measure pasta before or after cooking?

Measure pasta before boiling.

It's gonna weight more when it is cooked so if you wanna save up few calories, just in case it's not listed for cooked, measure when cooked. If you measure when cooked you may ingest fever calories than intended but you will not ingest more than intended.

weigh it dry.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

The

ainarsraciks wrote: »

It's gonna weight more when it is cooked so if you wanna save up few calories, just in case it's not listed for cooked, measure when cooked. If you measure when cooked you may ingest fever calories than intended but you will not ingest more than intended.

what is the point of weighing if you aren't going to do it correctly?

You can't weigh the food before it is cooked if you don't cook it. Weighing a cooked item and then using the nutritional info for the pre-cooked item will guarantee that you are underestimating. I would much rather underestimate than overestimate.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

seska422 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

The

ainarsraciks wrote: »

It's gonna weight more when it is cooked so if you wanna save up few calories, just in case it's not listed for cooked, measure when cooked. If you measure when cooked you may ingest fever calories than intended but you will not ingest more than intended.

what is the point of weighing if you aren't going to do it correctly?

You can't weigh the food before it is cooked if you don't cook it. Weighing a cooked item and then using the nutritional info for the pre-cooked item will guarantee that you are underestimating. I would much rather underestimate than overestimate.

I'm not really sure what you are saying. If you are planning to eat the pasta uncooked, then it would impossible to weigh it cooked.

If you weigh it properly (uncooked) the calories shouldn't change when it's cooked, unless you cook it something that contains calories (like say, drunken pasta).

But, if cook in water then weigh it cooked, but use the uncooked calories you are purposedly falsifying the calories. That's not overestimating. You are weighing water and assigning calories as if it were pasta. So, I do not see the point in wasting time weighing or logging.

Let's say I brought leftover pasta home from a party. I have a bowl of cooked pasta. I never had access to it in order to measure it before it was cooked.

I need to estimate how many calories are in that pasta. I can make a wild guess or I can measure what I have. After I measure what I have, I'm stuck guessing how much of that is water from the cooking process. Water increases the weight without adding calories so weighing after cooking and then using the pre-cooked nutritional value means that I'm underestimating. I know that I'm recording more calories than my serving contains and that's better than recording fewer calories than I'm actually eating.

Since I'm trying to lose weight, my main concern is that I don't overestimate.

WeddedBliss1992 wrote: »

wow.
now i have no clue what to do! LOL

i can just use a separate pan for my pasta, measure out 2 oz of dry, cook in separate pan than the rest of the family's, then eat mine. it will be interesting to measure it after i cook it, and see the post-cooked weight in ounces as compared to the pre-cooked weight.

i have so many "extra" calories today, it won't really matter, but it might on another day.

If you are doing the cooking, measure before you cook. That's the value you want. It's just that you can't always get that value unless you are the cook.

Cooking yours separately so that you know exactly how much your serving weighed before you cooked it is ideal.

WeddedBliss1992 wrote: »

wow.
now i have no clue what to do! LOL

i can just use a separate pan for my pasta, measure out 2 oz of dry, cook in separate pan than the rest of the family's, then eat mine. it will be interesting to measure it after i cook it, and see the post-cooked weight in ounces as compared to the pre-cooked weight.

i have so many "extra" calories today, it won't really matter, but it might on another day.

This might be a good idea. Once you've cooked 2 oz of pasta a few times, you'll get pretty good at eye-balling what it looks like cooked so you don't have to cook it separately. Also, if you know you cooked 6 oz total, then 2 oz would be 1/3 of the whole pan, so you could measure it out that way if cooked together.

I made this mistake in the beginning. Two ounces of cooked pasta is such a tiny amount, I almost gave up on ever having it again. Two ounces of dry pasta is a pretty reasonable amount (still a whole lot less than I used to eat) so that makes my Italian heart happy. One thing I have been doing is using a different shapes pasta for myself. That way I don't have to cook it separately. For example, penne for me and spaghetti for everyone else. It's easy to pull out my serving without having to re-measure after cooking.

Weighing it when it's been cooked is silly. Pasta absorbs water. Al dente pasta will have less water than over-cooked pasta. Weigh it before. And +1 for different shapes.

Personally, with stuff like this, I weigh it all after it's cooked, then weigh my own portion. Then I say "If it's 16 oz cooked, and I took 4 oz, then I took 1/5 of the box." Then I use that math to figure out what the dry weight was. Proportions and whatnot.

For pasta, definitely weigh before cooking since it soaks up all the water.

alicaramik2 wrote: »

I made this mistake in the beginning. Two ounces of cooked pasta is such a tiny amount, I almost gave up on ever having it again. Two ounces of dry pasta is a pretty reasonable amount (still a whole lot less than I used to eat) so that makes my Italian heart happy. One thing I have been doing is using a different shapes pasta for myself. That way I don't have to cook it separately. For example, penne for me and spaghetti for everyone else. It's easy to pull out my serving without having to re-measure after cooking.

Oh wow that sounds like a pain to have to dig through all the pasta to find your shapes, lol. I'd rather just use another pan.

SyntonicGarden wrote: »

Weighing it when it's been cooked is silly. Pasta absorbs water. Al dente pasta will have less water than over-cooked pasta. Weigh it before. And +1 for different shapes.

Personally, with stuff like this, I weigh it all after it's cooked, then weigh my own portion. Then I say "If it's 16 oz cooked, and I took 4 oz, then I took 1/5 of the box." Then I use that math to figure out what the dry weight was. Proportions and whatnot.

Got to weigh it before though. The box weight is never accurate.

Francl27 wrote: »

alicaramik2 wrote: »

I made this mistake in the beginning. Two ounces of cooked pasta is such a tiny amount, I almost gave up on ever having it again. Two ounces of dry pasta is a pretty reasonable amount (still a whole lot less than I used to eat) so that makes my Italian heart happy. One thing I have been doing is using a different shapes pasta for myself. That way I don't have to cook it separately. For example, penne for me and spaghetti for everyone else. It's easy to pull out my serving without having to re-measure after cooking.

Oh wow that sounds like a pain to have to dig through all the pasta to find your shapes, lol. I'd rather just use another pan.

I thought the same thing.

WeddedBliss1992 wrote: »

me thinks i shall not be making pasta much

I live in Italy and make pasta everyday in hundreds of different ways and forms. Here, 100g dry, is a portion. I always make mine separately in a small pan, and often make 50 or 70g for myself. I also am careful of how much sauce I put on, whereas the family (all males) can eat alot more. This is what works for me. Pasta is so good! I hope you don't decide to give it up.

WeddedBliss1992 wrote: »

the pasta i bought says that 2 oz is a serving size, but it doesn't specify if this is pre-cooked measure, or after cooking. which do you use? most of my other foods will indicate.

that is dry...before cooking.

2oz of dry spaghetti is approximately one cup cooked.