Does spaghetti really have 300 calories/100g?
AkramSeid
Posts: 3 Member
something is probably wrong with myfitnesspal
6
Replies
-
Nothing wrong with MFP, 100g weight of dried pasta does indeed have well over 300 calories!
Normal serving size is 50-60g weighed dry.13 -
Yep, pasta calories add up quickly.4
-
Yes. 56g is 200 calories according to my box label.
4 -
This is dry weight. If anything, that calorie amount is low, as most pasta has closer to 400 per 100 grams dry. It weighs quite a bit more than that after you cook it. 100 grams of dry turns into about 250 grams of cooked pasta (give or take depending on cooking times and other factors)7
-
It’s a sad reality that pasta is so calorie laden.5
-
texasredreb wrote: »It’s a sad reality that pasta is so calorie laden.
It's not really though. There are a lot of foods that are more calorie dense. It can easily be made part of reasonable calorie dinners. You just can't eat giant plates smothered with fatty sauces20 -
texasredreb wrote: »It’s a sad reality that pasta is so calorie laden.
It's not really though. There are a lot of foods that are more calorie dense. It can easily be made part of reasonable calorie dinners. You just can't eat giant plates smothered with fatty sauces
Whilst you’re right, there are many more calorie dense foods out there (nuts spring to mind!), it’s still hard for some of us to fit pasta into our numbers. This is not aimed at you, specifically, but I do become irritated when I see people say similar things. I’m a very petite woman in my late 50s who maintains at 1134cals so must drop to 800-900cals to lose even a half pound a week. My favourite meals would ideally be pasta based (for the flavour of the tomato based sauce, generally) but I have to keep it to an occasional treat when I can fit it in.
I appreciate that everyone is different but the sweeping generalisation that pasta can reasonably be accommodated is still somewhat erroneous!24 -
I kinda agree with you @BarbaraHelen2013 though I can maintain on substantially more calories than you, I have had to forego my giant plates of pasta topped with delicious chunky sauces or olive oily sauces because it would mean that that's all i could eat in the whole day.
I now eat it as a treat when i'm not tracking food, or if I AM tracking, only when i'm on maintenance or surplus and even then, it's like this sad little 100g cooked pasta kind of meal. Which is like minimal. Not what I would consider an actual serving of pasta.
It's not easily accomodated unless you are happy to eat 100g cooked. Which normally I'm not LOL! So I tend to eat other stuff instead. Like rice - I get more bang for buck with rice.11 -
texasredreb wrote: »It’s a sad reality that pasta is so calorie laden.
It's not really though. There are a lot of foods that are more calorie dense. It can easily be made part of reasonable calorie dinners. You just can't eat giant plates smothered with fatty sauces
True enough. I stick to a tiny amount of regular pasta and a heaping amount of tomato based sauce. It fills me up and doesn't leave me wanting more. I sometimes swap regular noodles for "alt" noodles of various kinds. That also works for me.
3 -
I go for the smaller cooked portion of pasta and happily fill it out with various vegetables topped with tomato sauce. Spaghetti squash, butternut, zoodles, shaved carrot strips, asparagus, sauteed spinach, even steamed broccoli are fabulous carriers of a zesty red sauce.6
-
I have seen this argument before. Everyone thinks they need to plate a huge amount of pasta because when they go out to eat, since the pasta is the cheapest ingredient on the menu, they get a ton of it.
Just weigh out 3 oz and cook it up al dente and plate it with an appropriate amount of tomato sauce and see for yourself.11 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »I have seen this argument before. Everyone thinks they need to plate a huge amount of pasta because when they go out to eat, since the pasta is the cheapest ingredient on the menu, they get a ton of it.
Just weigh out 3 oz and cook it up al dente and plate it with an appropriate amount of tomato sauce and see for yourself.
Yes this is it. Restaurants give us enough pasta for 3 people at least.
I did a high carb diet preparing for an event a few months ago, and that involved a lot of whole wheat pasta with some chicken and mild seasoning. It was a actually hard for me to get as many calories as I wanted, because the pasta filled me up so much more than my normal diet.3 -
80 servings! How big is that package? That would be a 10-year supply for me! Lolcmriverside wrote: »Yes. 56g is 200 calories according to my box label.
3 -
It's depressing ,right?
