Calories - cooked vs raw
NormInv
Posts: 3,303 Member
Surprised to see that there is a substantial calorie difference between cooked and raw. For example, baked potato calories are much higher than raw potato, even if you dont add anything to it.
Any idea why this is?
Any idea why this is?
0
Replies
-
I have no clue but always have been interested! So bumpy bump.0
-
Yet there were signs that cooking did affect the calorie counts of some foods. Starches, for instance, like those in wheat, barley, potatoes, and so on, are composed mostly of two sugar-based molecules, amylopectin and amylose, which, when raw, are tightly packed and inaccessible to digestive enzymes. Studies have found that cooking gelatinizes starch, which means that amylopectin and amylose are released and exposed to enzymes. Thus, cooked starches yield more energy than raw ones.0
-
Yikes0
-
Counting Calories for Cooked vs. Raw Foods
by elissa
in Dieting, UltimateFatBurner.com, Weight Loss
0
inShare.
0
I get questions on this all the time on the forums I moderate, so I figured this was worth discussing…it seems like a common point of confusion.
Simply put, foods change in volume/weight during cooking. Certain foods, like meat or fish, shrink. Others, like pasta or oatmeal, expand. But what’s important to remember, is that the difference between cooked vs. raw is mainly due to changes in water content. Meat shrinks because moisture is lost. Oatmeal expands because water is absorbed. Water has no calories, so the absolute calories and macronutrient content of the cooked food doesn’t change to a significant extent…just the calories and macronutrients per unit volume.
Whether you use “cooked” vs. “raw” calories really comes down to the number of people being served. If, for example, you’re making a single serving of oatmeal, the “raw” calories will do nicely…what goes into the pot is also what comes out. Yes, it’s expanded from – say – 1/2 cup to 1 cup – but it doesn’t matter, since you’re eating the whole thing. Ditto for a boneless, skinless chicken breast…the 5 oz. breast you put in the pan may shrink to 3.5 oz. after its cooked, but it it’s no big deal…the total amount of protein – the primary source of calories – hasn’t changed. A few fat calories may have been lost during cooking, but since the chicken was low in fat to begin with, the “error” is trivial.
Of course, you could also use the “cooked” calories for the above examples too…if you decide to measure your food after it’s cooked vs. before. Doesn’t matter, really, as long as you realize it’s not necessary to measure things TWICE (i.e., before AND after cooking). Dieting can be difficult enough, without adding unnecessary work.
On the flip side, if you’re cooking a pot of rice to serve for a family dinner, it’s simpler to measure your serving AFTER cooking, and use the “cooked” calories. Ditto if you’re carving a serving of meat from a larger roast (like pot roast or a turkey breast), or a portion from a recipe (like chili).
It’s not hard to find comprehensive calorie and nutrition information for both cooked and raw foods: my two favorite online sources are calorieking.com and nutritiondata.com.0 -
Why is there a calorie difference between raw and cooked foods?
The difference is mainly due to water loss or gain. Cooking methods like baking, grilling and roasting will cause a food to lose water compared to say steaming and boiling. In fact boiling may cause the food to gain weight – as in the case of rice and pasta.
When a food loses water it will become lighter in weight and more calorie dense - so the cooked food will contain more calories than the raw when comparing weight for weight. An example being a jacket potato. As the potato loses water during baking, it becomes more calorie dense - which is why when comparing weight for weight, a jacket potato contains more calories than boiled.
On the other hand, if a food absorbs water, the calories will be lower compared to the same weight raw - because the food has become less calorie dense. This is true of rice and pasta.
In most cases, it is probably easiest to weigh the raw food and use these figures. If you then cook the item and add any extra ingredients such as sugar or oil, you need to measure and enter these ingredients separately e.g. if you fried your mushrooms in oil or stewed apples with added sugar.
