Low fat oatmeal bars? squares? REcipes requested

In article S1HOb.165469$X%5.139262@pd7tw2no, Dawn Lawson
wrote:

Sue wrote:

Dawn Lawson wrote in message

yukko!! :-P That stuff's awful. (not to mention the glycemic index!


Whatever, I like it.


Hey, you're welcome to eat all manner of disgusting over-priced,
unhealthy (as in, lacking in healthfulness), artificially flavored,
over-advertised, highly-processed glop you desire ;-), but I see you
snipped out the relevent part....

Would it even WORK as a galatogogue after being so processed?

According to _The Visual Food Encyclopedia_ edited by Francois Fortin,
quick cooking oats "are simply old-fashioned rolled oats that have been
cut more finely in orer to shorten their cooking time. While their
nutritional value is equivalent to that of old-fashioned rolled oats,
they are not as flavorful."

Here's pretty healthful oatmeal cookie recipe. I'd eat these for
breakfast, but then I do put quite a bit of sugar or honey on my daily
bowl of oats too :-)

Blend in blender until creamy: (preheat oven 350)
1.5 bananas
1/2 c. applesauce
2tsp vanilla
1/2 c. brown sugar (or honey or brown rice syrup)

Sift together:
1 scant cup of Whole wheat flour
1.5 tsp baking powder
dash salt
1 tsp cinnamon
dash nutmeg
1-2 tbsp sesame seeds (optional)

mix dry and wet. Stir in 3/4 c. oatmeal (the regular cereal type)
stir in 2 tbsp raisins (optional but delicious)

drop by generous spoonfuls onto cooking-sprayed cookie sheet.

Bake at 350 for 20-30 min or until just browning. (without the oil
they take longer to bake than you think!... check them though after 15
min to see how they are doing)

--
Molly
http://www.sonic.net/~mollyf/

Molly Fisher wrote:
In article S1HOb.165469$X%5.139262@pd7tw2no, Dawn Lawson
wrote:


Sue wrote:


Dawn Lawson wrote in message


yukko!! :-P That stuff's awful. (not to mention the glycemic index!


Whatever, I like it.


Hey, you're welcome to eat all manner of disgusting over-priced,
unhealthy (as in, lacking in healthfulness), artificially flavored,
over-advertised, highly-processed glop you desire ;-), but I see you
snipped out the relevent part....

Would it even WORK as a galatogogue after being so processed?


According to _The Visual Food Encyclopedia_ edited by Francois Fortin,
quick cooking oats "are simply old-fashioned rolled oats that have been
cut more finely in orer to shorten their cooking time. While their
nutritional value is equivalent to that of old-fashioned rolled oats,
they are not as flavorful."

Ah, but we're talkig instant oatmeal. The packaged stuff to which you
just add hot water and stir. Not quick cooking oats (which have a
higher glycemic anyhow, not sure why if they're just finer cut, so not
sure I buy that.)

Dawn

Denise Anderson wrote:

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:S1HOb.165469$X%5.139262@pd7tw2no...


Sue wrote:


Dawn Lawson wrote in message


yukko!! :-P That stuff's awful. (not to mention the glycemic index!


Whatever, I like it.


Hey, you're welcome to eat all manner of disgusting over-priced,
unhealthy (as in, lacking in healthfulness), artificially flavored,
over-advertised, highly-processed glop you desire ;-), but I see you
snipped out the relevent part....

Would it even WORK as a galatogogue after being so processed?




Yes, it works and its healthier than eating nothing for breakfast, or a
candy bar.

I don't think eating nothing is what we're discussing, but instead, the
value of instant oatmeal cereal as a galactogogue, and I'm not convinced
with the glycemic index and carb/protein ratio of the stuff that it's
THAT much better than a candy bar.

And from their website:
"Quaker Instant Oatmeal:
Quaker® Instant Oatmeal has nutrients packed into every box.

Meaningless. ALL food has SOME nutrients. Simply by using a box as a
container, this statement is true, but says nothing useful.

Quaker® Instant
Oatmeal is a whole grain food, and as an excellent source of niacin,
riboflavin and iron, helps to bolster energy levels.

