Cutting calories in rice

juliebowman4

I've read (from legitimate reliable sources) that you can cut the calories in rice by 50-60% if you add 3% coconut oil while cooking, then promptly refrigerating for at least 12hrs.

Is this woo? Or can I safely log less calories for rice if I prepare it this way?

fishshark

it pains me to say... but magic is not real.

TeaBea

juliebowman4 wrote: »

I've read (from legitimate reliable sources) that you can cut the calories in rice by 50-60% if you add 3% coconut oil while cooking, then promptly refrigerating for at least 12hrs.

Is this woo? Or can I safely log less calories for rice if I prepare it this way?

I wouldn't count on it. I've read that too.

Look into cauliflower rice. Mix some riced cauliflower into your rice. That will absolutely lower calories and increase fiber.

singingflutelady

Wouldn't adding oil add calories though?

socioseguro

Unfortunately those "legitimate reliable sources" can not be trusted.

diannethegeek

This is based on one 2009 study where scientists tested different cooking methods and found a way to change the type of starches in cooked rice. The actual results showed something like a 12% reduction in calories. 50% is optimistic based on what they hope other varieties of rice might do if cooked in the same way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/

The full study is behind a paywall, but it anyone has access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562607

cwolfman13

You're adding calories by adding oil...coconut oil is 120 calories per Tbsp...I'm not sure what 3% coconut oil is though.

My understanding, regardless of the oil is that if you cook and then refrigerate certain things like rice and oats and then reheat, you create more resistant starch which would lower the actual calorie count to some extent...but hardly by 50%...that sounds ludicrous to me.

I would just log it as is and stop trying to find cheats.

cmriverside

diannethegeek wrote: »

This is based on one 2009 study where scientists tested different cooking methods and found a way to change the type of starches in cooked rice. The actual results showed something like a 12% reduction in calories. 50% is optimistic based on what they hope other varieties of rice might do if cooked in the same way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/

The full study is behind a paywall, but it anyone has access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562607

So, like 15 calories per serving, more or less?

If it seems too good to be true.



/full stop

ouryve

And if the resistant starch theory is true, some people get some digestive discomfort from that.

And it all overlooks the toxins (real ones, not woo ones) that can develop in rice, after cooking, if not cooled quickly enough.

claraoswold

No. The starches, and thus the calories, are still there. Plus since you're cooking with coconut oil and not water you are adding calories which are in the oil. Remember that a calorie is a measure of energy from molecular bonds. You aren't removing this molecules, so you aren't removing calories.

Need2Exerc1se

juliebowman4 wrote: »

I've read (from legitimate reliable sources) that you can cut the calories in rice by 50-60% if you add 3% coconut oil while cooking, then promptly refrigerating for at least 12hrs.

Is this woo? Or can I safely log less calories for rice if I prepare it this way?

Cooking certain starchy foods in water and then cooling them completely changes some of the starches to resistant starches which are not absorbed by the body. This is true of potatoes. That's probably what you read about. But it's not going to cut the calories in half.

AnvilHead

If a "legitimate reliable source" told you that adding pure fat to something will make it have less calories, it isn't a legitimate reliable source.

Coconut oil is fat, and fat has 9 calories per gram.

ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken

I don't know about that. Sounds wacky to me. However maybe you want to boil the rice and drain the water after. This is also supposed to help cut down on the arsenic too.

BinaryPulsar

cwolfman13 wrote: »

You're adding calories by adding oil...coconut oil is 120 calories per Tbsp...I'm not sure what 3% coconut oil is though.

My understanding, regardless of the oil is that if you cook and then refrigerate certain things like rice and oats and then reheat, you create more resistant starch which would lower the actual calorie count to some extent...but hardly by 50%...that sounds ludicrous to me.

I would just log it as is and stop trying to find cheats.

Yeah, It's not because of oil. It's because of cooling the rice it becomes more resistant starch (doesn't matter if you reheat or eat it cool, it's resistant once it cools).

BinaryPulsar

ouryve wrote: »

And if the resistant starch theory is true, some people get some digestive discomfort from that.

And it all overlooks the toxins (real ones, not woo ones) that can develop in rice, after cooking, if not cooled quickly enough.

Yeah, I have malabsorption. I can't digest it at all. It makes me very sick.

juliebowman4

I (maybe erroneously) considered these reliable sources. It's not like Time is a rag-mag.
And I wasn't looking for ways to cheat....geez....I was looking for info
http://time.com/3754097/rice-calories-resistant-starch/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/

queenliz99

juliebowman4 wrote: »

I (maybe erroneously) considered these reliable sources. It's not like Time is a rag-mag.
And I wasn't looking for ways to cheat....geez....I was looking for info
http://time.com/3754097/rice-calories-resistant-starch/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/

Time magazine and Washington Post are here to sell magazines. The truth is bent a lot. Might as well be People magazine.

diannethegeek

juliebowman4 wrote: »

I (maybe erroneously) considered these reliable sources. It's not like Time is a rag-mag.
And I wasn't looking for ways to cheat....geez....I was looking for info
http://time.com/3754097/rice-calories-resistant-starch/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/25/scientists-have-figured-out-a-simple-way-to-cook-rice-that-dramatically-cuts-the-calories/

As I pointed out from the Washington Post article above, 50% is an optimistic guess they're using to sell the concept. The actual study showed a much smaller reduction. It's an interesting piece of information, but the media has overblown it just a bit.

BinaryPulsar

The main benefit is supposed to be that it feeds good bacteria in the colon (if you are a person that can tolerate it). Like soluble fiber (thankfully I do very well with this).