In summary, it doesn't really matter which figure you use - as long as the weighed state of your product (raw or cooked) matches the description in our database0 -
hmmm0
-
bump0
-
beware of people adding their own foods into the food log, someone probably put their baked potato into the log (which consisted of butter, sour cream, bacon bits, etc...) I always go with fresh or raw foods. Cooking foods will not change calories unless you add extras
This, they could've loaded the calories based on a different size potato for instance. Weight should change when cooking it but calories really shouldn't change at all0 -
No this is based on my new kitchen scale. It comes with a booklet that has calorie factors for food. And it shows different factors for raw vs cooked potato.0
-
What I was going to say, there are more calories per oz because of evaporation from water. Unless you choose a food that is prepared with oil (fried eggs), then the extra calories are mostly from that. But 3oz raw spinach should have as many calories as 3oz steamed spinach.0
-
The calorie difference comes from the fact that when you consume food, the compounds that make up X (food in question, i.e., meat, vegetables, whatever it might be) require your body's digestive system to "do work" in order to break down the single units of X (the units need to be converted to ATP - energy for your cells) so that the compounds of food can be available to your body in the form of ENERGY (measured in units of calories in food).
The application of HEAT when cooking will accelerate the breakdown of the compounds of X, leaving less work required by the body to break down the food. Eating food COOKED thus can be seen as having more energy available for usage by your cells, sooner, for LESS WORK done by the body (your cells' machinery for metabolizing food).
The number of calories when eating X raw will be lower than when eaten cooked because your body has to USE ENERGY that already exists in the body (glucose, amino acids from protein, or fatty acids in your fat storage cells) in order to CONSUME ENERGY (break down the structural components of the food for consumption by your individual cells) from eating X. When eating that same food cooked, your body has to *do less work* (USES LESS ENERGY) to digest and metabolize the food, while consuming EQUAL ENERGY.
Bit of mathematical proof:
Calories in X, eaten cooked: 115 cal
Calories in X, eaten raw: 100 cal (15 calories used when eaten raw because the body had to do more work to break down the food)
- Biochemistry BSc0 -
The calories stay the same, it is the weight that changes in something like a baked potato. It loses water during the very hot cooking process. The same goes for meats. That's why it's best to weight the food when it's raw and use the uncooked calorie estimates for a bit more accuracy.0
-
The calorie difference comes from the fact that when food is raw, the compounds that make up X (food in question, i.e., meat, vegetables, whatever it might be) require your body's digestive system to "do work" in order to break down the single units of X (the units need to be converted to ATP - energy for your cells) so that the compounds of food can be available to your body in the form of ENERGY (measured in units of calories in food).
The number of calories when eating X raw will be lower than when eaten cooked because your body has to USE ENERGY that already exists in the body (glucose, amino acids from protein, or fatty acids in your fat storage cells) in order to CONSUME ENERGY (break down the structural components of the food for consumption by your individual cells) from eating X. When eating that same food cooked, your body has to *do less work* (USES LESS ENERGY) to digest and metabolize the food, while consuming EQUAL ENERGY.
The application of HEAT when cooking will accelerate the breakdown of the compounds of X, leaving less work required by the body to break down the food. Eating food COOKED thus is having more energy available for usage by your cells, sooner, for LESS WORK done by the body (your cells' machinery for metabolizing food).
- Biochemistry BSc
This makes zero sense.0 -
The calories stay the same, it is the weight that changes in something like a baked potato. It loses water during the very hot cooking process. The same goes for meats. That's why it's best to weight the food when it's raw and use the uncooked calorie estimates for a bit more accuracy.
This.0 -
Mass has nothing to do with calorie estimates, nor does water. In order to understand how calories are measured in food, you must understand how the calories are translated to energy requirements and usage by your cells how it relates to food breakdown in your body (metabolism). It would be good to have some understanding of the thermodynamics of metabolic processes in your system, but that could be simplified also
- so that at least one could understand what it means when they consume calories in food and the effects of cooking.
When food is cooked, such as meat, the single units of amino acids in proteins unfold such that their side chains become more easily available for attack by our digestive enzymes, yielding more energy for your body (hence, higher calories). The structural components in raw foods require further steps in the metabolic pathway of your cells (and sometimes more, and different enzymes from different pathways to catalyze the reaction of breaking down the food --> uses even more energy; burning calories), and thus require a greater amount of energy FROM your body to do so (lowers the net calories that you will receive from that food - a good thing if you're trying to lose weight). Thus, the process of breaking down whole foods requires more complex pathways (think of the difference in breaking down simple vs. complex sugars). More complex = better. Another example would the processes involved when you eat celery - which are known to provide "negative calories". The energy that is used by your body to breakdown the components of celery is greater than the calories that is provided by celery itself. Hence, you get a net calorie that is negative (you burned more calories eating celery than you consumed calories).
