Warning! Stupid Question Ahead!

vonnegut2767

Okay, so you know how many recipes for pasta say to use "reserved pasta water"? I know this is because the water becomes starchy after the pasta cooks in it, so the liquid is useful as a thickening agent. My question is, wouldn't the starchiness add calories to the water? And if so, how many?

And conversely, if the pasta adds calories to the water, wouldn't it detract calories from the pasta (if you're throwing all the starchy liquid away)?

After I figure this one out, I'm gonna solve the JFK mystery (maybe all those starchy calories hide on the grassy knoll).

tater8589

Good question, and last comment funny.

jessicajm

Wish I knew but you certainly made me laugh! :laugh:

Topbobdog

I have no idea i always figured that when they figured the calories they figured for it cooked and drained and never thought about it. It cant be that many calories though

Clew

Ha ha - never really thought about this! Interesting ...

I'd write it off to the "slush fund" ... I figure there's a small bit of wiggle room with all caloric counts - given slight portion variances, minor error, and things like that. I mean what if one bag of trail mix gets a couple extra peanuts in it? Is it worth stressing over the label possibly being inaccurate? Nah - just consider it slush fund wiggle room. I'd think the reserve water calorie count is negligible enough that it's no biggie whether you use it or throw it away. :flowerforyou:

vonnegut2767

Good lord that was quick! Thanks guys, kinda what I figured but I thought I'd ask.
My thought was that I use olive oil on pasta with parm and basil quite often, and I figured I could cut some calories using the pasta liquid instead of the oil, but wouldn't bother if the calorie difference was negligible. Think I'll still give it a try, if just to see how it tastes.......

Now I guess I'm off to Dallas.......

jjhaller

According to my pocket Calorie King book, longer cooking time does reduce calories in pasta. It says that per 1 oz cooked pasta, with a cooking time of 8-10 min. makes for 42 calories. A cooking time of 11-13 minutes makes for 37 calories. And finally, a cooking time of 14-20 minutes results in 32 calories. Not huge differences, but for a person wanting to get every single calorie accounted for, it could be useful.

Amarillo_NDN

"
Starch or amylum is a carbohydrate consisting of a large number of glucose units joined together by glycosidic bonds. This polysaccharide is produced by all green plants as an energy store. It is the most important carbohydrate in the human diet and is contained in such staple foods as potatoes, wheat, maize (corn), rice, and cassava.

Pure starch is a white, tasteless and odorless powder that is insoluble in cold water or alcohol. It consists of two types of molecules: the linear and helical amylose and the branched amylopectin. Depending on the plant, starch generally contains 20 to 25% amylose and 75 to 80% amylopectin.[1] Glycogen, the glucose store of animals, is a more branched version of amylopectin.

Starch is processed to produce many of the sugars in processed foods. When dissolved in warm water, it can be used as a thickening, stiffening or gluing agent, giving wheatpaste.
"

So yes, in a way, you would be adding calories if you use the starch wather. LOL

Brat3073

Okay, so you know how many recipes for pasta say to use "reserved pasta water"? I know this is because the water becomes starchy after the pasta cooks in it, so the liquid is useful as a thickening agent. My question is, wouldn't the starchiness add calories to the water? And if so, how many?

And conversely, if the pasta adds calories to the water, wouldn't it detract calories from the pasta (if you're throwing all the starchy liquid away)?

After I figure this one out, I'm gonna solve the JFK mystery (maybe all those starchy calories hide on the grassy knoll).

huh, yeah, never really thought about that. IMO i think its nasty to use the startchy water left over after you dump the noodles.....if you happen to figure this out, let me know