Mcdonald’s Oatmeal (Sadly) Not Much Better than a Sausage

mielikkibz

on the other hand you can make oatmeal in your microwave in less time than it takes to go through the drive thru! what is McD's thinking?

it's easy and convenient when you're traveling or running late(I don't like fruit in mine, so have never gotten it)

mielikkibz

. But the last time I tried to eat it I couldn't make it with milk, couldn't add hardly any sugar and it still came out close to 500 calories.

what kind of oatmeal are you eating??? Just pulled out my great value(Walmart brand) quick oats, one serving (1/2 cup) is only 150 calories, no sodium, and it pretty much fills me up

amycakes812

McDonald's = McCrap....that is all :sick:

forgiven4life

. But the last time I tried to eat it I couldn't make it with milk, couldn't add hardly any sugar and it still came out close to 500 calories.

what kind of oatmeal are you eating??? Just pulled out my great value(Walmart brand) quick oats, one serving (1/2 cup) is only 150 calories, no sodium, and it pretty much fills me up

That is what I was thinking!! What kind of regular oatmeal without milk, sugar or anything has close to 500 calories in it?? :laugh:

Lyadeia

Without reading the article...all I have to say is

It's McDonald's. You didn't really think it was going to be healthy, did you?

jamie1888

. But the last time I tried to eat it I couldn't make it with milk, couldn't add hardly any sugar and it still came out close to 500 calories.

what kind of oatmeal are you eating??? Just pulled out my great value(Walmart brand) quick oats, one serving (1/2 cup) is only 150 calories, no sodium, and it pretty much fills me up

That is what I was thinking!! What kind of regular oatmeal without milk, sugar or anything has close to 500 calories in it?? :laugh:

Right! I use 1/4c dry oats & microwave... add some splenda & 1tbl almond butter or ground flax seed. Then a serving of lean protein (eggs, egg whites, homedade turkey patty, etc) and I am SO full all morning for around 300 calories.

callipygianchronicle

While I agree that it is unfair to criticize the convenience of eating oatmeal out, as opposed to preparing it at home; and no, instant oatmeal is not necessarily a healthier choice than eating oatmeal out. All fair arguments.

But, I think most people assume that when they order oatmeal out it is simply oats + water + any toppings they add. I wouldn’t assume there were tons of additives. I would assume that I was ordering and eating a wholesome food, even at an unwholesome establishment. And this essay tells me I would be wrong in that assumption.

I decided to check whether Mcdonald’s was alone in the way they prepared their oatmeal, so I pulled up Starbucks nutrition info. Both are available with optional toppings, and equally convenient. And here’s what you get for that convenience--

Starbucks Oatmeal Ingredients:

whole-grain rolled oats (with oat bran), oat flour, calcium carbonate, salt, guar gum, caramel color, reduced iron, vitamin a palmitate, niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, thiamine mononitrate, folic acid.

McDonald’s Oatmeal Ingredients:

Whole grain rolled oats, brown sugar, food starch-modified, salt, natural flavor (plant source), barley malt extract, caramel color.

Assuming it’s true that the cream is not optional, these ingredients would be included in the Light Cream:
Milk, cream, sodium phosphate, datem, sodium stearoyl lactylate, sodium citrate, carrageenan.

Starbucks Oatmeal Nutrition:

Calories 140
Total Fat 2.5g
Saturated Fat 0.5g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 105mg
Total Carbohydrate 25g
Dietary Fiber 4g
Sugars 0g
Protein 5g

McDonald’s Oatmeal Nutrition (with cream is in parentheses):

Calories 190 (210)
Total Fat 2.5g (4)
Saturated Fat 0 (1.5g)
Cholesterol 0mg (10)
Sodium 140mg (150 mg)
Total Carbohydrate 38g (39)
Dietary Fiber 3g (3)
Sugars 14g (14)
Protein 4g (5)

taletreader

For goodness' sake.