This is why highly processed foods are higher in calories. When referring to "processed" foods, it means that the compound units of the food, in its native form (whole steak) has been broken down numerous times in various ways (heat, chemical processing for extending meat preservation, physical breakdown such as grounding or blending, etc.). The result, for instance, will be a piece of ham, or a hotdog. These processed foods provide more energy for your body as their individual chemical units have been broken down so much that when you consume the food, your body's digestive enzymes are capable of breaking down the food by converting it to energy, VERY quickly. The steak, in contrast, will be a much longer process as it will involve more pathways and a higher concentration of the digestive enzymes to break it down to single units for conversion to energy - resulting in lower net calories that you will receive from that food because your body used up energy in process. The breakdown of food QUICKLY is not a good thing if your body does not eventually USE (via exercise, or whatever) up any calories you consumed in excess. Candy, for instance, the sugar molecules that you consumed in excess will eventually be converted to triglycerides (your fat storage molecules) to store in your adipose tissue (your fat cells) for long-term energy storage.
Please understand that the measure of calories is not related to mass/weight of food. Because even then, increases/decreases in mass due to water has no effect on energy in your body; it would otherwise make you feel dehydrated vs. hydrated. It might only have an affect on energy in that it affects the solubility and equilibrium of essential minerals in and out of your cells - which, have nothing to do with energy. Calories in food is a measure of energy that can be consumed by your body.
If you want more information, here is a good start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.U9WDWqg4f-k
There are studies that focus on these topics. Cheers.0 -
Mass has nothing to do with calorie estimates, nor does water. In order to understand how calories are measured in food, you must understand how the calories are translated to energy requirements and usage by your cells how it relates to food breakdown in your body (metabolism). It would be good to have some understanding of the thermodynamics of metabolic processes in your system, but that could be simplified also - so that at least one could understand what it means when they consume calories in food and the effects of cooking.
When food is cooked, such as meat, the single units of amino acids in proteins unfold such that their side chains become more easily available for attack by our digestive enzymes, yielding more energy for your body (hence, higher calories). The structural components in raw foods require further steps in the metabolic pathway of your cells (and sometimes more, and different enzymes from different pathways to catalyze the reaction of breaking down the food --> uses even more energy; burning calories), and thus require a greater amount of energy FROM your body to do so (lowers the net calories that you will receive from that food - a good thing if you're trying to lose weight). Thus, the process of breaking down whole foods requires more complex pathways (think of the difference in breaking down simple vs. complex sugars). More complex = better. Another example would the processes involved when you eat celery - which are known to provide "negative calories". The energy that is used by your body to breakdown the components of celery is greater than the calories that is provided by celery itself. Hence, you get a net calorie that is negative (you burned more calories eating celery than you consumed calories).
This is why highly processed foods are higher in calories. When referring to "processed" foods, it means that the compound units of the food, in its native form (whole steak) has been broken down numerous times in various ways (heat, chemical processing for extending meat preservation, physical breakdown such as grounding or blending, etc.). The result, for instance, will be a piece of ham, or a hotdog. These processed foods provide more energy for your body as their individual chemical units have been broken down so much that when you consume the food, your body's digestive enzymes are capable of breaking down the food by converting it to energy, VERY quickly. The steak, in contrast, will be a much longer process as it will involve more pathways and a higher concentration of the digestive enzymes to break it down to single units for conversion to energy - resulting in lower net calories that you will receive from that food because your body used up energy in process. The breakdown of food QUICKLY is not a good thing if your body does not eventually USE (via exercise, or whatever) up any calories you consumed in excess. Candy, for instance, the sugar molecules that you consumed in excess will eventually be converted to triglycerides (your fat storage molecules) to store in your adipose tissue (your fat cells) for long-term energy storage.
Please understand that the measure of calories is not related to mass/weight of food. Because even then, increases/decreases in mass due to water has no effect on energy in your body; it would otherwise make you feel dehydrated vs. hydrated. It might only have an affect on energy in that it affects the solubility and equilibrium of essential minerals in and out of your cells - which, have nothing to do with energy. Calories in food is a measure of energy that can be consumed by your body.
