Confused about logging pasta

FrustratedYoYoer

I absolutely love pasta and when I have it I normally have twice what a typical serving size would be. Or so I thought. Now I'm wondering if it is even more than that because I've been looking at a few diaries and noticing that people are logging their pasta with higher calorie values than I am, yet they are having smaller portions. Not in all cases but in most this is the case. So I thought I'd double check the nutrional info on the back of the pack and the values are for 100g "cooked as directed." So when I'm logging it in my diary I have been using the dried weight of it but after all these months it has suddenly dawned on me that maybe it is the cooked weight? But surely not? I feel like if I weighed out 100g of cooked pasta there would be hardly anything there.

Can someone please advise cos I'm just confusing myself the more I think about it. I keep thinking it must be the dry weight they mean because you are only adding water if that makes sense?

Hope someone can understand my ramblings. Thanks x

rcc1988

If the package says the values are for "cooked as directed" ,then yes, they are referring to the weight of cooked pasta most likely.

Smuterella

See, this is difficult, because how do you work out how much to cook - you have to weigh it dry and then, what, throw some of the cooked away? Annoying!

heidikins7

I can relate; I LOVE pasta and like you, I can eat twice the normal serving size without realizing it. Most of the time, I have to guess how much I'm eating, I don't have a food scale or anything.

colochel

All the stuff I buy reads the same: 2 oz dry = 1 serving. After it is cooked any discrepancy is probably water weight.

dumb_blondes_rock

What i usually do is measure it dry, then cook accordingly. I weight out 2 oz of whatever pasta *or 4 if i saved enough cals* and then boil it as directed.

Brunner26_2

Weighing it dry is the way to go. When it's weighed dry, the cooked weight doesn't matter. A standard serving of dry pasta on nutrition info in the US is 2 oz (56g), which is usually 190-210 calories.

sharleengc

I use the dry weight since pretty much everything uses the pre-cooked weight.

If people are logging different then you, check different types of pasta...the one I use is 200 cal for 2oz...but i know some other brands I looked at are more. I used to eat a lot more than a serving size (2 or 3 easily) but the last time I made 2, i was so full I couldn't eat it all (that was last week).

but, i always go with the dry weight because like someone else said, it's a waste to cook it then re-weigh it and toss it....I just checked my boxes and they dont say "cooked as directed" so maybe try a different brand?

tigersword

Cooked pasta is roughly double the weight of dry pasta.

Avandel

Amounts of uncooked vs cooked varies all depending on the type of pasta. This site will help;

http://www.ilovepasta.org/faqs.html#Q10

967_1111

It's the dry weight for the nutritional values on the package. The manufacturer has no idea how you are going to prepare it, and what it will weigh when you eat it. You could boil it, put it into a casserole or eat it dry.

Dry weight is the measurement to use in your diary.

Zichu

I had pasta last night and I calculated it as just pasta. I don't think the pasta is going to absorb calories when being boiled in water lol. I just put the rest of the ingredients in separately.

I really don't think it will increase in calories just because it was cooked. Even if you cooked it in sauce, it isn't going to add anything because you should of also measured the sauce you cooked it in and added that on to your diary.

So, if you were weighing it after it had been cooked and it came out more, than you are also weighing the amount of water it has absorbed.


Just to add, if you are going to have pasta, I usually have Penne. For one I feel it helps the sauce stay in the tubes making it taste amazing and it's mostly just air lol. I used to have Fusilli, but there are more calories in Fusilli than Penne.

FrustratedYoYoer

Well I figured it wouldn't matter in the beginning because if water has no cals and i'm only adding water then it wouldn't affect it. However, I stupidly didn't think that of course with water weight added 100g cooked is gonna be a lot less than 100g dry weight. Grrrrrr! So basically if the weight roughly doubles with water and I was already doubling my dry portion size I have been eating 4 x as many cals of pasta than I realised.

That's knocked the wind out of my sails this afternoon considering I have literally just scoffed an absolutely huge bowl of pasta lol. I was sat there thinking how can such a big bowl be this delicious and only have 500 cals and have salad cream in it too. It just didn't sound right so that's why I double checked. I've checked all the pasta which are the same brand and they say "cooked as directed" so I guess I'll have to change to a brand that gives dry weights. The rice I have clearly states dry weight and I couldn't afford to double up on that - hence I don't eat much rice and always choose pasta instead haha. So I guess I've screwed up these past 4 months.

Oh well...smaller portions here I come

tigersword

Average dry pasta is roughly 100 calories per ounce (28g) dry.

mfp_1

I agree with what everyone is saying here. Uncooked weight is best for solids that absorb liquids e.g. pasta and rice.

Cooked weight for such food is, thankfully, rare. The last time I saw it was on a pack of noodles.

neverstray

Don't over analyze. Just be consistent. It doesn't matter, as long as you always do it the same.

Common sense.