Is there a difference between rolled oats and old-fashioned rolled oats in terms of nutritional value?
I buy organic oats in bulk and noticed this weekend that my store carries both rolled oats and old-fashioned rolled oats. They look pretty much the same but I noticed that the serving size for the rolled oats is 1/2 cup for 160 calories and the old-fashioned rolled oats is 1/3 cup for 160 calories. So I started to wonder if there is a difference in nutrition, like there is between quick cooking oats and rolled oats.
Huh. I didn't know either but found this:
Rolled Oats - Whole grains of oats can also be steamed to make them soft and pliable, and then pressed between rollers and dried. The resulting "rolled oats" re-absorb water and cook much more quickly than whole groats or steel-cut oats. When a recipe calls for "rolled oats" or the packaging mentions it, they generally mean the thickest rolled oat, which retains its shape fairly well during cooking.Substitute: Quick oats can be substituted, but the texture will be lost
Old-Fashioned Oats - The source of much confusion, old-fashioned oats are actually the same as rolled oats. You'll usually see them called "Old-Fashioned Rolled Oats" on packaging.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
This is probably due to different densities. Some oats are more "fluffy" with more air between, others pack more densely depending on how they're cut.
Take a look at how many grams the serving is supposed to weigh, or the ratio of protein to calories, and you'll probably see more consistency.
If not, they're probably labeled incorrectly (I've seen this on some products before).