If you want more information, here is a good start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.U9WDWqg4f-k
There are studies that focus on these topics. Cheers.
You shouldn't say "mass has nothing to do with it" but you can say that there's an alternative theory. I read the article but not the study because it wasn't linked to the article. But what I took away from it was that the author spent some time with chimps, ate what chimps ate and at the end of the day, was hungry from some cooked/processed foods. This spurred his theory. Since then, one of his grad students did a study with mice that showed they gained more weight when they ate cooked meat vs raw.
An n=1 and one study involving only mice eating cooked and raw meat is not enough to make me assume that my steak now has 20-50 more calories than what I thought it did.
So the idea is interesting but the information presented is not enough to change my eating habits or my answer to the OPs original question.
Show me some double blind studies involving humans eating raw foods vs cooked as it relates to the availability of energy in those foods and I'll take another look.0 -
The reason for potatoes might be because of the resistant starch (RS). When you cook them they lose a lot of their RS. If you cook them and then cool them they actually gain more RS.
Resistant starch (RS) is starch and starch degradation products that escape from digestion in the small intestine of healthy individuals.[1] Resistant starch is considered the third type of dietary fiber, as it can deliver some of the benefits of insoluble fiber and some of the benefits of soluble fiber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch0 -
The calories are not all the same. You can find this out by going to places like the USDA database. Also, when your boil foods, a lot of the nutrients leek out into the water,and therefore, you don't consume these nutrients.0
-
Mass has nothing to do with calorie estimates, nor does water. In order to understand how calories are measured in food, you must understand how the calories are translated to energy requirements and usage by your cells how it relates to food breakdown in your body (metabolism). It would be good to have some understanding of the thermodynamics of metabolic processes in your system, but that could be simplified also - so that at least one could understand what it means when they consume calories in food and the effects of cooking.
When food is cooked, such as meat, the single units of amino acids in proteins unfold such that their side chains become more easily available for attack by our digestive enzymes, yielding more energy for your body (hence, higher calories). The structural components in raw foods require further steps in the metabolic pathway of your cells (and sometimes more, and different enzymes from different pathways to catalyze the reaction of breaking down the food --> uses even more energy; burning calories), and thus require a greater amount of energy FROM your body to do so (lowers the net calories that you will receive from that food - a good thing if you're trying to lose weight). Thus, the process of breaking down whole foods requires more complex pathways (think of the difference in breaking down simple vs. complex sugars). More complex = better. Another example would the processes involved when you eat celery - which are known to provide "negative calories". The energy that is used by your body to breakdown the components of celery is greater than the calories that is provided by celery itself. Hence, you get a net calorie that is negative (you burned more calories eating celery than you consumed calories).
This is why highly processed foods are higher in calories. When referring to "processed" foods, it means that the compound units of the food, in its native form (whole steak) has been broken down numerous times in various ways (heat, chemical processing for extending meat preservation, physical breakdown such as grounding or blending, etc.). The result, for instance, will be a piece of ham, or a hotdog. These processed foods provide more energy for your body as their individual chemical units have been broken down so much that when you consume the food, your body's digestive enzymes are capable of breaking down the food by converting it to energy, VERY quickly. The steak, in contrast, will be a much longer process as it will involve more pathways and a higher concentration of the digestive enzymes to break it down to single units for conversion to energy - resulting in lower net calories that you will receive from that food because your body used up energy in process. The breakdown of food QUICKLY is not a good thing if your body does not eventually USE (via exercise, or whatever) up any calories you consumed in excess. Candy, for instance, the sugar molecules that you consumed in excess will eventually be converted to triglycerides (your fat storage molecules) to store in your adipose tissue (your fat cells) for long-term energy storage.
Please understand that the measure of calories is not related to mass/weight of food. Because even then, increases/decreases in mass due to water has no effect on energy in your body; it would otherwise make you feel dehydrated vs. hydrated. It might only have an affect on energy in that it affects the solubility and equilibrium of essential minerals in and out of your cells - which, have nothing to do with energy. Calories in food is a measure of energy that can be consumed by your body.
If you want more information, here is a good start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.U9WDWqg4f-k
There are studies that focus on these topics. Cheers.
Yeah. No.
Reported calories in foods are not determined based on biological usage. They are determined by being burned in a calorimeter and are reported as a function of mass (cals per g, for example), which is why mass matters and explains all of the differences in reporting in cooked vs raw except where something happens like fat rendering out of meat.
