Can this nutrition info be correct?

Need2Exerc1se
Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Nutritional Information Serving Weight 100 g
Calories 100
Total Fat 1.34 g
Carbohydrate 0 g
Cholesterol 37 mg
Sodium 64 mg
Protein 20.51 g

Can a fish steak really have only 1 calorie per gram of weight?

Replies

  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    edited October 2014
    Nothing (solid) has only one calorie per gram of weight. That is all.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited October 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • 50sFit
    50sFit Posts: 712 Member
    edited October 2014
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Nutritional Information Serving Weight 100 g
    Calories 100
    Total Fat 1.34 g
    Carbohydrate 0 g
    Cholesterol 37 mg
    Sodium 64 mg
    Protein 20.51 g

    Can a fish steak really have only 1 calorie per gram of weight?

    This sounds about right to me given my own experience and the above listed macro break down. What were you expecting?

    I actually prefer salmon which has some heart healthy fat in each serving.
    Oily fish such as salmon, tuna, sardines, mackerel, and trout are full of omega-3 fatty acids -- good for you! These fish should be a staple of everyone's heart-healthy diet.

    What kind of fish are you eating?
  • SmartAlec03211988
    SmartAlec03211988 Posts: 1,896 Member
    What kind of fish is it?
  • lishie_rebooted
    lishie_rebooted Posts: 2,973 Member
    Doing the math:
    Protein has 4cals/g so (4x20.51) = 82.04
    Carbs have 4cals/g so (4x0) = 0
    Fat has 9cals/g so (9x1.34) = 12.06
    82.04+0+12.06 = 94.1 cals
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    Yes. Most of the calories are coming from protein, a few from fat and it probably has a pretty high water content. That is why calorie servings are different for cooked and raw meat.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    50sFit wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Nutritional Information Serving Weight 100 g
    Calories 100
    Total Fat 1.34 g
    Carbohydrate 0 g
    Cholesterol 37 mg
    Sodium 64 mg
    Protein 20.51 g

    Can a fish steak really have only 1 calorie per gram of weight?

    This sounds about right to me given my own experience and the above listed macro break down. What were you expecting?

    It has no carbs and 20.51 g of protien, which is 82.04 calories, and 1.34 g of fat, which is 12.06. Which leaves almost 80 g of something that has only 6 calories.

    I would assume most of that has to be water, but is a fish steak nearly 80% water?
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited October 2014
    It's something I saw online called calamari steak, which is another mystery to me since it looks more similar to swordfish than any calamari I've ever seen.

    Here is a link to the site http://www.great-alaska-seafood.com/calamari_steak.htm
  • ksy1969
    ksy1969 Posts: 700 Member
    I think some over thinking is going on here. Check out a few more raw meats and you will see the same thing. I just looked at USDA - Sirloin Steak and 85g of raw meat only has approximately 34g of solid macro nutrients. the rest is water. That is why when you cook it, if you over cook it, it becomes a quarter of what it used to be.
  • lishie_rebooted
    lishie_rebooted Posts: 2,973 Member
    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    ksy1969 wrote: »
    I think some over thinking is going on here. Check out a few more raw meats and you will see the same thing. I just looked at USDA - Sirloin Steak and 85g of raw meat only has approximately 34g of solid macro nutrients. the rest is water. That is why when you cook it, if you over cook it, it becomes a quarter of what it used to be.

    I've never had fish shrink to 1/4 of it's size no matter how long I cook it. My mind is offically blown.
  • 50sFit
    50sFit Posts: 712 Member
    edited October 2014

    It has no carbs and 20.51 g of protien, which is 82.04 calories, and 1.34 g of fat, which is 12.06. Which leaves almost 80 g of something that has only 6 calories.

    I would assume most of that has to be water, but is a fish steak nearly 80% water?

    Who knows?
    It's close enough.
    Remember, when you're reading labels, those are estimates, but you'd think these dummies could have done the math. This means it's imported from china or something.
    yy8vjt3tjqhj.jpg
  • habit365
    habit365 Posts: 174
    edited October 2014
    Googling, it seems that fresh water fish do have about 80% water, and it is tightly bound and not expelled by high pressure. Prolonged chilling or freezing will break some of those bonds. http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tan/x5916e/x5916e01.htm
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    habit365 wrote: »
    Googling, it seems that fresh water fish do have about 80% water, and it is tightly bound and not expelled by high pressure. Prolonged chilling or freezing will break some of those bonds. http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tan/x5916e/x5916e01.htm

    Wow, that is a lot of fishy information. Thanks.
  • smn76237
    smn76237 Posts: 318 Member
    Squid has an incredibly high water content, so I'd believe it. That's why it gets so tough if you overcook it.
  • MinnieInMaine
    MinnieInMaine Posts: 6,400 Member
    edited October 2014
    For the record, a calamari steak is the body of a large squid that is split and laid flat. Sometimes cut into squares/rectangles.

    Per the USDA database, "Mollusks, squid, mixed species, raw" has 92 cal per 100g. 78.55g is water, 15.58g protein, 1.38g fat, 3.08g carb.
  • independant2406
    independant2406 Posts: 447 Member
    MinnieInMaine wrote: »
    For the record, a calamari steak is the body of a large squid that is split and laid flat. Sometimes cut into squares/rectangles.

    Per the USDA database, "Mollusks, squid, mixed species, raw" has 92 cal per 100g. 78.55g is water, 15.58g protein, 1.38g fat, 3.08g carb.

    This ^^^

  • pdank311
    pdank311 Posts: 137 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    It's something I saw online called calamari steak, which is another mystery to me since it looks more similar to swordfish than any calamari I've ever seen.

    Here is a link to the site http://www.great-alaska-seafood.com/calamari_steak.htm

    Whatever it is, it looks amazing... for not being breaded, fried, dusted with romano, and served with marinara and lemon...
  • slucki01
    slucki01 Posts: 284 Member
    Depending on the type of fish, it could be right. Cod is 82 calories for 100 grams. Salmon, on the other hand, is 208 cal for 100 grams.


  • shifterbrainz
    shifterbrainz Posts: 245 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    ksy1969 wrote: »
    I think some over thinking is going on here. Check out a few more raw meats and you will see the same thing. I just looked at USDA - Sirloin Steak and 85g of raw meat only has approximately 34g of solid macro nutrients. the rest is water. That is why when you cook it, if you over cook it, it becomes a quarter of what it used to be.

    I've never had fish shrink to 1/4 of it's size no matter how long I cook it. My mind is offically blown.

    Ever heard of jerky? Not trying to be snarky but cooking removes very little water. Dehydrating removes a lot.
  • ksy1969
    ksy1969 Posts: 700 Member
    edited October 2014
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    ksy1969 wrote: »
    I think some over thinking is going on here. Check out a few more raw meats and you will see the same thing. I just looked at USDA - Sirloin Steak and 85g of raw meat only has approximately 34g of solid macro nutrients. the rest is water. That is why when you cook it, if you over cook it, it becomes a quarter of what it used to be.

    I've never had fish shrink to 1/4 of it's size no matter how long I cook it. My mind is offically blown.

    Ok, I might have exaggerated a little bit on the shrinkage. ;)

    Interesting though, I fried up some cubed chicken breast on Sunday. They went from 20oz of raw meat to 12.5 oz of cooked meat and they were not over cooked. They were just starting to brown. I am guessing if I would have over cooked them they would have been at least a third of their original starting weight.

    Edited for spelling
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    edited October 2014
    RockstarWilson wrote: »
    Nothing (solid) has only one calorie per gram of weight. That is all.

    Edit: No solid food that has no water weight is 1 calorie per gram. Fish, if it has a lot of water in it, will weigh more than its nutrients indicate. The water would theoretically evaporate while it cooks, and you are left with a lighter fish. What the package shows (if there is a package) is calories/gram per pre-cooked fish. If you weighed the fish after cooking, you would notice a lot more fish per gram, as the water has been extracted. It is why ground beef loses a ton of its calories if it is prepared properly, although for different reasons. A lot of the fat is released in cooking ground beef, and while the raw portion is valued at 4 oz, the actual yield has about 25% less fat if it is drained, so it has less calories at 3 oz.

    Fish raw has about 80% of its weight in water, and when it is cooked, that figure lowers to about 70% (and this figure is adjustable to how much you cook it). The more you cook it, the less water there is, and less dense the fish becomes. So, in theory, if you cook it light, you can come close to that because the water has not completely been extracted from the fish while cooking. I used tilapia as an example, as it is one of the leaner fishes. But that might be why you are seeing what you are seeing; water weight, which has no calories, comprises most the weight of the fish. Mathematically speaking, calories only comprise about 25-40% of the cooked fish, depending on how it is prepared, as protein has 4 calories per gram (21x4=84, 1.5x9=13.5, so 97 calories for ~23g of food, proving the 4/4/9 proportions). So if 100 grams is what you physically see, only about 23% is actual food.

    I guess if you don't dissect that information, then you are correct....but it is just water. If the food is substantial (does not have a lot of water), the mass in the nutrients will equal the mass of the food. If it has water, the water mass is the mass of the food minus the total mass of the nutrients.

    That is what I meant by that. Water is a liquid, so what I said about solid food not having 1 calorie per gram is correct. It must have at least 4. I guess I got a little technical, but eh. Take it as you wish.

Categories