Difference between raw and sauteed/cooked veggies?

drkim86
drkim86 Posts: 17
in Food and Nutrition
Anyone know of an accurate place to find calories of cooked veggies? I'm finding different answers in every site. I also have feeling a lot of those places are including a butt ton of oil or butter because I don't see how a cup of sauteed onion can be 120 calories when it's only 6 raw. Any help would be appreciated!

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    I stick to using the raw values and weighing raw. The loss of water and reduction in size could explain what you see if you use "cups" as a measurement.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    The USDA website has accurate nutritional information for raw vegetables. Stick with those values and simply add the butter or oil if you cook with them.
  • drkim86
    drkim86 Posts: 17
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.
  • Llamapants86
    Llamapants86 Posts: 1,221 Member
    The change in density could impact the calorie per certain volume. So a cup of onions raw would be the same as half a couple of cooked onions, because in reality they are the same amount of onions (geez I'm not explaining that well). As long as you measure out in the same state as you use for the amount of calories you should be fine. The act of cooking really shouldn't add calories (except a little bit in the terms of heat) it goes against laws of thermodynamics.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    As others said, density. Takes like 3 cups of spinach to make 1/2 or 1cup cooked.

    I believe cooking might increase calories a smidge as it makes some stuff more easily digestible. Don't quote me on that.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    As others said, density. Takes like 3 cups of spinach to make 1/2 or 1cup cooked.


    ding ding ding
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.

    By volume/weight, sure. But... if I pull out a head of broccoli, steam it, and eat it, it still has the same calories as... a head of broccoli. It may take up less space, or weigh less, but it's still a head of broccoli. Where would those "new" calories come from, exactly? :huh:
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.

    By volume/weight, sure. But... if I pull out a head of broccoli, steam it, and eat it, it still has the same calories as... a head of broccoli. It may take up less space, or weigh less, but it's still a head of broccoli. Where would those "new" calories come from, exactly? :huh:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/12/28/eat-raw-food-to-lose-weight-cooked-food-contains-more-calories/

    I'm too lazy to look for the actual study.
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.

    By volume/weight, sure. But... if I pull out a head of broccoli, steam it, and eat it, it still has the same calories as... a head of broccoli. It may take up less space, or weigh less, but it's still a head of broccoli. Where would those "new" calories come from, exactly? :huh:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/12/28/eat-raw-food-to-lose-weight-cooked-food-contains-more-calories/

    I'm too lazy to look for the actual study.

    Study cannot provide the actual difference in calories, just that "cooked food is easier on the body, you burn less calories!!!! ZOMG Eat everything raw! Don't cook anything, even meat!"

    :huh:

    Even then, it is not that the food has more calories, it's that it's easier for your body to digest (thus burning less calories via digestion). The food still doesn't gain new magical calories.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Anyone know of an accurate place to find calories of cooked veggies? I'm finding different answers in every site. I also have feeling a lot of those places are including a butt ton of oil or butter because I don't see how a cup of sauteed onion can be 120 calories when it's only 6 raw. Any help would be appreciated!

    If only there was a site that had next to a My Home button a Food button that would take me to a calorie calculator...
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.

    By volume/weight, sure. But... if I pull out a head of broccoli, steam it, and eat it, it still has the same calories as... a head of broccoli. It may take up less space, or weigh less, but it's still a head of broccoli. Where would those "new" calories come from, exactly? :huh:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/12/28/eat-raw-food-to-lose-weight-cooked-food-contains-more-calories/

    I'm too lazy to look for the actual study.

    Study cannot provide the actual difference in calories, just that "cooked food is easier on the body, you burn less calories!!!! ZOMG Eat everything raw! Don't cook anything, even meat!"

    :huh:

    Even then, it is not that the food has more calories, it's that it's easier for your body to digest (thus burning less calories via digestion). The food still doesn't gain new magical calories.

    Yep. I'll take "Things Not To Stress Over" for $500 . . .
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member
    But I'm reading that even cooking without oil or butter will still increase the caloric value of vegetables.