Quick made up examples:
100g potato, raw -> 50g potato, baked (50g water lost to steam, total calories the same, calories per g doubled)
100g pasta, raw -> 200g pasta, cooked (100g water absorbed, total calories the same, calories per g halved)0 -
The effect of cooking on the nutritional values of food is a deep subject, but, it seems to me, most of the complication and confusion comes from using the MyFitnessPal calorie counting program. It is an inevitable consequence of allowing us users to add records willy-nilly. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just the price you pay for democratising the data. For instance, I have never heard of a recipe referring to the volume of onions AFTER they have been cooked.
The trick entering ingredients into the food diary is knowing about how many calories a thing should have, and watching for when, as frequently happens, the MFP total is off by a factor of five or ten or a hundred, In that case the solution is to just go back and pick one of the many other records in the database for the same item. This may not be much of an issue for packaged processed "foods" with UPC bar codes, but it certainly is when cooking with many raw ingredients.0 -
LOL at everyone simply dismissing what Teyden is saying as nonsense.
If you google "does cooked food have more calories" you'll find a bunch of info on the subject that supports what he/she is saying.0 -
A baked potato has more calories per gram than a raw potato because cooking it evaporates a considerable amount of water out of the potato.0
-
My intention was to explain concepts in the processes of caloric intake in biological systems - and not specifically how it is done experimentally to yield the caloric values you would see on nutritional labels. To restate, I meant to emphasize that differences in mass of a single food item (let's say a piece of meat) due to compression of cooked meat (for the same piece of meat) has little to no affect on the energy consumption from "calories" from food in *BIOLOGICAL* systems. There are other processes to explain this (related to the breakdown of the components that make up the food). Though not addressing any calorie intake values on nutritional labels, I realize my response was an over-complicated answer to a simple question. However, if interested in what goes on in your body (at the biochemical level) when you consume food claiming X amount of calories, then this is an area that would be valuable to understand (or to ponder about, since research in the area is somewhat lacking). This actually poses questions to a different subject matter - the value of calorie estimates on *nutrition labels* based off of bomb calorimetry experiments (a simplified process to explaining physiological food consumption) and how accurately they represent biological systems in digestion and fuel usage (of food).
Here is a more thorough investigation of nutrition on "calories" in cooked vs. raw foods:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/08/27/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/
So far, most of the physiological studies are done via experiments with mice, which is questionable to how well the data can extrapolate to humans. Based on protein interactions alone, and the enzymatic reactions involved in our digestive systems (those involved breaking down the components of our food; lipids, polysaccharides, proteins, and more), we can *hope* at this point that the genome similarities of mice to humans (99% homology) will translate accurately. Lol - but that is the role of the scientific research community to discover *fingers crossed*
For now, our knowledge of enzyme reactions in humans (which is VERY CONSERVED through generations - meaning the enzymes and their functions + structures are very consistent from person to person unless there's a mutation) and how they break down food components is enough for scholars to make strong inferences to what likely happens at the molecular level!0 -
Sorry - another note.
Report calorie estimates are NOT a true representative of biological usage. However, they are in fact based on biological usage (what was the purpose of estimating energy intake from food in the first place, then?). The usage of the bomb calorimeter (plus some further experimental steps) is an over-simplified attempt to MIMIC biological systems in order to attain caloric measurement values that serve as useful information about food energy availability to human BODIES.
Article --> http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/cmstatic?href=Scientific/researchAnalytical/ProductsServices/Food_Diagnostics/food_beverage_newsletter_bombcal.jsp&store=Scientific&storeId=10652
The measurement simply does not stop at the process of burning organic content in a vessel. Lol.0 -
Mass has nothing to do with calorie estimates, nor does water. In order to understand how calories are measured in food, you must understand how the calories are translated to energy requirements and usage by your cells how it relates to food breakdown in your body (metabolism). It would be good to have some understanding of the thermodynamics of metabolic processes in your system, but that could be simplified also - so that at least one could understand what it means when they consume calories in food and the effects of cooking.
When food is cooked, such as meat, the single units of amino acids in proteins unfold such that their side chains become more easily available for attack by our digestive enzymes, yielding more energy for your body (hence, higher calories). The structural components in raw foods require further steps in the metabolic pathway of your cells (and sometimes more, and different enzymes from different pathways to catalyze the reaction of breaking down the food --> uses even more energy; burning calories), and thus require a greater amount of energy FROM your body to do so (lowers the net calories that you will receive from that food - a good thing if you're trying to lose weight). Thus, the process of breaking down whole foods requires more complex pathways (think of the difference in breaking down simple vs. complex sugars). More complex = better. Another example would the processes involved when you eat celery - which are known to provide "negative calories". The energy that is used by your body to breakdown the components of celery is greater than the calories that is provided by celery itself. Hence, you get a net calorie that is negative (you burned more calories eating celery than you consumed calories).
This is why highly processed foods are higher in calories. When referring to "processed" foods, it means that the compound units of the food, in its native form (whole steak) has been broken down numerous times in various ways (heat, chemical processing for extending meat preservation, physical breakdown such as grounding or blending, etc.). The result, for instance, will be a piece of ham, or a hotdog. These processed foods provide more energy for your body as their individual chemical units have been broken down so much that when you consume the food, your body's digestive enzymes are capable of breaking down the food by converting it to energy, VERY quickly. The steak, in contrast, will be a much longer process as it will involve more pathways and a higher concentration of the digestive enzymes to break it down to single units for conversion to energy - resulting in lower net calories that you will receive from that food because your body used up energy in process. The breakdown of food QUICKLY is not a good thing if your body does not eventually USE (via exercise, or whatever) up any calories you consumed in excess. Candy, for instance, the sugar molecules that you consumed in excess will eventually be converted to triglycerides (your fat storage molecules) to store in your adipose tissue (your fat cells) for long-term energy storage.
Please understand that the measure of calories is not related to mass/weight of food. Because even then, increases/decreases in mass due to water has no effect on energy in your body; it would otherwise make you feel dehydrated vs. hydrated. It might only have an affect on energy in that it affects the solubility and equilibrium of essential minerals in and out of your cells - which, have nothing to do with energy. Calories in food is a measure of energy that can be consumed by your body.
If you want more information, here is a good start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.U9WDWqg4f-k
There are studies that focus on these topics. Cheers.
Yeah. No.
Reported calories in foods are not determined based on biological usage. They are determined by being burned in a calorimeter and are reported as a function of mass (cals per g, for example), which is why mass matters and explains all of the differences in reporting in cooked vs raw except where something happens like fat rendering out of meat.
Quick made up examples:
100g potato, raw -> 50g potato, baked (50g water lost to steam, total calories the same, calories per g doubled)
100g pasta, raw -> 200g pasta, cooked (100g water absorbed, total calories the same, calories per g halved)
Sorry - another note.
Reported calorie estimates are NOT a *representative* of biological usage. Not a true one, at least. There is an error rate that varies of up to about 20% (sources, sources, sources)! However, they are in fact BASED on biological usage (what was the purpose of estimating energy intake from food in the first place, then?). The usage of the bomb calorimeter (plus some further experimental steps) is an over-simplified attempt to MIMIC biological systems in order to attain caloric measurement values that serve as useful information about food energy availability to human BODIES.
Article --> http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/cmstatic?href=Scientific/researchAnalytical/ProductsServices/Food_Diagnostics/food_beverage_newsletter_bombcal.jsp&store=Scientific&storeId=10652
The measurement simply does not stop at the process of burning organic content in a vessel. Lol.0 -
oooh I love a bit of theory versus the real world !0
-
LOL at everyone simply dismissing what Teyden is saying as nonsense.
If you google "does cooked food have more calories" you'll find a bunch of info on the subject that supports what he/she is saying.
Lol - Thanks!
And furthermore - it's not so much about being "right" or "wrong" about some measurement basis for food, it's about understanding what's actually happening in our bodies. That is my focus. I take it everyone else on www.myfitnesspal.com should find that info relevant and informative (if not, enough to make you speculate).0 -
Mass has nothing to do with calorie estimates, nor does water. In order to understand how calories are measured in food, you must understand how the calories are translated to energy requirements and usage by your cells how it relates to food breakdown in your body (metabolism). It would be good to have some understanding of the thermodynamics of metabolic processes in your system, but that could be simplified also - so that at least one could understand what it means when they consume calories in food and the effects of cooking.