Niacin, riboflavin and iron bolster energy levels? Would have thought
there were far more relevent nutritional factors than that for energy
levels. And again, "bolstered energy levels" often means little more
than a blood sugar spike from the crazy glycemic index of most processed
food. With insulin issues such a huge health problem in the developed
world, I personally think people could take a little more interest in
the effect of their food choices on their health than this sort of
company literature allows or encourages.

Quaker® Instant Oatmeal
is packed with vitamin A, which helps promote healthy eyesight, and vitamin
B6, important for normal brain function. It also contains calcium, which is
critical in developing and maintaining strong bones and teeth. "

Well, they list only six nutrients, give no quantitative data on them in
this paragraph, and while the facts are correct in the widest sense,
it's somewhat misleading, imo. And they certainly don't mean that Quaker
Instant Oatmeal is the best choice for a balanced healthful sensible
breakfast. It's nearly 30% sugar (13g per serving, where the quick
oatmeal has 1g), has 270mg of sodium (vs none in the quick) and no
insoluble fibre (vs 2g in the quick).

http://www.kidsacookin.org/recipes/r...recipe_id=9801
run the same as a pack of instant oatmeal and if you replace the raisins
with almonds and/or added some milk powder you'd be even better off.

BTW, did you mean to come off sounding arrogant?


Nah. We've discussed my style in great depth here already and it's
really very OT and boring to continue. Like it or leave it.

Dawn

Denise Anderson wrote:

"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:egDOb.166473$ts4.148118@pd7tw3no...


Sue wrote:

When we are in a hurry, the instant microwavable oatmeal is fast and

easy to

make.


yukko!! :-P That stuff's awful. (not to mention the glycemic index!


I love that stuff! And yes, it works for milk production, or it has for me
for 3 kids. I can't stand regular oatmeal.

Did you have supply issues? Or just ate oatmeal and had milk, no real
reason to attribute it to the oatmeal?
Just wondering if it was a "cause-effect" type relationship.

(not to be judgemental, but I find it endlessly fascinating how far from
real food ingredients the average diet has come, and how "trained" our
taste buds are to view the real thing as less desireable. Don't even
get me started on non-food products like Cheez Whiz and cheese slices
and the ads proclaiming "kids prefer the taste")

Dawn

In article EFIOb.162889$JQ1.32054@pd7tw1no, Dawn Lawson
wrote:

Ah, but we're talkig instant oatmeal. The packaged stuff to which you
just add hot water and stir. Not quick cooking oats (which have a
higher glycemic anyhow, not sure why if they're just finer cut, so not
sure I buy that.)

Okay. I usually just add hot water and stir when I make quick cooking
oats so I assumed the packaged stuff was the same, only conveniently
packaged. Looks the same.

Whole wheat flour has a higher glycemic index than bulgar which has a
higher glycemic index than whole wheat berries, right? Seems like the
smaller the particle the less work our bodies have to do to get at the
starch, the higher the glycemic index. I'm guessing.

--
Molly
http://www.sonic.net/~mollyf/

Barbara, I've substituted ground-up oats for flour in lots of cookie
recipes, and it works really well. Granola bars are good and quick.
Here's my favorite muffin recipe:

1 cup regular oats
2 cups low-fat buttermilk 1 2/3 cups whole wheat flour (or regular flour
would probably work)
3/4 cup packed dark brown sugar
1 tsp baking powder
1 tsp baking soda
1 tsp salt
2 Tb vegetable oil
2 large eggs, slightly beaten
2/3 cup dried blueberries or other fruit
cooking spray

Combine oats and buttermilk in a medium bowl; cover and refrigerate
overnight.

Preheat oven to 350.
Combine flour, sugar, powder, soda, and salt. Add buttermilk mixture,
oil, and eggs and mix with a mixer until smooth. Fold in blueberries.

Spoon 1/4 cup batter into 24 muffin cups coated with cooking spray.
Bake at 350 for 15 minutes or until muffins spring back when touched
lightly in center. Remove muffins from pans immediately; place on wire
rack.

Let me tell you, they are *mighty* tasty if you substitute chocolate
chunks for the dried fruit.


Mary S.
mom to the Sproutkin, 22 months

Molly Fisher wrote:

Whole wheat flour has a higher glycemic index than bulgar which has a
higher glycemic index than whole wheat berries, right? Seems like the
smaller the particle the less work our bodies have to do to get at the
starch, the higher the glycemic index. I'm guessing.

