Potato confusion

VeganBunny
VeganBunny Posts: 9 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Why do potatoes have more calories when you boil them compared to when you microwave them? Apparently the same size potato has 100 more cals if I boil it rather than microwave it. Of course it will weigh more because it will absorb the water, but it's just water...
«13

Replies

  • bethanyclaire88
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    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.
  • FirefitMike
    FirefitMike Posts: 85 Member
    Some items here are user submitted. They won't all match. You can see on the little window whether it is user submitted information.
  • peuglow
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    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.
    I hope to god you're joking....
  • bethanyclaire88
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    Why would that be a joke? I'm in food science, we learn about this. Potatoes technically have fewer calories raw vs. cooked because the human body can't break down those starches.
  • Beethoven1827
    Beethoven1827 Posts: 102 Member
    If it helps, think about how soft a boiled vs. microwaved potato is.
    That depends entirely on how well cooked it is...! My microwaved potato was definitely a bit crunchy in the middle the other day, but I couldn't be bothered to wait any longer.
    I'm in food science, we learn about this. Potatoes technically have fewer calories raw vs. cooked because the human body can't break down those starches.
    But a calorie isn't anything to do with how much the human body can absorb - it's purely a measure of energy...
  • Krys_140
    Krys_140 Posts: 648 Member
    Why would that be a joke? I'm in food science, we learn about this. Potatoes technically have fewer calories raw vs. cooked because the human body can't break down those starches.
    But a hundred calories difference? I can't imagine that there is a 100 calorie difference between a boiled potato and a microwaved potato of the same size...
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    just user entered differences. most likely different sized potatoes used
  • bethanyclaire88
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    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.
  • RosscoBoscko
    RosscoBoscko Posts: 632 Member
    Bethanyclaire is 100% correct, its all to do with the glycocemic index of the potato cooked in different ways. depending on how the potato is cooked will mean it has more or less calories.

    The human body is not able to process starch efficiently so cooking methods where less starch is broken down equal less calories.

    For methods such as mash potato the starch is far more broken down to sugars which are processed far easier by the body as calories.
  • peuglow
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    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.
    When is a calorie not available to the body?

    Since you're a student, can you cite a source on this. I'm truly intrigued.
  • lajuice7
    lajuice7 Posts: 58 Member
    Microwaves destroy the goodness and the nutrition in any food. I hate them and never use them.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Why do potatoes have more calories when you boil them compared to when you microwave them? Apparently the same size potato has 100 more cals if I boil it rather than microwave it. Of course it will weigh more because it will absorb the water, but it's just water...
    It doesn't.

    Just weigh it before cooking and use the raw calories.
  • RosscoBoscko
    RosscoBoscko Posts: 632 Member
    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.
    When is a calorie not available to the body?

    Since you're a student, can you cite a source on this. I'm truly intrigued.

    When it is in a form which is not processable by the body. grazing animals will get far more calories out of eating grass then humans would purely for the reason that their body is designed to process this food type, whereas the human body is not so we would receive very little nutritional value from eating grass.
  • peuglow
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    Microwaves destroy the goodness and the nutrition in any food. I hate them and never use them.
    I'd also like to see a source on this if you have it.
  • peuglow
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    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.
    When is a calorie not available to the body?

    Since you're a student, can you cite a source on this. I'm truly intrigued.

    When it is in a form which is not processable by the body. grazing animals will get far more calories out of eating grass then humans would purely for the reason that their body is designed to process this food type, whereas the human body is not so we would receive very little nutritional value from eating grass.
    I asked for a source, not a reaffirmation. No offense. But two people on here can tell me the sky is yellow. I'd rather see some peer-reviewed studies.
  • jennieth
    jennieth Posts: 105
    Are you checking these calories on caloriecount.about.com? I just checked on there and I saw the 100 calorie difference but that is because the boiled option was a large and the baked/microwave choice was a medium.
  • lajuice7
    lajuice7 Posts: 58 Member
    Microwaves destroy the goodness and the nutrition in any food. I hate them and never use them.
    I'd also like to see a source on this if you have it.

    lol....I am scientist and have a BSc and MPhil in chemistry, as for more sources, just ''Google it''.

    Good luck with your research.
  • RosscoBoscko
    RosscoBoscko Posts: 632 Member
    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&cover=Y&code=b712abbe2196ff41be3d4e84592ebdd3

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

    There's for sources for a start.
  • gddrdld
    gddrdld Posts: 464 Member
    Why do potatoes have more calories when you boil them compared to when you microwave them? Apparently the same size potato has 100 more cals if I boil it rather than microwave it. Of course it will weigh more because it will absorb the water, but it's just water...

    Use common sense...They don't.
  • bethanyclaire88
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    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.
  • Krys_140
    Krys_140 Posts: 648 Member
    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
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    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
    RosscoBoscko Posts: 632 Member
    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
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    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
    dkkwilson Posts: 19 Member
    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
    Krys_140 Posts: 648 Member
    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
    bethanyclaire88 Posts: 15
    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
    RosscoBoscko Posts: 632 Member
    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
    lajuice7 Posts: 58 Member
    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
    peuglow Posts: 684 Member
    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.

Categories