When food is cooked, such as meat, the single units of amino acids in proteins unfold such that their side chains become more easily available for attack by our digestive enzymes, yielding more energy for your body (hence, higher calories). The structural components in raw foods require further steps in the metabolic pathway of your cells (and sometimes more, and different enzymes from different pathways to catalyze the reaction of breaking down the food --> uses even more energy; burning calories), and thus require a greater amount of energy FROM your body to do so (lowers the net calories that you will receive from that food - a good thing if you're trying to lose weight). Thus, the process of breaking down whole foods requires more complex pathways (think of the difference in breaking down simple vs. complex sugars). More complex = better. Another example would the processes involved when you eat celery - which are known to provide "negative calories". The energy that is used by your body to breakdown the components of celery is greater than the calories that is provided by celery itself. Hence, you get a net calorie that is negative (you burned more calories eating celery than you consumed calories).
This is why highly processed foods are higher in calories. When referring to "processed" foods, it means that the compound units of the food, in its native form (whole steak) has been broken down numerous times in various ways (heat, chemical processing for extending meat preservation, physical breakdown such as grounding or blending, etc.). The result, for instance, will be a piece of ham, or a hotdog. These processed foods provide more energy for your body as their individual chemical units have been broken down so much that when you consume the food, your body's digestive enzymes are capable of breaking down the food by converting it to energy, VERY quickly. The steak, in contrast, will be a much longer process as it will involve more pathways and a higher concentration of the digestive enzymes to break it down to single units for conversion to energy - resulting in lower net calories that you will receive from that food because your body used up energy in process. The breakdown of food QUICKLY is not a good thing if your body does not eventually USE (via exercise, or whatever) up any calories you consumed in excess. Candy, for instance, the sugar molecules that you consumed in excess will eventually be converted to triglycerides (your fat storage molecules) to store in your adipose tissue (your fat cells) for long-term energy storage.
Please understand that the measure of calories is not related to mass/weight of food. Because even then, increases/decreases in mass due to water has no effect on energy in your body; it would otherwise make you feel dehydrated vs. hydrated. It might only have an affect on energy in that it affects the solubility and equilibrium of essential minerals in and out of your cells - which, have nothing to do with energy. Calories in food is a measure of energy that can be consumed by your body.
If you want more information, here is a good start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/#.U9WDWqg4f-k
There are studies that focus on these topics. Cheers.
Yeah. No.
Reported calories in foods are not determined based on biological usage. They are determined by being burned in a calorimeter and are reported as a function of mass (cals per g, for example), which is why mass matters and explains all of the differences in reporting in cooked vs raw except where something happens like fat rendering out of meat.
Quick made up examples:
100g potato, raw -> 50g potato, baked (50g water lost to steam, total calories the same, calories per g doubled)
100g pasta, raw -> 200g pasta, cooked (100g water absorbed, total calories the same, calories per g halved)
Sorry - another note.
Reported calorie estimates are NOT a *representative* of biological usage. Not a true one, at least. There is an error rate that varies of up to about 20% (sources, sources, sources)! However, they are in fact BASED on biological usage (what was the purpose of estimating energy intake from food in the first place, then?). The usage of the bomb calorimeter (plus some further experimental steps) is an over-simplified attempt to MIMIC biological systems in order to attain caloric measurement values that serve as useful information about food energy availability to human BODIES.
Article --> http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/cmstatic?href=Scientific/researchAnalytical/ProductsServices/Food_Diagnostics/food_beverage_newsletter_bombcal.jsp&store=Scientific&storeId=10652
The measurement simply does not stop at the process of burning organic content in a vessel. Lol.
I never said it did stop there. But it is certainly not taking into account much of the biological processes. If it were, we'd not have labels that use 4 cals per g protein, 4 cals per g carb, 9 cals per g fat, as if all proteins, carbs, and fats produce the same biological energy per gram regardless of molecular configuration.
Besides, this doesn't really address the original point - which is why cooked vs. raw calories are different for the same total ingredient. Answer is the same. By and large, it is due to water loss or gain changing the mass of the product while total calories remain the same. The exception is when nutrients are lost or gained in the process such as when fat renders out of cooking meat, or when foods absorb oil during frying, etc.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions