Why more calories in a cup of whole almonds than sliced?

Kipenzi7

Having a bit of trouble with the math/geometry of it all. I understand why ground almonds might be fewer calories per volume than whole- they might be fluffier and take up more space. But geometry tells us that in general, larger items with an irregular shape pack less efficiently than small items. I would think that a cup of sliced almonds would be denser, and just have more grams of almond per volume. Am I missing something here?

DopeItUp

When you cut an almond, you're releasing some of the calories into the air. It's just like when you eat a cookie - if you tear off small pieces at a time, each time you're losing some calories. If you do it enough, the cookie becomes zero calories. Bet you didn't know that little secret, eh?

healthynotthin

o.o this is why I count out small things I eat sometimes. I don't trust those measurements man.

DopeItUp

In all seriousness, who knows. Are you comparing like brands? Maybe one company cooked them in something versus another company that doesn't. Just use weights instead, measuring by volume is annoying and nearly impossible to get right. 1 ounce of almonds (sliced or otherwise) is about 160 calories.

BrianSharpe

Having a bit of trouble with the math/geometry of it all. I understand why ground almonds might be fewer calories per volume than whole- they might be fluffier and take up more space. But geometry tells us that in general, larger items with an irregular shape pack less efficiently than small items. I would think that a cup of sliced almonds would be denser, and just have more grams of almond per volume. Am I missing something here?

If you base the comparison on equal weights then the calories will also be equal (I have no idea why 1 cup sliced is recorded as 95g whereas 1 cup whole is 142g - http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-almonds-i12061?size_grams=142.0)

Kipenzi7

One more reason to get a food scale...