I hate Mc Do as much as the next gal, but spreading misinformation is not going to help anyone. If anything, it's going to make it easier for fast-food companies to present themselves as great and good if they can point fingers to incorrect and misleading information.

We've been through this before: Mc Donald's oatmeal has more sugar because it a) contains brown sugar (which is OPTIONAL) and b) contains dried fruit. I don't know if the dried fruit (which is a GOOD ingredient) is optional, but without the brown sugar it's quite close to the nutritional parameters of my own homemade oatmeal. It's surely just as nutritious as many people's oatmeal if they use quick-cooking oats. I posted comparisons here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/159537-don-t-be-fooled-by-mcdonalds-oatmeal?hl=oatmeal+&page=1#posts-2134513 . Saying it's just as bad as a sausage either means sausages aren't THAT bad or it's plain wrong.

Please, folks, use a) your own critical thinking to CHECK what you post and b) the forum search function, ok?

forgiven4life

For goodness' sake.

I hate Mc Do as much as the next gal, but spreading misinformation is not going to help anyone. If anything, it's going to make it easier for fast-food companies to present themselves as great and good if they can point fingers to incorrect and misleading information.

We've been through this before: Mc Donald's oatmeal has more sugar because it a) contains brown sugar (which is OPTIONAL) and b) contains dried fruit. I don't know if the dried fruit (which is a GOOD ingredient) is optional, but without the brown sugar it's quite close to the nutritional parameters of my own homemade oatmeal. It's surely just as nutritious as many people's oatmeal if they use quick-cooking oats. I posted comparisons here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/159537-don-t-be-fooled-by-mcdonalds-oatmeal?hl=oatmeal+&page=1#posts-2134513 . Saying it's just as bad as a sausage either means sausages aren't THAT bad or it's plain wrong.

Please, folks, use a) your own critical thinking to CHECK what you post and b) the forum search function, ok?

I agree! If people would just consider for a moment the source of the sugar in the oatmeal. Dried fruits are going to have a higher suger content and raw fruit is naturally high in sugar as well. But it's not the same as sugar from other sources. Seems people can't take a minute to think outside the box instead of just looking at the numbers. There are 17-21 g of sugar in a large banana. Would you tell someone not to eat it because it is full of sugar??

RitaKs

OOO!!!! I love McDonald's oatmeal. If I have to give up taste then I will not lose weight. Who would want to? I doubt anyone will lose weight if that is the only way to do it. Calorie counting works and I would just as soon include McDonalds oatmeal at 290 calories a serving than to eat dry wheat toast and boiled eggs. This filling oatmeal and a cup of black coffee is less than the 300 calories I allot myself for a breakfast meal. I think the only fault to find with this oatmeal is that McDonalds has taken this run of the meal nutritious staple and made it delicious. Fancy that!!

callipygianchronicle

Mc Donald's oatmeal has more sugar because it a) contains brown sugar (which is OPTIONAL) and b) contains dried fruit. I don't know if the dried fruit (which is a GOOD ingredient) is optional, but without the brown sugar it's quite close to the nutritional parameters of my own homemade oatmeal.

The nutrition data, which I posted above does not support your assertion here. The Mcdonald’s Oatmeal contains 14 grams of sugar without any additives. It jumps to 32 if you add the brown sugar and the fruit. And, if you check their own nutrition data on their own website there is no way to exclude the brown sugar. Boxes for cream, apples, and cranberry raisin blend can be turned off and on, but not the sugar—suggesting it is not optional. The essay states, "brown sugar is ostensibly optional, but it’s also added routinely unless a customer specifically requests otherwise.” The validity of statement is unverified, but Mark Bittman is reputable source when it comes to food politics and journalism in the US and my original post does state that his is an opinion piece.

Saying it's just as bad as a sausage either means sausages aren't THAT bad or it's plain wrong.

Well, that depends on what you value in nutrition, and you are free to argue with the author’s assertion. My interpretation is that he is saying that when it comes to eating lab created non-foods, eating one is only minimally better than another. And that for once he wishes the company had chosen to do better, to take an ingredient (rolled oats) which offer so much nutritional benefit and offer it to their customers as is. You may disagree with that position, and you may feel that position is hyperbole, but his position is consistent with many voices advocating better food policy in the US.

Please, folks, use a) your own critical thinking to CHECK what you post and b) the forum search function, ok?

Take issue with the author’s argument all you want, but I won’t abide your insinuation that this thread was started to spread misinformation, nor by a non-thinking idiot. The fact that oatmeal at McDonald’s has been discussed before may annoy you, but it has not been discussed within the context of this New York times piece. I believe Bittman is discussing an issue deeper than calories and sugar content, which he doesn’t ignore. I take no issue with someone tearing apart his assertions and presenting conflicting evidence, but I will not sit idly by while someone demeans my intellect for bringing the article up for debate.

tanniew78

McDs has NOTHING good for you. Not one blessed thing. Everything is overprocessed, full of fat and sugar and they even add addictive enzymes to the cheese to make you come back for more. There are even more dubious practices than this, but I just know for us, me and mine are NOT eating McDs again. Ever.

loriefolk

If you're eating at McD's - you're asking to be duped. Nothing about their food is healthy.

taletreader

The nutrition data, which I posted above does not support your assertion here. The Mcdonald’s Oatmeal contains 14 grams of sugar without any additives. It jumps to 32 if you add the brown sugar and the fruit.

OK, to put the matter of numbers to rest as well as be both are able to without spending hours in research, here's what I figured out from the other thread:

My homecooked oatmeal (uses 1/2 cup of organic semi-skimmed milk and 1/2 cup of water) with 2 tsp of brown sugar (adds 24 cals, 6 g carbs, 6 g sugars):
Cals: 281; Carbs: 47 g; Sugars: 18 g; Fiber: 4 g; Protein: 13 g; Fat: 5 g; Sodium: 166 mg;

McDonald's oatmeal with topped with apples, raisins and cranberries and blended with cream:
Cals: 280; Carbs: 57 g; Sugars: 31 g; Fiber: 5 g; Protein: 5 g; Fat: 4 g; Sodium: 160
without brown sugar:
Cals: 260; Carbs: 48 g; Sugars: 18 g; Fiber: 5 g; Protein: 5 g; Fat: 4 g; Sodium: 115

So, yes, you're right that if I subtract the sugar from mine, I get 12 g of sugars and the minimum we get for the Mc Donald's oatmeal is 18 g. 6 g difference. (This said, I looked again here: http://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/food/breakfast/oatso-simple-porridge.mcdj?dnPos=-597 ... and the version they show here has 9g of sugar.)

Well, that depends on what you value in nutrition, and you are free to argue with the author’s assertion. My interpretation is that he is saying that when it comes to eating lab created non-foods, eating one is only minimally better than another. And that for once he wishes the company had chosen to do better, to take an ingredient (rolled oats) which offer so much nutritional benefit and offer it to their customers as is. You may disagree with that position, and you may feel that position is hyperbole, but his position is consistent with many voices advocating better food policy in the US

My main point here isn't that McDonald's oatmeal is all hunky-dory food. It isn't, for all of your and Mark Bittman's point about industrially produced non-foods. I completely agree, and think that he's a good writer. His overall point is appreciated. Personally, I cook from scratch most things, buy organic when it makes sense and I can afford it. I've also had, in the 3 weeks I've lived in the US, had some food and non-food surprises, good but also bad (the stuff they put on "buttered toast" in diners... uh-oh; and the toast itself...).

BUT I would so much prefer that writers who wish to make these points didn't base them on so controversial judgements such as this one. Because speaking in terms of macro-nutrients, there isn't very much to choose between my all-organic all-homecooked porridge and the industrially assembled McDo oatmeal. I'm mostly seeing the protein advantage in mine. And let's look at the sausage, the Snicker's bar and the Egg Mc Muffin:

Snickers bar:
Calories 271; Total Fat 13.6g; Saturated Fat 5.2g; Trans Fat 0.2g; Sodium 140mg; Total Carbohydrates 34.5g; Dietary Fiber 1.3g; Sugars 28.8g; Protein 4.3g

McDonald's sausage patty:
Calories 170; Total Fat 15.0g; Saturated Fat 5.0g; Sodium 340mg; Total Carbohydrates 1.0g; Protein 7.0g

McDonald's Egg McMuffin:
Cals: 300; Fat 12.0g; Saturated Fat 5.0g; Sodium 820mg; Total Carbohydrates 30.0g; Fiber 2.0g; Sugars 3.0g; Protein 18.0g

All three are vastly worse choices when it comes to Fat/Sat Fat. But also, the Egg Mc Muffin is far from being the worst on the Mc Donald's menu.

Now again, you're completely right about the noxiousness of the large industrial fast-food companies on the diet of a large part of the inhabitants of Western (and not only Western) countries. But attacking their *oatmeal* seems to me akin to criticising a serial robber for failing to contribute enough to charity or to pay their taxes or to park in the wrong spot. And I also agree that giving them kudos for what is a marketing ploy to make them look responsible and healthful isn't something we should be doing.

But I can't help thinking that for someone whose current lifestyle includes breakfast at McDonald's to switch from a Sausage and Egg Mc Muffin and a Snickers bar to a portion of oatmeal would be a significant step towards healthier food choices. You need transitional opportunities for the many many people who already eat there. I'd rather start with how people RIGHT NOW actually eat. If only they learnt to look at calories and macro-nutrient counts and base their choice (even if you or I still think it's a bad choice) on that, it would be a huge step forward. Changing habits isn't easy -- I'm glad that mine never included Mc Donald's.

(And also on purely nutritional grounds, the large industrial fast-food outlets at least over in Europe tend to be a lot easier than your small greasy-spoon at the next corner -- because of the scrutiny and the obligation to publish nutriton information. Not that I don't have more sympathy with the small independent fast-food owner than with McDo, but eating there requires another whole set of investigation and preparation.)

In the UK where I lived before, there's already a movement of chain food outlets that open themselves to scrutiny and base their approach on all-from-scratch, no industrial methods food. (I included the oatmeal of one of those, Pret-a-Manger, in the other thread.) Would it be great if the large chains also just used oats and water (and milk for me!) in their preparation? Sure!

Take issue with the author’s argument all you want, but I won’t abide your insinuation that this thread was started to spread misinformation, nor by a non-thinking idiot. The fact that oatmeal at McDonald’s has been discussed before may annoy you, but it has not been discussed within the context of this New York times piece. I believe Bittman is discussing an issue deeper than calories and sugar content, which he doesn’t ignore. I take no issue with someone tearing apart his assertions and presenting conflicting evidence, but I will not sit idly by while someone demeans my intellect for bringing the article up for debate.

OK, I may have been forceful, but I certainly didn't imply that you or Bittman are intentionally spreading misinformation. (I'm not sure why it would be demeaning to you if someone engages in debate with an opinion piece -- isn't that what opinion pieces are *for*?) Anyhow, no insult to your intellect was intended.

I do feel sad, though, that the old habit of searching the forum first and staying within existing threads seems to have fallen by the wayside of the web. Back 20 years ago, it was just part of netiquette to read first and reference prior discussions. It was barely a few weeks ago, and in the old context the Bittman piece (even though I dislike it in its details!) is an interesting addition. But I felt it quite disrespectful to us who already engaged weeks early to HAVE to rehash our arguments & make the effort to search and quote the reference which I feel would have been the new poster's job, or feel completely obliterated. But then maybe I'm becoming a dinosaur of internet debate...