Why does Basmati rice have so many calories?
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.9 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Were you losing weight over the past 3 years?
No. First 6 months, rest I maintained2 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.
These do come with weight, that's why I use them. They're USDA entries, they're just displayed in search in cups but have dropdowns in 100 grams.17 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
The good (USDA) entries for potatoes (and all foods) do specify cooked or not.
On packages, it's typically uncooked unless it says otherwise.
Scanning the bar code brings up whatever the person who created it put in, so isn't especially reliable unless you double-check it.7 -
The barcode scanner is nothing more than a false sense of security. If an entry seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you are unsure, you can always double-check online. The USDA site is a great resource, as mentioned. I use it all the time.5
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Well, considering that you've also been thinking you maintain on fewer calories than people have told you you likely do, it's not surprising. Depending on how often you eat rice, this could be part of the reason behind that discrepancy.
As far as potatoes -- it's simple. Look for either the cooked or uncooked version, depending on what you're making and eating. I prefer the uncooked entry, since I do my weighing when I prep my meal to cook, and not when I plate to serve.6 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Why are you giving up on it? Has your weight progress been what you wanted it to be for the past three years? If you have been reaching your goals then there is no problem. If you haven't been reaching your goals then just adjust the amount you eat. Brown rice is filling and is a great addition to an overall healthy diet.4 -
How much have you been off with the incorrect entry? 120 calories a day should not be large enough to maintain if your deficit is .5lb/week or higher. The .5lb deficit is -250 below your maintenance. So not a large deficit but enough that’d you still lose a bit.0
-
Completely get the shock after all this time, especially when it was your primary motivation for eating it in the first place! However, there’s a silver lining here, which is pretty rad if you think about it.0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.
Actually, both of those entries are very good entries. They're examples of the old-school ones with USDA syntax. If you look them up, there are a boatload of different serving sizes in the drop-down, including 100g.
Most of the "best" entries, the ones of this type, are noticeable by that USDA syntax (after a while you get a feel for their bureaucratic style and just recognize it), and most often the default serving size - like the ones showing in the list in the screen grab - are often in cups. The other serving sizes are normally there, including grams, plus things that are useful for estimating (for restaurant food, say) like different sizes (by inch) of potatoes.8 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
LOL - just really goes to show that weight loss is achieved by focusing on the overall picture. A hundred calories here or there will not make a difference if you're generally moving in the right direction. No need to sweat the small stuff!8 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.
Actually, both of those entries are very good entries. They're examples of the old-school ones with USDA syntax. If you look them up, there are a boatload of different serving sizes in the drop-down, including 100g.
Most of the "best" entries, the ones of this type, are noticeable by that USDA syntax (after a while you get a feel for their bureaucratic style and just recognize it), and most often the default serving size - like the ones showing in the list in the screen grab - are often in cups. The other serving sizes are normally there, including grams, plus things that are useful for estimating (for restaurant food, say) like different sizes (by inch) of potatoes.
Good point about getting to recognize the USDA syntax - no normal person would make an entry like "Chicken, broilers or fryers, thigh, meat only, cooked, roasted"
9 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
I actually admire your dedication to eat something you don't like for three years just because it has fewer calories
ETA: The whole discussion has been enlightening. I didn't know that the bar code pulled info from the database. I thought it pulled it from maybe the manufacturers' data. Also the thing about USDA entries style. Funny.
1 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
I actually admire your dedication to eat something you don't like for three years just because it has fewer calories
ETA: The whole discussion has been enlightening. I didn't know that the bar code pulled info from the database. I thought it pulled it from maybe the manufacturers' data. Also the thing about USDA entries style. Funny.dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
I actually admire your dedication to eat something you don't like for three years just because it has fewer calories
ETA: The whole discussion has been enlightening. I didn't know that the bar code pulled info from the database. I thought it pulled it from maybe the manufacturers' data. Also the thing about USDA entries style. Funny.
I can eat anything, I'm not a fussy person, I might not like it but I can still eat it.0 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
I actually admire your dedication to eat something you don't like for three years just because it has fewer calories
ETA: The whole discussion has been enlightening. I didn't know that the bar code pulled info from the database. I thought it pulled it from maybe the manufacturers' data. Also the thing about USDA entries style. Funny.dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
I actually admire your dedication to eat something you don't like for three years just because it has fewer calories
ETA: The whole discussion has been enlightening. I didn't know that the bar code pulled info from the database. I thought it pulled it from maybe the manufacturers' data. Also the thing about USDA entries style. Funny.
I can eat anything, I'm not a fussy person, I might not like it but I can still eat it.
I better clean my glasses. I thought this comment said something else.7 -
The barcode scanner is nothing more than a false sense of security. If an entry seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you are unsure, you can always double-check online. The USDA site is a great resource, as mentioned. I use it all the time.
Nah, when a barcode scan a single potato, I trust the entry.2 -
Life is WAY too short for that! Food is meant to be enjoyed, even if in smaller portions than one would like to have in order to control weight.dave_in_ni wrote: »I can eat anything, I'm not a fussy person, I might not like it but I can still eat it.
5 -
1
-
I love rice but also find it pretty high in calories. I now mix it 50/50 with cauliflower rice. Cuts back the calories and I don’t notice any taste difference! Still lower in calories then potatoes for me.1
-
Potatoes are lower in cal by volume/weight.
Potatoes, raw, 100 g, 58 cal.
White rice, raw, 100 g, 365 cal (but like most grains 56 g is a typical serving and it plumps up from cooking).
Obviously rice increases and potatoes decrease in size with cooking, but still potatoes are lower cal per typical serving.
I thought I was responding to something, but beats me.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions