Potato confusion
Replies
-
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.
Biologist here. Confirming the above food scientist.
This is why you can eat a crap ton of cals on a raw diet and lose weight. The cals cannot be utilized. The invention of flame is why we evolved our big calorie consuming brains! This girl is smart. Like me.
Yeah but there is no other way except for calories to objectively measure the quantity/value of the food we eat it would be great if we could say have table raw corn = 100 cal just cooked corn = 120 cal cooked to death corn 130 cals but I do not know of a way of doing hence our reliance on calories...I know the glycemic index of foods gives you a clue but it is not exactly the same thing either
So I think we are stuck with calories as the way to measure this for now unless you know of another metric?0 -
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.
Heat does cause a break down of starch, but that doesn't mean an increase in calories. It would actually be a decrease and it would be a significantly small amount. Heat would release calories, just as when food is burned in a calorimeter, but unless the food is burned directly it would not be a significant release. I'm thinking more along the lines of tiny fractions of a calorie per gram of weight.0 -
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.
I am a food science major. And you are speaking nonsense.0 -
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.
I am a food science major. And you are speaking nonsense.
Let me get my popcorn. This is gonna get good.
I love the internet.0 -
If they were both burned in a bomb calorimeter, yes, the calorie value would be the same. However, with calories in a practical sense (actually being used in the body) you cannot break down the starches to get the same number of calories in a raw vs. cooked potato.0
-
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.
You are correct. Especially for fruits and vegetables. Cooking them changes how they are processed by the body. So from a nutritional and caloric absorption standpoint, there would be some variances.0 -
If they were both burned in a bomb calorimeter, yes, the calorie value would be the same. However, with calories in a practical sense (actually being used in the body) you cannot break down the starches to get the same number of calories in a raw vs. cooked potato.
Granted... it's more difficult to break down those starches... therefore, the digestive system would need to use more calories to break it down (I think this is where we are hitting on the glycemic index), but that doesn't mean that the body is incapable of breaking down those starches or that those calories are somehow expelled from the body nor does that mean that the food contains less or more calories.
Let's remember that mankind did not always "cook" food. Somehow our bodies had to be able to digest such rigid chains of molecules.0 -
The human body does not have the enzymes necessary to break down starches in a raw potato. Think about it similarly to fiber, we can't metabolize the constituents of insoluble fiber, so it passes through our body undigested.0
-
If I were to start a rock band, I would call it Potato Confusion. And it would be epic.
*to the tune of 'The Beautiful People' by Marilyn Manson*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion,
*dun na dun na*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion....0 -
This is interesting, I was wondering this myself the other day when I noticed the same thing on some other foods I was attempting to enter. lol. I was puzzled. Will have to read more later.0
-
I hope to god you're joking....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.
Not a joke!! Fruit is the same way - eaten whole is better than juiced, hence why you can have 8 glasses of fruit juice a day but it will only ever count as 1 of your 5 a day!!! The sugars release differently when's juice than a whole..... so potatoes would work the same way with the starches! Weird but true!0 -
If I were to start a rock band, I would call it Potato Confusion. And it would be epic.
*to the tune of 'The Beautiful People' by Marilyn Manson*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion,
*dun na dun na*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion....
Was thinking the same thing only using "Ball of Confusion" by Love and Rockets.0 -
If I were to start a rock band, I would call it Potato Confusion. And it would be epic.
*to the tune of 'The Beautiful People' by Marilyn Manson*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion,
*dun na dun na*
Potato confusion,
potato confusion....
Was thinking the same thing only using "Ball of Confusion" by Love and Rockets.
Just looked it up - wow, that is quite epic as well. I love his shirt in the video. Kind of reminds me of The Smiths back in the day, whom I adore ♥0 -
The human body does not have the enzymes necessary to break down starches in a raw potato. Think about it similarly to fiber, we can't metabolize the constituents of insoluble fiber, so it passes through our body undigested.
So what you are suggesting is that a cooked potato has more calories than a raw potato because the body cannot process all of the starches, and therefore, passes those calories away. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
What I am saying is that the assigned caloric values for a potato are:
a.) estimated in the first place
b.) do not take the digestability of those calories into consideration
IF... one were to accept your proposed theory on the variations of the caloric difference between a cooked and raw potato (coincidentally the OP didn't even ask about a raw potato, but rather the difference in cooking methods), THEN would have to assume that other calories consumed during the course of the day are expelled rather than consumed.
Personally, that seems like a dangerous assumption to propose on a fitness site. One could easily distort that so that they have an excuse to eat more food. In other words, perpetuating misinformation.0 -
I think this has been blown way out of proportion and I have explained this to the best of my ability. I am not at all suggesting that calories are magically going away. I am not trying to perpetuate misinformation; I am not an RD, and I don't pretend I'm the authority on nutrition. I don't think anyone needs an excuse to eat more food, nor would I give one. I was simply offering a food chemistry perspective on why it may have been different.
If you're still interested, here's some further reading:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2009/aug/05/1f5focusm195324-pros-and-cons-munching-raw-potatoe/
Effect of starch granule structure, associated components and processing on nutritive value of cereal starch: A review. Journal of Animal Feed Science & Technology0 -
The REAL answer is quite simple: this is one of the methods used by Black & Decker, Danby, and all other appliance manufacturers to conspire and try to trick you all into buying their evil microwave ovens. DON'T FALL FOR IT0
-
are you kidding?0
-
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.
This scares me.
Does "food science " not follow the laws of thermodynamics? Conservation of matter and energy isn't just for dirty hollies anymore.
Boiling a potato does not imbue it with new matter unless you're boiling it in cheese sauce or something.
ETA I saw the explanation from you and others about cooking breaking down parts of the potato so that the calories that were always there could be absorbed. You are right. My apologies. The first reply was not well written and aided my confusion but I absolutely jumped the gun.0 -
It's getting exhausting following this thread now and you've all stopped being useful because of the contradictions. But thanks anyway! I'll speak to my dietician on Wednesday and see what she thinks...0
-
If I were to start a rock band, I would call it Potato Confusion. And it would be epic.
I'm a rock chick. Can I be in the band? Considering you stole the name from me...0 -
Glycemic index has nothing to do with calories. The glycemic index is a measure of how fast glucose is absorbed into the blood stream after eating a specific food in a vacuum. It doesn't offer any other information about said food, or even how said food would be absorbed when eaten with something else (butter on a potato, for example.) in short, it's pretty useless. Glycemic load is slightly more useful, but still not very relevant.
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.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.
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.0 -
The length of time it takes for the body to digest food is irrelevant to the calorie count. If it takes 1 hour to digest 100 calories of a food, or 4 hours to digest 100 calories from a food, it's sill 100 calories for that food item. Your logic is flawed.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.0 -
I haven't had time to read through this entire thread so can I just ask if I'm making a soup and weigh the potatoes raw before they go in the pot are my calories out once the soup is cooked? How can I calculate the caloric value of the potatoes once they have been cooked??0
-
If they were both burned in a bomb calorimeter, yes, the calorie value would be the same. However, with calories in a practical sense (actually being used in the body) you cannot break down the starches to get the same number of calories in a raw vs. cooked potato.
The food science people in this thread, instead of fighting, could have taken the time to explain a few basic things a little better.
The "food caloires" used as nutritional values are not the same as calories in the pure thermodynamic sense.
Food calories are based on a modified calculation originally from Atwaters in the 19th century. Look him up - the article on wikipedia is very poor.
Food calories are based on modified Atwater factors; it's a guestimate question of calories per gram of carbohydrates, protein, fat. And the calories estimates are not only not exact but can vary as a function of diet. Here, let me throw a big rock into the pond:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
One of these days, I'll spend the time explaining why a calorie is not a calorie - except in the house of the big picture it is enough to go by that principle. Don't lose the forest for the trees.0 -
I haven't had time to read through this entire thread so can I just ask if I'm making a soup and weigh the potatoes raw before they go in the pot are my calories out once the soup is cooked? How can I calculate the caloric value of the potatoes once they have been cooked??
The difference is completely negligible. The calorie is an estimated measure at any rate. When you start worrying about the difference in calories after food is cooked, then you make it much more complicated than necessary.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