Need something explained to me

fourfiftythree

I read something on the forums the other day that said calculating calories based on raw ingredients is incorrect because the cooked ingredients likely have more calories. For example, a cooked sweet potato has more calories than a raw sweet potato. Not because it was cooked with oil or anything like that - because the density changes or something. What?? It is days later and I can't stop thinking about this. Can someone explain to me?

djeffreys10

Unless the ingredient is cooked in something that will add calories, such as fried in oil which will add fat due to absorbed oil, I would chalk that up to just more bs spouted on the forums. You get a lot of that.

UrbanLotus

Hmmm, I'm interested in this too, never heard it before

MysteriousMerlin

from what I've read, it seems it take more energy for the body to break down the raw food compared to the cooked food.

"The starting energetic value of a food is based on the composition of that specific food, and that’s not going to change by cooking,” says Rachel Carmbody, the lead researcher on the study. “What cooking alters is the proportion of the energy that our bodies absorbs versus what is lost to gut bacteria, and what is excreted by our bodies. Specifically we believe that cooking reduces the energy that we use up in digestion, while increasing the amount that we absorb.”

“Because cooked food has been processed before it entered the body, some of the work in terms of breaking down that food has already been down so it saves our digestive system from working as hard. Basically cooking externalizes part of the digestive process.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/12/28/eat-raw-food-to-lose-weight-cooked-food-contains-more-calories/

whierd

I read something on the forums the other day that said calculating calories based on raw ingredients is incorrect because the cooked ingredients likely have more calories. For example, a cooked sweet potato has more calories than a raw sweet potato. Not because it was cooked with oil or anything like that - because the density changes or something. What?? It is days later and I can't stop thinking about this. Can someone explain to me?

This is untrue.

And as far as the energy required by the body to break down foods, that is not how a foods calorie content is determined. A calorie is a unit of energy.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

ChrisM8971

If you use toast as an example, there are said to be less calories in toast than in the bread but the difference is very small. I did search for the reason when I first saw the difference on MFP and there was a very scientific explanation that I cant remember but I do remember thinking that it made sense at the time.

What it also said is that for diet purposes it really makes no difference because the difference was so small. Not sure what it is for other foods though

stealthq

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

Yes.

To put it another way, take a raw potato weighing 150 grams and cook it. Now it only weighs 90 grams due to water loss, but it still has the same number of calories as it did raw.

whierd

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

Yes.

To put it another way, take a raw potato weighing 150 grams and cook it. Now it only weighs 90 grams due to water loss, but it still has the same number of calories as it did raw.

Which is why weighing and logging raw is important. A sweet potato cooked in foil for 40 minutes is less dehydrated than one cooked without foil for 40 minutes.

itsfruitcake

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

This.

Also goes the other way round for food that soaks up water, e.g. pasta and rice. Dry/raw vs cooked is always a bit of a pain when weighing things... I just realised I should pay more attention!

BusyRaeNOTBusty

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

Yes.

To put it another way, take a raw potato weighing 150 grams and cook it. Now it only weighs 90 grams due to water loss, but it still has the same number of calories as it did raw.

Which is why weighing and logging raw is important. A sweet potato cooked in foil for 40 minutes is less dehydrated than one cooked without foil for 40 minutes.

Exactly but it's not always possible to use the raw measurements, especially when you are cooking for a group or a family and it's difficult/impossible to keep your portion separate from the rest. You've just got to do the best you can sometimes.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

This.

Also goes the other way round for food that soaks up water, e.g. pasta and rice. Dry/raw vs cooked is always a bit of a pain when weighing things... I just realised I should pay more attention!

I found this for pasta the other day, which again is hard to measure when you are cooking for a family.

http://www.barilla.com/faq?p=measuring

whierd

A cooked sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato A) has more calories than a raw sweet potato that weighs 150 grams (potato . It loses water while cooking. Potato A could have weight 300 grams raw. Potato B might only weight 75 grams after cooking.

Yes.

To put it another way, take a raw potato weighing 150 grams and cook it. Now it only weighs 90 grams due to water loss, but it still has the same number of calories as it did raw.

Which is why weighing and logging raw is important. A sweet potato cooked in foil for 40 minutes is less dehydrated than one cooked without foil for 40 minutes.

Exactly but it's not always possible to use the raw measurements, especially when you are cooking for a group or a family and it's difficult/impossible to keep your portion separate from the rest. You've just got to do the best you can sometimes.

Weigh the batch first. Cook. Weigh it all after. Eat the ratio you intended.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

Weigh the batch first. Cook. Weigh it all after. Eat the ratio you intended.

I have contemplated doing that... but yeah, that might be going just a little too far.

fromnebraska

1 cup of raw spinach does not equal 1 cup of cooked spinach in calories. Of course in this example the caloric difference wouldn't be drastic, but you get the idea.