Potato confusion

Krys_140

User entered differences are probably a factor, but cooking does change the caloric availability. You're more than welcome to do your own research if you don't believe me.

I did not say I don't believe you. I do believe you. But, I think that your original response was misleading to the OP. A raw potato, a microwaved potato, a baked potato and a boiled potato will have slightly different caloric values, but certainly nothing like the 100 calorie difference mentioned in the original question. If there was a significant difference in caloric value between the various preparation methods, then the FDA and other food/nutrition (even dieting) sources would undoubtedly be advocating for a particular method.

peuglow

If you want a very detailed article "The Energetic Significance of Cooking" in the Journal of Human Evolution is a good place to start.

RossChip gave a good example of how this happen. Starch digestibility increases with cooking because starches break down into simpler sugars that the human body can utilize. A lot of plant matter is made up of lignin, which humans cannot digest, but ruminant animals can due to their digestive enzymes. Cooking breaks down some lignin and other long-chain polysaccharides (starches). Some, however, do not fully break down, which is where fiber comes from. Fiber is generally composed of lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose.

Awesome, thanks. Believe it or not, I'm not being trite. I'm very interested in this.

RosscoBoscko

User entered differences are probably a factor, but cooking does change the caloric availability. You're more than welcome to do your own research if you don't believe me.

I did not say I don't believe you. I do believe you. But, I think that your original response was misleading to the OP. A raw potato, a microwaved potato, a baked potato and a boiled potato will have slightly different caloric values, but certainly nothing like the 100 calorie difference mentioned in the original question. If there was a significant difference in caloric value between the various preparation methods, then the FDA and other food/nutrition (even dieting) sources would undoubtedly be advocating for a particular method.

many nutritionists do, in general boiled new potatoes would be the best if you are not using a microwave as these have the skins still on so less break down has occured. methods where the potatoes are peeled, cooked far longer or the structural integrity is damaged (ie. mash) will increase the glycocemic index of the food and therefore the calories, this is the key premise of a glycocemic index managed lifestyle.

bethanyclaire88

User entered differences are probably a factor, but cooking does change the caloric availability. You're more than welcome to do your own research if you don't believe me.

I did not say I don't believe you. I do believe you. But, I think that your original response was misleading to the OP. A raw potato, a microwaved potato, a baked potato and a boiled potato will have slightly different caloric values, but certainly nothing like the 100 calorie difference mentioned in the original question. If there was a significant difference in caloric value between the various preparation methods, then the FDA and other food/nutrition (even dieting) sources would undoubtedly be advocating for a particular method.

I wasn't trying to be misleading. I have no idea what the difference is, I was simply trying to provide an explanation why they may be different. Type of potato would also be a factor.

dkkwilson

While the idea of useable calories makes sense based on the method of cooking (similar to how, as I understand it, a sugar calorie is much easier for the body to convert and store as fat than other calories), but the idea that the total calorie content of a food changing based on boiling vs. microwaving doesn't make sense to me, though I am admittedly not a student of such things. In any event, MFP (and nutrition labels generally) tracks total calories in food, not the useability of those calories. I think this variance is standard user error in MFP. Never take for granted what someone else has posted in the calorie count. I once saw a large cookie from Panera Bread listed here as having 80 calories. That would be AWESOME if it was true!

Krys_140

User entered differences are probably a factor, but cooking does change the caloric availability. You're more than welcome to do your own research if you don't believe me.

I did not say I don't believe you. I do believe you. But, I think that your original response was misleading to the OP. A raw potato, a microwaved potato, a baked potato and a boiled potato will have slightly different caloric values, but certainly nothing like the 100 calorie difference mentioned in the original question. If there was a significant difference in caloric value between the various preparation methods, then the FDA and other food/nutrition (even dieting) sources would undoubtedly be advocating for a particular method.

I wasn't trying to be misleading. I have no idea what the difference is, I was simply trying to provide an explanation why they may be different. Type of potato would also be a factor.

I didn't think it was a malicious response. Just a misguided one. Both the type and size of the potato would have an impact on the calories, of course, and I only wanted to call out that preparation method could not possibly account for the difference mentioned in the original question.

bethanyclaire88

Perhaps the difference would not be 100 kcal, it might be 10. I don't have that number; I was simply trying to provide a scientific explanation to the person.

RosscoBoscko

While the idea of <i>useable</i> calories makes sense based on the method of cooking (similar to how, as I understand it, a sugar calorie is much easier for the body to convert and store as fat than other calories), but the idea that the <i>total</i> calorie content of a food changing based on boiling vs. microwaving doesn't make sense to me, though I am admittedly not a student of such things. In any event, MFP (and nutrition labels generally) tracks total calories in food, not the useability of those calories. I think this variance is standard user error in MFP. Never take for granted what someone else has posted in the calorie count. I once saw a large cookie from Panera Bread listed here as having 80 calories. That would be AWESOME if it was true!

mfp scores will be based on usable calories, for example to humans spinach or all green leaved foods are low in calories, the body generally only uses iron and other nutrients from this and takes very little calories, rabbits or other herbivores for example would take far more calories from the spinach not just the nutrients. theoretically you could search bamboo as a food type on mfp and it is highly likely to come back as a zero to low calorie score in the unlikely event it is on there. however this is the main diet of pandas so they obviously take a lot of calories from it whereas a human would gain very little from eating what is effectively wood.

lajuice7

http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-256437.html

http://www.andersenchiro.com/potatoes-and-the-variability-of-the-glycemic-index.shtml

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/64680_2C8ED84B2D46A8EA900F8224DBBB5453_journals__BJN_BJN94_06_S0007114505002837a.pdf&amp;cover=Y&amp;code=b712abbe2196ff41be3d4e84592ebdd3

http://www.livestrong.com/article/430497-why-does-the-cooking-method-change-the-glycemic-index/

There's for sources for a start.

and this is a good one too:-

http://www.xpeditionsmagazine.com/magazine/articles/kathy/microwave.html

peuglow

http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-256437.html

http://www.andersenchiro.com/potatoes-and-the-variability-of-the-glycemic-index.shtml

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/64680_2C8ED84B2D46A8EA900F8224DBBB5453_journals__BJN_BJN94_06_S0007114505002837a.pdf&amp;cover=Y&amp;code=b712abbe2196ff41be3d4e84592ebdd3

http://www.livestrong.com/article/430497-why-does-the-cooking-method-change-the-glycemic-index/

There's for sources for a start.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were talking about caloric values, not the glycemic index.

Also, the livestrong one compares a cup of Instant Mashed potatoes to a baked potato. I find this hard to equate the two. I will read through the links though. Thanks.

RosscoBoscko

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were talking about caloric values, not the glycemic index.

Also, the livestrong one compares a cup of Instant Mashed potatoes to a baked potato. I find this hard to equate the two. I will read through the links though. Thanks.

True but the 2 are intrinsically linked. low gi foods release less sugars slower, therefore less calories, hi gi release more calories quicker so although not the same they are related.

magj0y

Some items here are user submitted. They won't all match. You can see on the little window whether it is user submitted information.

^^
Also, when you boil potatoes, you don't get as many nutrients, same with peeling

peuglow

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were talking about caloric values, not the glycemic index.

Also, the livestrong one compares a cup of Instant Mashed potatoes to a baked potato. I find this hard to equate the two. I will read through the links though. Thanks.

True but the 2 are intrinsically linked. low gi foods release less sugars slower, therefore less calories, hi gi release more calories quicker so although not the same they are related.

So a higher GI food has less calories than a lower GI food?

When you reference a mashed potato,

Lets say we take 2 potatoes. Bake them equally, leave the skin on.

Then we 'mash' one of them. And eat it

Then we eat the baked potato.

How are these any different as far as calories go? Aren't we 'mashing' the baked potato with our teeth as we chew? Is this tiny amount of caloric burn the difference in the GI of these two identical foods?

FirefitMike

Holy tangent Batman!

Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

USER SUBMITTED INFO

Not mutant potatoes.

Krys_140

Holy tangent Batman!

Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

USER SUBMITTED INFO

Not mutant potatoes.

^^^LOL!!!

joannathechef

It should be due to the way starch breaks down into material that is useable by the human body. Boiling integrates heat further into the potato and disperses better than microwaves, breaking down more of the starch; therefore, there are more calories for your body to utilize. Microwaving doesn't break down the starches as well. If it helps, think about how soft a boiled vs. microwaved potato is. Hope this helps.

This can happen with the ripeness of food too - green bananas have the starch is an indigestable form - eat them green = way less carbs hence calories

cmriverside

Holy tangent Batman!

Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

USER SUBMITTED INFO

Not mutant potatoes.

This is my take on this thread. A couple or a few calories....maybe. But 100 calories for a same-size potato? I'm not buying it, all you scientific types. Some things are just - wrong.

anemoneprose

Can I just say - I love this thread. Thanks sciencey types for offering up your knowledge.

Speaking as a non science person - the banana example's an easy one to get. Ripe bananas taste sweeter; it's clear, from taste & experience, they have more sugar than green ones. That is real & not imagined sugar, too, a result of chemical processes. It doesn't seem crazy to understand it has a different caloric value than the green one.

Must be the same for carmelizing onions, right?

FirefitMike

So you're telling me toast has more calories than bread?

WendyTerry420

So you're telling me toast has more calories than bread?

Probably fewer because there are more crumbs that fall off of toast. :laugh: