems strange that
anyone would be willing to invest more than half an hour
cooking the stuff.

The instant stuff tastes "narsty". Cooking oatmeal slowly
just below the boil results in a tasty meal.

[Pete Fraser]

Post by Geoff Miller
(Just as some people call lunch "dinner"

I thought that was just a Scottish thing.

Post by Geoff Miller
and dinner "supper,"

Surely you mean tea!

And what's this oatmeal stuff? Are you talking about porridge?

Post by Geoff Miller
some people call pancakes "hotcakes."

Even in the land confused dinnertime, they'd be pancakes.

Pete

[Geoff Miller]

Post by Pete Fraser
Surely you mean tea!

Tea is dinner/supper?

I always had the impression that it was sort of a combined,
late-afternoon "coffee break" and snack time, to tide one
over until the actual evening meal later on.

Then there's *high* tea, which I first heard of in the
context of the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. Isn't
that what we colonials would call "brunch?"

Post by Pete Fraser
And what's this oatmeal stuff? Are you talking about
porridge?

Evidently.

So what's the difference between porridge and gruel?



Geoff "Please, sir, I want some more!" Miller

--
"Wagner did for opera what Curtis LeMay
did for diplomacy." -- Rick Gordon

[Pete Fraser]

Post by Geoff Miller
Tea is dinner/supper?

In working class Scotland about 40 years ago, dinner.
We also had supper, which was often a slice of bread
and jam just before bedtime. Tea was about 17:30.

Post by Geoff Miller
I always had the impression that it was sort of a combined,
late-afternoon "coffee break" and snack time, to tide one
over until the actual evening meal later on.

I think that's more of an English thing.

Post by Geoff Miller
Then there's *high* tea, which I first heard of in the
context of the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. Isn't
that what we colonials would call "brunch?"

I'm not sure. I always thought that was mid-afternoon, but we
were far removed from those circles.

Post by Geoff Miller
So what's the difference between porridge and gruel?

Consistency, I think. Gruel is runny.
My father tells stories of when he was a postman, delivering
to out-of-the-way places on his bicycle. Often one of the crofters
would feed him. This was typically a large slice of porridge cut
from a drawer. Sometimes it would be served cold, and
sometimes they'd fry it for him. I never thought he was pulling
my leg when he told me about this, but I'll double check
next time a speak to him.

Pete

[Steve Fenwick]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Pete Fraser
Surely you mean tea!

Tea is dinner/supper?
I always had the impression that it was sort of a combined,
late-afternoon "coffee break" and snack time, to tide one
over until the actual evening meal later on.
Then there's *high* tea, which I first heard of in the
context of the Empress Hotel in Victoria, B.C. Isn't
that what we colonials would call "brunch?"

Okay, let's get this right for the books.

Afternoon tea is the tea-with-scones mid-day snack served around 3PM.
Think scones, cucumber sandwiches, ladies with gloves.

High tea is a more substantial meal, usual tea with a meat or fish,
usually served later in the day--6PM or so. "High" refers to service on
the main table of the house, not a level of formality.

Brunch is a meal in place of lunch or breakfast, served anytime between
about 10AM and 1PM. I would not call it synonymous with high tea.

The Empress uses the correct British usage of afternoon tea. See
<http://www.fairmont.com/empress/GuestServices/Restaurants/AfternoonTea.h
tm>

ObTea: Tea at the Hotel Vancouver, in the late CP days (late 1990s) was
served in the main bar, and provided an opportunity to people watch.
It's now served in the 900 West Lounge, which is quieter but not nearly
as interesting (the view, not the food, which is fine.)

Steve

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Dan Abel
Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always
still has a lot of consistency, in my experience.

Forty minutes to cook oatmeal?

It takes about thirty to forty minutes to cook oatmeal made from
steel-cut oats. The more common type of oatmeal is made from rolled
oats. That type of oatmeal only takes a total time of five to ten
minutes to cook on the stovetop (and even less time via the microwave).


- Peter

[James Silverton]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by Dan Abel
Still, any oatmeal that takes 40 minutes to cook, always
still has a lot of consistency, in my experience.

Forty minutes to cook oatmeal?

It takes about thirty to forty minutes to cook oatmeal made
from steel-cut oats. The more common type of oatmeal is made from
rolled oats. That type of oatmeal only takes a total
time of five to ten minutes to cook on the stovetop (and even less
time via the microwave).

I mentioned my taste for uncooked oatmeal but I must admit that I have
just checked the box and it says "rolled oats" with a short cooking
time. I've never tried eating uncooked steel-cut oats.

[Geoff Miller]

The more common type of oatmeal is made from rolled oats.
That type of oatmeal only takes a total time of five to
ten minutes to cook on the stovetop (and even less time
via the microwave).

Quaker makes two types of rolled-oats oatmeal: the standard
kind and a quick(er)-cooking variety. They appear the same
out of the package; the quick-cooking kind isn't powdery like
instant oatmeal is. So in what way are they different?

Also, I seem to recall reading somewhere that unlike wheat,
oats has negligible fiber content. Is that true?

(We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
some reason.)



Geoff

--
"On the first day of Christmas, my sarge he gave to me
The ear off a dead VC."

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by Geoff Miller
(We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
some reason.)

That's because later scientific research and studies has shown that
increased dietary fiber in one's diet has no tangible effect in
preventing heart disease or obesity. The only thing that dietary fiber
has scientifically been proven to be effective is for keeping oneself
regular.


- Peter

[Geoff Miller]

Peter Lawrence <***@aol.com> writes:

: (We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
: used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
: some reason.)

Post by Peter Lawrence
That's because later scientific research and studies has
shown that increased dietary fiber in one's diet has no
tangible effect in preventing heart disease or obesity.

As I recall, it was supposed to be effective for preventing
colon cancer, not heart disease or obesity.

I'm not sure I understand by what mechanism it would've had
any effect on the latter two things. But it's easy to under-
stand how it might've prevented colon cancer, what with the
scouring effect it was supposed to have had and all.



Geoff

--
"On the first day of Christmas, my sarge he gave to me
The ear off a dead VC."

[RegForte]

Post by Geoff Miller
: (We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
: used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
: some reason.)

Post by Peter Lawrence
That's because later scientific research and studies has
shown that increased dietary fiber in one's diet has no
tangible effect in preventing heart disease or obesity.

Replying to 2 different posts ...

I believe the established correlation is between increased
dietary fiber and lower serum cholesterol.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/1/16

Post by Geoff Miller
As I recall, it was supposed to be effective for preventing
colon cancer, not heart disease or obesity.
I'm not sure I understand by what mechanism it would've had
any effect on the latter two things. But it's easy to under-
stand how it might've prevented colon cancer, what with the
scouring effect it was supposed to have had and all.

Yep. "Increased GI tract motility".

[Peter Lawrence]

Post by Geoff Miller
: (We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
: used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
: some reason.)

Post by Peter Lawrence
That's because later scientific research and studies has
shown that increased dietary fiber in one's diet has no
tangible effect in preventing heart disease or obesity.

As I recall, it was supposed to be effective for preventing
colon cancer, not heart disease or obesity.
I'm not sure I understand by what mechanism it would've had
any effect on the latter two things. But it's easy to under-
stand how it might've prevented colon cancer, what with the
scouring effect it was supposed to have had and all.

I inadvertently left that one out. Increasing fiber in one's diet has
no effect on reducing the risk of colon cancer either.

The theory was that the lack of fiber in the modern American diet might
have been one of the causes in the increase of the chronic "diseases of
civilization" such as heart disease, obesity, and cancer. In regards to
heart disease and obesity it was theorized that fiber in the diet might
have helped keep in check that amount of cholesterol and fat absorbed by
the body. It was also theorized that by eating more fiber, one's
appetite would be reduced so one would eat less and therefore ingest
less calories.

- Peter

[Steve Pope]

Post by Peter Lawrence

Post by Geoff Miller
: (We don't seem to hear as much about dietary fiber as we
: used to back in the days of the bran muffin craze, for
: some reason.)

Post by Peter Lawrence
That's because later scientific research and studies has
shown that increased dietary fiber in one's diet has no
tangible effect in preventing heart disease or obesity.

As I recall, it was supposed to be effective for preventing
colon cancer, not heart disease or obesity.
I'm not sure I understand by what mechanism it would've had
any effect on the latter two things. But it's easy to under-
stand how it might've prevented colon cancer, what with the
scouring effect it was supposed to have had and all.

I inadvertently left that one out. Increasing fiber in one's diet has
no effect on reducing the risk of colon cancer either.
The theory was that the lack of fiber in the modern American diet might
have been one of the causes in the increase of the chronic "diseases of
civilization" such as heart disease, obesity, and cancer. In regards to
heart disease and obesity it was theorized that fiber in the diet might
have helped keep in check that amount of cholesterol and fat absorbed by
the body. It was also theorized that by eating more fiber, one's
appetite would be reduced so one would eat less and therefore ingest
less calories.

Fiber in the diet is proven to lower serum cholesterol. But,
this does not mean it reduces morbidity or mortality. All
statin-class drugs reduce serum cholesterol, but only a few of
them have been shown to reduce morbidity/mortality. The same
applies to hypertension meds -- all of them reduce blood pressure,
not all of them make a hypertensive individual live longer.

As usual there is no simple formula that can tell you what might
make you healthier.

Steve

[Peter Lawrence]

All statin-class drugs reduce serum cholesterol, but only a few
of them have been shown to reduce morbidity/mortality.

That's because study after study has shown no correlation between high
*total* serum cholesterol levels and an increased risk of heart disease
or a shorter lifespan. What *does* correlate with an increased risk of
heart disease is 1) a low level of HDL cholesterol, 2) a high level of
triglycerides, and 3) a high level of inflammation (elevated CRP).

The statin-class drugs that have proven to be effective in reducing the
mortality associated with heart disease are the statin-class drugs that
have also proven to be effective in reducing the level of inflammation.

No study has shown that reducing one's *overall* serum cholesterol level
decreases one's risk of heart disease despite the accepted
conventional medical wisdom that it does.


- Peter

[Steve Pope]

Post by Peter Lawrence
No study has shown that reducing one's *overall* serum cholesterol
level decreases one's risk of heart disease despite the
accepted conventional medical wisdom that it does.

Nope, one needs the secret sauce: a drug on the "short list"
which reduces total cholesterol, ups HDL, reduces LDL, and
which also reduces morbidity and mortality.

Most good doctors try to steer their patients towards
such drugs.

Steve

[Michael Sierchio]

Peter Lawrence wrote:

Glycemic Index is useful, though perhaps not as useful as Glycemic Load.

It's no doubt true that a paleolithic diet consisted largely of meat
and fat (not in that order), with forage items in season. That certainly
was a low GI diet, though exceedingly low in fiber, too.

I found this interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/8xg5y2

[Ciccio]

Post by Michael Sierchio
Glycemic Index is useful, though perhaps not as useful as Glycemic Load.

Both are useful, albeit minimally compared to the other factors
related to everyday health. I agree with you, that when it comes to
carbs, GL makes more sense than GI. Though even that requires being
sensible and not consider GI /GL in a vacuum. For example, the GI and
GL of a baked potato take a nose dive when it's smothered with sour
cream and/or butter. Of course, the calories and cholesterol sky
rocket.

Post by Michael Sierchio
It's no doubt true that a paleolithic diet consisted largely of meat
and fat (not in that order), with forage items in season. That certainly
was a low GI diet, though exceedingly low in fiber, too.

Also, you can bet the average paleo people munching on their paleo
diets were far more physically active than their average descendants
today.

Post by Michael Sierchio
http://tinyurl.com/8xg5y2

Interesting, but that's about it. Again we see that statistical
significance is insignificant without practical significance. People
can accomplish about twice those results by even moderately exercising
like walking for an hour per day. But like they say...every little bit
helps. Of course, the benefits of exercise are much more
multifaceted.

Ciccio

[Michael Sierchio]

... People
can accomplish about twice those results by even moderately exercising
like walking for an hour per day. But like they say...every little bit
helps. Of course, the benefits of exercise are much more
multifaceted.

You're quite right, a sedentary lifestyle is fraught with many perils.
I'm an advocate of far more vigorous exercise if it's possible, but
walking is one of the best things you can do.

I do find, however, that whenever I adhere to a low carb diet, or reduce
or eliminate grains, that all my biomarkers improve. I can eat as much
fat as I can stand, plenty of meat and fish, and my BP goes down, my HDL
goes up, my LDL and triglycerides go down, etc. I'm not a fascist, I
don't suggest that what's good for me is good for you, but I know it
works. But bread and pasta and rice are truly wonderful. Sigh.

[Ciccio]

Post by Michael Sierchio
You're quite right, a sedentary lifestyle is fraught with many perils.
I'm an advocate of far more vigorous exercise if it's possible, but
walking is one of the best things you can do.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting limiting exercise to just walking. I was
pointing out how even moderate exercise greatly exceeds the cited
benefits of merely reducing GI/GL. That falls in line with...Going
from the couch to walking 4x per week produces greater health
benefits, than going from walking to more vigorous exercising.

Post by Michael Sierchio
 But bread and pasta and rice are truly wonderful.  Sigh.

I can go without pasta, rice, or potatoes for months. Many loaves of
bread I buy go stale long before I finish them. My carb downfall is
polenta. I have it a couple of times per week. Though, thankfully,
after it's cooked, a little goes a long way. So, like oatmeal, I'm
satisfied, without a lot of calories.

Ciccio

[Peter Lawrence]

I can go without pasta, rice, or potatoes for months. Many loaves of
bread I buy go stale long before I finish them. My carb downfall is
polenta. I have it a couple of times per week. Though, thankfully,
after it's cooked, a little goes a long way.

One of the keys to help minimize the effects of high glycemic foods like
pasta or polenta is to eat it with food that contains fat. That will
slow down the conversion of the wheat flour or cornmeal to blood sugar.
That's one reason why ice cream with a lot of milk fat has a lower
glycemic value than one might expect.

So when it comes to pasta, it's healthier to have it with a high-fat
meat sauce or pesto sauce than with a low-fat marinara sauce. So if you
like polenta, just be sure to eat it with some high-fat foods and you
should be o.k..


- Peter

[Aahz Maruch]

Post by David Arnstein
I use a rice cooker to prepare breakfast cereal. I mix up
steel cut oats (2 cups)
cracked wheat (1 cup)
whole millet (1 cup)
whole flax seeds (1 cup)
coarse corn meal (polenta) (0.5 cup)

That's a lot! How many people are you serving?

[David Arnstein]

Post by Aahz Maruch
That's a lot! How many people are you serving?

One to three people. But I mix the grains into a large "batch" that I
use over a period of weeks. The grains are dry, so they keep for a
very long time.

[JC Dill]

Post by David Arnstein
Perhaps you could describe how your results were "sub-optimal." Too
gooey? Not cooked all the way through? With a rice cooker, the main
variable is the amount of water added. My method is to use the minimum
amount of water possible. But your taste may be different.

I used the water/oats ratio indicated on the package (cooking for 4
servings). After the rice cooker shut off, the oatmeal was only 1/2
cooked and sitting under a layer of water. I started the rice cooker
again, the second time the oatmeal was mostly cooked, but still had a
(thinner) layer of water on top. I stirred and started the cooker
again. The 3rd cooking cycle produced edible oatmeal, but not nearly as
good as if I had cooked it the old-fashioned way on the stove.

I don't know how a rice cooker determines that the rice is "done" - is
it by time or is there a moisture sensor? If it's by time, that may be
a key part of the problem - steel-cut oats take longer than white rice.

I like the idea of "set it and forget it" rice cooker instead of
constantly watching oatmeal on the stove, and the easy cleaning of the
non-stick rice cooker pot as compared with the oatmeal sticking to our
regular (not non-stick) pots. I don't have a crock-pot handy, and if I
dig one out it wouldn't be any easier to clean than the regular pots, so
I lose that advantage over the rice cooker.

jc

p.s. Thanks to whoever recommended the Chex cereals. That ended up
being the best solution suggested for my cold cereal question.

[Geoff Miller]

Post by JC Dill
I don't know how a rice cooker determines that the rice
is "done" - is it by time or is there a moisture sensor?

My Hitachi does it by weight. There's a spring-loaded piston
in the center of the hotplate, and when it rises to a certain
height, the heat turns off and the bell rings. Then fifteen
minutes later (for additional steaming), the rice is done.

Post by JC Dill
I like the idea of "set it and forget it" rice cooker instead
of constantly watching oatmeal on the stove, and the easy
cleaning of the non-stick rice cooker pot as compared with
the oatmeal sticking to our regular (not non-stick) pots.

That's why I only cook instant oatmeal (or better still, other
brands of hot cereal like those I mentioned previously). The
regular stuff just takes too damned long. About all I use it
for is making oatmeal cookies.



Geoff

--
"Wagner did for opera what Curtis LeMay
did for diplomacy." -- Rick Gordon

[Steve Fenwick]

Post by Geoff Miller
That's why I only cook instant oatmeal (or better still, other
brands of hot cereal like those I mentioned previously). The
regular stuff just takes too damned long. About all I use it
for is making oatmeal cookies.

If you haven't had steel cut oatmeal, try it sometime when you're out
for breakfast. It's a very different texture and taste.

Steve

[Kevin McMurtrie]

Post by Geoff Miller

Post by JC Dill
I don't know how a rice cooker determines that the rice
is "done" - is it by time or is there a moisture sensor?

My Hitachi does it by weight. There's a spring-loaded piston
in the center of the hotplate, and when it rises to a certain
height, the heat turns off and the bell rings. Then fifteen
minutes later (for additional steaming), the rice is done.

Post by JC Dill
I like the idea of "set it and forget it" rice cooker instead
of constantly watching oatmeal on the stove, and the easy
cleaning of the non-stick rice cooker pot as compared with
the oatmeal sticking to our regular (not non-stick) pots.

That's why I only cook instant oatmeal (or better still, other
brands of hot cereal like those I mentioned previously). The
regular stuff just takes too damned long. About all I use it
for is making oatmeal cookies.
Geoff
--
"Wagner did for opera what Curtis LeMay
did for diplomacy." -- Rick Gordon

The piston on a spring is a mechanical thermostat held against an
unheated area of the aluminum pan. It's sensing the sudden high
temperature when the last of the loose water boils off. The cooking pan
may be curved upwards at the thermostat so that a little water stays
along the edges to absorb heat remaining in the heating plate.

[David Arnstein]

Post by JC Dill
I used the water/oats ratio indicated on the package (cooking for 4
servings). After the rice cooker shut off, the oatmeal was only 1/2
cooked and sitting under a layer of water.

I certainly wasn't expecting that. Does your rice cooker cook rice
correctly? I speculate that it is broken.

I disagree with Geoff about the way rice cookers work. I don't think
they work by weight, but rather by temperature. I believe that your rice
cooker should keep cooking until all of the standing water has either
been absorbed into the rice, or boiled off. At that time, the temperature
inside the rice cooker should rise quickly. The rise in temperature
should induce the rice cooker to either turn itself off or switch from
"cooking" to "warming" mode.

But my theory is not consistent with your experience. So, perhaps Geoff
is correct. In any case, my experience differs from yours. There have
been one or two occasions where I accidentally added much too much water
to my rice cooker. When that happens, I obtain a somewhat rubbery
breakfast cereal. But there is no standing water.

[JC Dill]

Post by David Arnstein

Post by JC Dill
I used the water/oats ratio indicated on the package (cooking for 4
servings). After the rice cooker shut off, the oatmeal was only 1/2
cooked and sitting under a layer of water.

I certainly wasn't expecting that. Does your rice cooker cook rice
correctly? I speculate that it is broken.

It cooks rice perfectly - it isn't broken.

jc

[Julian Macassey]

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal? I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions. Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.

Traditionally the way make porridge (oatmeal) the slow
way was in a haybox. This just stores the heat in the pot.

A modern day way of doing this would be to use a
crockpot on low, or a large mouth thermos flask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haybox

You might be able to start in a rice cooker and switch
immediately to "warm" when it starts boiling.

[c***@yahoo.com]

Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?  I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions.  Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.
jc

If you are just trying to cut down the cooking time for the steel-cut
oats, here's what I do for morning oatmeal breakfast:

Presoak the oats in a pot with the normal amount of water needed the
night before. By morning it will all be soaked in. Add a little more
water to get the simmering process started, and it will be done in ~ 5
minutes. It's about as good as cooking for 40 minutes.

[JC Dill]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by JC Dill
Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal? I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions. Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.
jc

If you are just trying to cut down the cooking time for the steel-cut
Presoak the oats in a pot with the normal amount of water needed the
night before. By morning it will all be soaked in. Add a little more
water to get the simmering process started, and it will be done in ~ 5
minutes. It's about as good as cooking for 40 minutes.

Oatmeal is something I crave according to the weather - how sunny or
gloomy or wet and raining it is when I get up in the morning. I have no
idea if I will want hot oatmeal for breakfast when I go to bed the
previous night. It's not that I'm trying to cut down cooking time, I'm
just trying to find an easier way to cook oatmeal, and then clean up
after. I heard about using a rice cooker, and wanted to get proven
recipes since my first attempt at trying it without a recipe specific to
a rice cooker didn't work very well.

jc

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by JC Dill

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Does anyone here use their rice cooker to make oatmeal?  I'm looking for
proven recipe suggestions.  Last week I tried using the rice cooker to
make oatmeal with steel-cut oats, and the results were sub-optimal.
jc

If you are just trying to cut down the cooking time for the steel-cut
Presoak the oats in a pot with the normal amount of water needed the
night before.  By morning it will all be soaked in.  Add a little more
water to get the simmering process started, and it will be done in ~ 5
minutes.  It's about as good as cooking for 40 minutes.

Oatmeal is something I crave according to the weather - how sunny or
gloomy or wet and raining it is when I get up in the morning.  I have no
idea if I will want hot oatmeal for breakfast when I go to bed the
previous night.  It's not that I'm trying to cut down cooking time, I'm
just trying to find an easier way to cook oatmeal, and then clean up
after.  I heard about using a rice cooker, and wanted to get proven
recipes since my first attempt at trying it without a recipe specific to
a rice cooker didn't work very well.
jc- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

The problem I had using a (medium size) rice cooker is that even for a
single serving, it bubbled too much and overflowed while cooking.
You'd probably need to experiment with a more sophisticated cooker
that can calibrate for different grains.