    By volume/weight, sure. But... if I pull out a head of broccoli, steam it, and eat it, it still has the same calories as... a head of broccoli. It may take up less space, or weigh less, but it's still a head of broccoli. Where would those "new" calories come from, exactly? :huh:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2011/12/28/eat-raw-food-to-lose-weight-cooked-food-contains-more-calories/

    I'm too lazy to look for the actual study.

    Study cannot provide the actual difference in calories, just that "cooked food is easier on the body, you burn less calories!!!! ZOMG Eat everything raw! Don't cook anything, even meat!"

    :huh:

    Even then, it is not that the food has more calories, it's that it's easier for your body to digest (thus burning less calories via digestion). The food still doesn't gain new magical calories.

    Yep. I'll take "Things Not To Stress Over" for $500 . . .

    *dingdingding* We have a winner! Although, I suppose by this logic we should consume zero fat (easier to digest) and nothing but protein. Maximum burn for digestion!
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/19/when-a-calorie-isnt-a-calorie-parsing-the-raw-vs-cooked-food-debate-and-the-curious-case-of-almonds/

    The snark is in full force today.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/19/when-a-calorie-isnt-a-calorie-parsing-the-raw-vs-cooked-food-debate-and-the-curious-case-of-almonds/

    The snark is in full force today.

    lol - lighten up.

    This is not going to make or break anyone's weight loss plan. Most, if not all, of differences like this are going to get lost in the myriad counting and estimation errors (exercise calories anyone?) that everyone makes on a daily basis. The point is to focus on the big picture and not get lost in things like this. Sure, it's interesting though.
  • DamianaKitten
    DamianaKitten Posts: 479 Member
    So, they've proven that cooked food takes less energy to burn, but can often provide better access to nutrients.

    Again, unless they're going to tell me that my raw broccoli has an extra 300 calorie value, it's not a big deal.

    Actually, to that end, raw food may be "lower calorie" but if it provides less nutrients, doesn't that mean you'd have to eat *more* of said item to get the same nutrient value, thus leading to higher calorie intake?

    I know, I know, critical thinking is hard (or I'm completely incapable of reading).
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Anyone know of an accurate place to find calories of cooked veggies? I'm finding different answers in every site. I also have feeling a lot of those places are including a butt ton of oil or butter because I don't see how a cup of sauteed onion can be 120 calories when it's only 6 raw. Any help would be appreciated!

    A Tbsp of oil is like 110 calories....I would assume someone was sauteing those veggies in some oil. Really, it's best to just enter the veggies raw and by weight into your diary and then add how much every oil or whatever you are using separately.

    The act of cooking does not substantially alter the calorie content of foods...not to any meaningful degree that is worth actually vacillating over.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    Anyone know of an accurate place to find calories of cooked veggies? I'm finding different answers in every site. I also have feeling a lot of those places are including a butt ton of oil or butter because I don't see how a cup of sauteed onion can be 120 calories when it's only 6 raw. Any help would be appreciated!

    A Tbsp of oil is like 110 calories....I would assume someone was sauteing those veggies in some oil. Really, it's best to just enter the veggies raw and by weight into your diary and then add how much every oil or whatever you are using separately.

    The act of cooking does not substantially alter the calorie content of foods...not to any meaningful degree that is worth actually vacillating over.

    Yup yup.
  • toddis
    toddis Posts: 941 Member
    So, they've proven that cooked food takes less energy to burn, but can often provide better access to nutrients.

    Again, unless they're going to tell me that my raw broccoli has an extra 300 calorie value, it's not a big deal.

    Actually, to that end, raw food may be "lower calorie" but if it provides less nutrients, doesn't that mean you'd have to eat *more* of said item to get the same nutrient value, thus leading to higher calorie intake?

    I know, I know, critical thinking is hard (or I'm completely incapable of reading).

    Well according to the second article and study in it, you body actually absorbs 32% less calories from whole almonds. That difference isn't there in nut butter. I'm not saying it's something to worry about, but that it exists.

    If we are talking about micronutrients, different preparations affect them all differently. If we are talking macronutrients I'm not really sure what it is saying. Is the potato referenced X+Y calories cooked, or is the potato X-Z calories raw.

Categories