Yes, that's it exactly. That's why the most highly processed flours are so
high on the index.

There's a lot of useful information about the glycemic index he

http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/nmendosagi.htm

Don't let the "diabetes" topic throw you--low-glycemic foods are good for
everyone, not just diabetics.
--
Belphoebe

Dawn Lawson wrote:

(not to be judgemental, but I find it endlessly fascinating how far
from real food ingredients the average diet has come, and how
"trained" our taste buds are to view the real thing as less
desireable. Don't even get me started on non-food products like
Cheez Whiz and cheese slices and the ads proclaiming "kids prefer the
taste")

And in the U.S., advertising of these foods is shamelessly plugged toward
children (I don't know if it's as bad in Canada). We're just bracing
ourselves for when DS is old enough to be influenced by this stuff. Even
with limiting TV time, it'll be hard to curb the exposure to these messages.

One that really bothered me recently was for Chef Boyardee. Mom and little
girl are at the supermarket, and when the mom asks her daughter what she
wants for dinner, d. takes a can of Chef Boyardee ravioli off the shelf.
Mom puts it back, pointing out that d. has already had it every night that
week. Girl plaintively protests, "But I love chef." Can rolls off of the
shelf and follows them home, rolling along behind them on the road, finding
its way to little girl, who picks it up and smiles when mom asks again what
she'll have that night. Erg. I really hate this ad!

--
Belphoebe

Belphoebe wrote:
Dawn Lawson wrote:


(not to be judgemental, but I find it endlessly fascinating how far
from real food ingredients the average diet has come, and how
"trained" our taste buds are to view the real thing as less
desireable. Don't even get me started on non-food products like
Cheez Whiz and cheese slices and the ads proclaiming "kids prefer the
taste")


And in the U.S., advertising of these foods is shamelessly plugged toward
children (I don't know if it's as bad in Canada). We're just bracing
ourselves for when DS is old enough to be influenced by this stuff. Even
with limiting TV time, it'll be hard to curb the exposure to these messages.


Yup, they are. It's really awful. My current "worst" is the
McRestaurant one for chicken nuggets at a school party, with the "cute"
little girl lisping "if you're going to change something, change
broccoli!" as the class reacts in dismay to the idea that McPushy would
*dare* to adjust their food....pushing excessive consumerism,
self-centeredness AND fast foods as normal and desireable.

Dawn

LOL, I haven't seen that commercial or the one Dawn talks about. They sound
cute. What kid wouldn't love to substitute something that they hate for
something that they like. I don't begrudge companies trying to make a profit
or a buck for that matter, that's what corporate America is all about.
HOWEVER, it is up to the consumer to decide what it will buy and not buy, so
getting my hen feathers ruffled over a commercial is a waste of my time. My
kids are 11, 8 and 7 and while they oooh and ahhh over different commercials
(not of food though), that doesn't mean that they get what they want. For
heaven sakes, I ooh and ahh over certain commercials, but doesn't mean I
rush out and get it.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)
I'm Just a Raggedy Ann in a Barbie Doll World...

Belphoebe wrote in message
...
Dawn Lawson wrote:

(not to be judgemental, but I find it endlessly fascinating how far
from real food ingredients the average diet has come, and how
"trained" our taste buds are to view the real thing as less
desireable. Don't even get me started on non-food products like
Cheez Whiz and cheese slices and the ads proclaiming "kids prefer the
taste")

And in the U.S., advertising of these foods is shamelessly plugged toward
children (I don't know if it's as bad in Canada). We're just bracing
ourselves for when DS is old enough to be influenced by this stuff. Even
with limiting TV time, it'll be hard to curb the exposure to these
messages.

One that really bothered me recently was for Chef Boyardee. Mom and
little
girl are at the supermarket, and when the mom asks her daughter what she
wants for dinner, d. takes a can of Chef Boyardee ravioli off the shelf.
Mom puts it back, pointing out that d. has already had it every night that
week. Girl plaintively protests, "But I love chef." Can rolls off of the
shelf and follows them home, rolling along behind them on the road,
finding
its way to little girl, who picks it up and smiles when mom asks again
what
she'll have that night. Erg. I really hate this ad!

--
Belphoebe