# Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

# Does spaghetti really have 300 calories/100g?

13»

## Replies

I actually measured 2 oz of cooked whole wheat spaghetti the other night on the food scale. It’s the size of a baseball and it was 200 calories. I can imagine the plates of pasta in restaurants is 1000 calories easy.
• Posts: 5,392Member Member
AkramSeid wrote: »
Seems like you should weigh your pasta before you cook it then!

Ideally, yes.

But if not possible then just make sure you are going by the cooked amount.

I always measure it cooked - if I cook spaghetti, I cook for more than one person and our servings are not equal (so I cant just divide total by 1/2)

But I go by an entry for cooked spaghetti, not dry.

• Posts: 5,361Member Member
AkramSeid wrote: »
Seems like you should weigh your pasta before you cook it then!

Ideally, yes.

But if not possible then just make sure you are going by the cooked amount.

I always measure it cooked - if I cook spaghetti, I cook for more than one person and our servings are not equal (so I cant just divide total by 1/2)

But I go by an entry for cooked spaghetti, not dry.

A little finicky, but what I do is this:

Total cooked weight / total dry weight x dry weight of my planned serving = cooked weight of my planned serving

Example: If I pre-logged 60g of dry pasta for me but I'm also cooking another 100g for my husband, I would figure out my serving like so, assuming the weight of the cooked pasta is 480 grams:

480 / 160 x 60 = 180 grams of cooked pasta for me.

Logging it cooked works too, of course--just leaving this here for anyone who might want to log a dry value while cooking for more than one person.
• Posts: 602Member Member
Weighing cooked pasta is a poor, unreliable method. The cooked weight is determined by how it is cooked and what type of pasta it is. Typical overcooked spaghetti can have as much as 30% more weight than al dente pasta. Penne absorbs less water than angel hair and thus weighs less. Measurement of cooked volume is the same problem. Overcooked farfalle will compact in a cup to a much smaller volume than the same weight of rigatoni. Drainage further complicates the process. Al dente spaghetti can be drained to almost dry. Try that with Penne.

Move on from this and weigh it dry. Your guess as to how muuch of the dry weight you had will be far more accurate than weighing or measuring cooked pasta.
• Posts: 3,115Member Member
I weigh pasta before and after cooking. If I cooked 8 oz pasta that is 4 servings. So no matter what it weighs after cooking you still have 4 servings. I just reweigh and divide the grams by 4(or however many servings you want to get out of that 8 oz of pasta) to give me the weight for each serving. Yes it means weighing twice but if I want to be that accurate(instead of just eyeballing) then that is the most accurate way to do it. At least that I have been able to come up with.
edited July 2019
• Posts: 3,407Member Member
I haven't eaten any pasta for a long time and I don't miss it, because I think it is too high in cals and does not provide as much nutritional value per serving as other things that I prefer to eat instead.
edited July 2019
• Posts: 5,392Member Member
Weighing cooked pasta is a poor, unreliable method. The cooked weight is determined by how it is cooked and what type of pasta it is. Typical overcooked spaghetti can have as much as 30% more weight than al dente pasta. Penne absorbs less water than angel hair and thus weighs less. Measurement of cooked volume is the same problem. Overcooked farfalle will compact in a cup to a much smaller volume than the same weight of rigatoni. Drainage further complicates the process. Al dente spaghetti can be drained to almost dry. Try that with Penne.

Move on from this and weigh it dry. Your guess as to how muuch of the dry weight you had will be far more accurate than weighing or measuring cooked pasta.

Yes you can do that if you want.

Or you can be like me and weigh it cooked, if that is more convenient for you.

I dont claim it is the most accurate method - but it is accurate enough.

MY aim isnt to be the most accurate logger in the world - it is to find an easy convenient system that works for me.

• Posts: 4,219Member Member
LyndaBSS wrote: »
Yep, pasta calories add up quickly.

carbohydrates: 4kcal per gram
protein: 4kcal per gram
fat: 9kcal per gram

Most food consists of a mixture of all those things, plus possibly some water which doesn't have calories. So most things that don't contain water come in at 400-900kcal per 100gr.