3 -
I got a bit inspired. While wheat pasta with a cna of tuna, some ligtt mayonnaise, and a touch of hot sauce. May not be fancy but it's tasty and filling. It clocked in at around 500-550 calories, which is a below average dinner for me, and could even be worked into a 1200 calorie diet pretty easily.
8 -
I eat at 1300 cals and eat pasta frequently. It’s not hard.10
-
I eat at 1300 cals and eat pasta frequently. It’s not hard.
For some of us pasta is a trigger food. So it IS hard. I CAN eat a tiny little 100g serving of cooked pasta with heaps of sauce and make it fit. But it's not satisfying for me personally.
I LIKE the 3-people serving sizes in restaurants. That's how much pasta i'd eat normally prior to calorie counting.
So i'd rather eat other stuff that would satisfy me more than a piddly little tiny serving of pasta that will just leave me craving more. I cook a mean pasta. It's hard to eat just 100g of it.14 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »
80 servings! How big is that package? That would be a 10-year supply for me! Lolcmriverside wrote: »Yes. 56g is 200 calories according to my box label.
10 lbs. I'm guessing a big box store.0 -
I love spaghetti squash in place of regular pasta. When cooked correctly, it turns out the consistency of al dente angel hair. Just as rich and filling of a dish, but no guilt.4
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »I have seen this argument before. Everyone thinks they need to plate a huge amount of pasta because when they go out to eat, since the pasta is the cheapest ingredient on the menu, they get a ton of it.
Just weigh out 3 oz and cook it up al dente and plate it with an appropriate amount of tomato sauce and see for yourself.
I’m not in the US and I eat out maybe twice a year, and then never pasta (not because of the calories but because I’ve not met a restaurant yet that can get a plate of pasta out of the kitchen anything more than lukewarm!😂.) so I kind of resent your implication here!
Your 3oz (which is 1.5x the recommended serving) is still too big a chunk of my 800cals/day when it’s nutritional contribution is taken into account, except very occasionally.I got a bit inspired. While wheat pasta with a cna of tuna, some ligtt mayonnaise, and a touch of hot sauce. May not be fancy but it's tasty and filling. It clocked in at around 500-550 calories, which is a below average dinner for me, and could even be worked into a 1200 calorie diet pretty easily.
Exactly! For you! Again, this is not solely directed at you but at the slightly preachy overtones of quite a few people who fail to recognise that one size does not fit all! 500-550 calories is an unthinkable amount for a meal for me and leaves precisely 250 cals for the rest of the day. Not enough to get the rest of my nutritional requirements for sure!
There is also a lot more than 56g (2oz) in that bowl 😂. One single piece of penne weighs 1g.18 -
Yes and wouldn't there be about 56 penne in that dish?
Therefore 56g if they are a gram each? How is it a lot more?
Also if the total meal is 500 - 550 calories, how can that only leave you 250 calories for rest of the day? That would be a daily total of 750 - 800 calories?
#confused5 -
paperpudding wrote: »Yes and wouldn't there be about 56 penne in that dish?
Therefore 56g if they are a gram each? How is it a lot more?
Also if the total meal is 500 - 550 calories, how can that only leave you 250 calories for rest of the day? That would be a daily total of 750 - 800 calories?
#confused
I can count at least 73 visible pieces of penne, and it’s clearly not arranged in a single layer because (who does that - on the other hand, who counts pieces of penne in a photo!) 😳there are visible ‘points’ below the surface!
If you’d read further up the thread and, indeed, further up the post you replied to you’d have seen me clearly state that my calorie limit is 800 if I want to lose even a half pound per week. As a very short woman in my late 50s I maintain on 1134 cals.
[\confusion?]10 -
One serving of pasta is pitifully small. I plan my day around eating two servings when I’m making a meal, so at least my plate is *almost* full.
Question: I’ve been measuring the cooked weight. Am I supposed to measure out the uncooked weight, and boil it separately from what I’m serving my family? I hope not. What a pain if that’s true.1 -
Doesn’t matter in which state you weigh it, as long as you’re using the appropriate entry to log it.
On the occasions I eat pasta I generally weigh it dry only because I’m often cooking for myself separately from the rest of the family anyway because I’m vegetarian and they are not, and I like my food HOT when it reaches the table and weighing it cooked takes a few seconds and a few degrees 😂
1 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »I have seen this argument before. Everyone thinks they need to plate a huge amount of pasta because when they go out to eat, since the pasta is the cheapest ingredient on the menu, they get a ton of it.
Just weigh out 3 oz and cook it up al dente and plate it with an appropriate amount of tomato sauce and see for yourself.
I’m not in the US and I eat out maybe twice a year, and then never pasta (not because of the calories but because I’ve not met a restaurant yet that can get a plate of pasta out of the kitchen anything more than lukewarm!😂.) so I kind of resent your implication here!
Your 3oz (which is 1.5x the recommended serving) is still too big a chunk of my 800cals/day when it’s nutritional contribution is taken into account, except very occasionally.I got a bit inspired. While wheat pasta with a cna of tuna, some ligtt mayonnaise, and a touch of hot sauce. May not be fancy but it's tasty and filling. It clocked in at around 500-550 calories, which is a below average dinner for me, and could even be worked into a 1200 calorie diet pretty easily.
Exactly! For you! Again, this is not solely directed at you but at the slightly preachy overtones of quite a few people who fail to recognise that one size does not fit all! 500-550 calories is an unthinkable amount for a meal for me and leaves precisely 250 cals for the rest of the day. Not enough to get the rest of my nutritional requirements for sure!
There is also a lot more than 56g (2oz) in that bowl 😂. One single piece of penne weighs 1g.
You are eating a very low calorie diet which is not recommended or supported by this site. I stand by my comments about pasta for anyone eating at least the minimum recommended amount of calories from MFP.
For the record, it's about 90g of dried pasta. 320 calories. 100 calories from the tuna. 90 cal from mayo.15 -
Sounds about right for dry weight. Mine has 300 cal for 85g.1
-
I find pasta to be a reasonable for the calories kind of food and ate it around once a week when I was losing, but I'm happy with a standard serving of the actual pasta and just bulk it up with a tasty sauce or toppings, which can be made reasonably low cal. The pasta itself is important to me for the overall meal, but I mainly like it as a vehicle for the sauces or other toppings, and so don't mind eating more of those, less of the pasta.
But for OP, as others have said, I'm guessing that you are measuring cooked rather than dry.2 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »I have seen this argument before. Everyone thinks they need to plate a huge amount of pasta because when they go out to eat, since the pasta is the cheapest ingredient on the menu, they get a ton of it.
Just weigh out 3 oz and cook it up al dente and plate it with an appropriate amount of tomato sauce and see for yourself.
I’m not in the US and I eat out maybe twice a year, and then never pasta (not because of the calories but because I’ve not met a restaurant yet that can get a plate of pasta out of the kitchen anything more than lukewarm!😂.) so I kind of resent your implication here!
Your 3oz (which is 1.5x the recommended serving) is still too big a chunk of my 800cals/day when it’s nutritional contribution is taken into account, except very occasionally.
At 800 cal, it would be hard to fit in a lot of foods, I don't think pasta would be special. My pasta dinners are about the same as any other dinners, calorie-wise (when I was losing, 500 cal, although I could make them lower). I wouldn't want a dinner too much lower in cals.
Of course, if you are so small and super petite that less than 1200 is maintenance (for comparison, I'm late 40s, and only 5'3, which I think of as kind of short, and at 125 my maintenance cals if sedentary would be about 1550, with moderate exercise, more like 2000), your overall understanding of what a normal meal size should be absolutely would be less, and then I'd assume a correct serving for you would be perhaps 1 or 1.5 oz rather than 2 (2 is the standard box serving size, and what I normally eat). 1 oz would have 100 cal, and 1.5 about 150. Servings sizes of course are going to vary based on one's overall calorie needs.
800 seems shockingly low to me, but I am assuming you are just really tiny and really do have a maintenance of under 1200, unusual as that is. But you also should be aware that if so you are an extreme outlier. I could also say that I think it's important to have a serving of nuts a day and that it fits in my cals easily, and you could fairly say that an oz of cashews is 140 cal, so you would never eat that. Same with olives, cheese, whatever else you may find hard to fit in.5 -
One serving of pasta is pitifully small. I plan my day around eating two servings when I’m making a meal, so at least my plate is *almost* full.
Question: I’ve been measuring the cooked weight. Am I supposed to measure out the uncooked weight, and boil it separately from what I’m serving my family? I hope not. What a pain if that’s true.
You measure the dry weight, so a serving is actually quite a bit bigger than you've been thinking. It's good news!
The trick for multiple servings is cook 4 servings (or whatever) and then when finished weigh the whole and take 1/4 of it.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions