I always get conflicting answers about this here.
are "raw" (uncooked) oats less nutritional than cooked oats?
p-please r-r-r-r-espond
>>37313864
Uncooked oats are just disgusting, nutritional differences aside. You most likely wouldn't put up with eating raw oats for very long. If you could then fair play, but I sure as hell cant.
>>37314320
Agreed, uncooked is fuck gross. Like eating the shaved skin of an 80 year olds moldy clit. If you must have cooked oats, eat in moderation.
>>37313864
I would imagine raw oats provide you less energy than cooked oats, much most cooked food. No way your body is going to get everything out of a bowl of rock hard raw oats
>>37313864
I feel ya op, try cooking your oats by putting them in a bowl and pouring boiling water on them. Baisicly as good as raw.
>>37313864
Activated oats are superior to both
>>37314333
SHIT
I've been blending 1/2 a cup of oats in my shakes each morning, is this a waste then?
>>37316885
probably just accomplishes different things in terms of nutrition.
Cooking oats is going to turn starches to sugars and provide your body with more energy while cooking off some micro nutrients.
Someone check me though.
>>37316901
nigga im just tryna get big, have i fucked myself?
>>37316948
>have i fucked myself?
>nigga
yes
>>37317054
kek not rly nigga
