I just don't know what to think...ha!

PAPYRUS3

ok...question about dry beans - weights - calories, etc.,
See picture below.
The container is the finished chickpeas (after soaking and cooking them). The dry weight of the beans were 163 grams (or 214 ml). I looked up various amounts regarding calories for this amount (dry weight). Found they are around 600 calories for this amount. So, of course same amount of calories yield my now 149 grams of cooked beans.

However, I just don't understand how a can of beans would be only 200 calories for 250 ml (190 grams)? And my 149 grams of beans are 600 calories.

How can this little amount of chick peas be so caloric?

It is Monday after all...so maybe I'm totally not thinking too clearly😆

Thank you anyone!

PAPYRUS3

I guess a few have viewed my question...no answers though😐

perryc05

Are you saying 163g or dry chickpeas became 149g of cooked chickpeas? I don't think that's possible. Chickpea weight should nearly double once cooked:https://www.nigella.com/ask/using-dried-chickpeas
Do you think your scales are accurate and/or sure you had them set correctly when you did the first weighing?
Based on this you are better off choosing a dry weight measurement or a cooked measurement. Cooked legumes have more water in them which weighs more but has zero calories.
The readings are a bit over the map but this recipe analyser site says 100g of cooked chickpeas is is between 164-180 cals:
https://happyforks.com/food/chickpeas/1831
https://happyforks.com/food/chickpeas/12386
MFP concurs:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/chickpeas-cooked-1435849449
MFP says 100g raw is 364 cals:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/100g-raw-174289467
Or 50g raw is 179 cals:
https://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/chickpeas-1501594744

PAPYRUS3

perryc05 wrote: »

Are you saying 163g or dry chickpeas became 149g of cooked chickpeas? I don't think that's possible. Chickpea weight should nearly double once cooked:
https://www.nigella.com/ask/using-dried-chickpeas
Do you think your scales are accurate and/or sure you had them set correctly when you did the first weighing?
Based on this you are better off choosing a dry weight measurement or a cooked measurement. Cooked legumes have more water in them which weighs more but has zero calories.

Yes. After thinking about this, I too came to the conclusion that I must have incorrectly weighed the dry beans. They were quite old btw...and didn't plump up/double as much as I expected though.
Thanks

BarbaraHelen2013

Just as confirmation that something went wrong along the way with your weighing…

I regularly cook dried chickpeas - starting with 200g of dried. The batch yields anywhere between 438 - 460g when done, depending on how soft they are.

Calculated this way they still come out as more calories per 100g than canned chickpeas claim to contain, which is somewhat irritating…but that’s another story! 😂

AnnPT77

Often, IME, there's a lot of liquid (aquafaba) in the can - always more than in cooked, drained beans, of course. I don't know about where you are, but here the can is normally calorie-labeled for the entire contents, not the drained beans. The aquafaba is not very calorie dense.

BarbaraHelen2013

Interesting! The nutrition labels here (UK) are definitely for drained product.

Personally, I always keep the Aquafaba in a small jar and pop it in the freezer to use for an oil free pesto I make which uses it.

I think the real reason the canned and home cooked come up differently, for me, is the degree of cooking. I like my chickpeas, and other beans, a little more al dente than a typical canned version, so less water uptake means they’re a little more calorie dense.

PAPYRUS3

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Often, IME, there's a lot of liquid (aquafaba) in the can - always more than in cooked, drained beans, of course. I don't know about where you are, but here the can is normally calorie-labeled for the entire contents, not the drained beans. The aquafaba is not very calorie dense.

I'm in Canada and have no idea...however I'm assuming (🙄 - which has taken me far in life lol!) that it is the same as the US as our labels don't indicate 'Net Weight' on the front of the can. Also might explain why the measurement of choice used by the company on the front of the can is in ml/oz.

This might explain the 'low' calories listed for the product because the water is a part of the beans equation.

Thanks for that!

gpanda103

Use the USDA food database entry