calories cooked vs calories raw

janeybees
janeybees Posts: 19 Member
edited November 17 in Food and Nutrition
Help! Just read that food ie veg, meat etc, non processed, have different calories depending on if we eat them raw or cooked? Someone please clarify and any advice on how to log correctly as I tend to scan barcodes but now worried that its all wrong as I steam veg, grill meat/fish...am I getting more cals then I think?

Replies

  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    100 calories of a vegetable/meat raw will be 100 calories cooked. The weight changes though.

    A serving of meat is 4 oz raw vs (about) 3 oz cooked. A cup of vegetables will be closer to 1/2 cup after cooking.

    That is why to be accurate you need to weight before and after cooking.
  • janeybees
    janeybees Posts: 19 Member
    Oh, now I'm more confused...i was under the impression it was something to do with our bodies ability to break down the food in the different states? How do I log then lol
  • norie92
    norie92 Posts: 115 Member
    I usually log the cooked weight for chicken breast, I look for the "cooked" chicken breast entry on MFP.
    For rice, I weigh it raw, I look for the "raw" brown rice entry on MFP.

    Don't think it matters when you weigh it as long as you find the correct cook or uncooked entry.
  • abatonfan
    abatonfan Posts: 1,120 Member
    When you cook food, you are also losing some of the water that was originally in the food. That's why 100g of raw carrots might be 50 calories, but 100g of cooked carrots might be 75 (remember that water doesn't have any calories).

    Unless the food item exclusively states "cooked", I weigh everything in its raw state.
  • Camo_xxx
    Camo_xxx Posts: 1,082 Member
    The calories in a particicular piece of food doesn't change, just the weight of the food does from cooking out or adding water content.
    For example, meats lose water weight, pasta gains water weight.

    The USDA has calorie data for both cooked and raw and both are in the MFP database.
    When you search the data base just specify which one want.

    Example:
    Chicken breast , raw, USDA
    Or
    Chicken breast, cooked, USDA
  • janeybees
    janeybees Posts: 19 Member
    Ok, that makes sense...got all in a muddle after coming across this
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/&sa=U&ei=eUA5VfGpMIvbarLJgJgG&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHV3FGEWMSUkBiMQxH8NY4Nl3lCuA

    The whole starch being more caloric when cooked freaked me out!

  • Camo_xxx
    Camo_xxx Posts: 1,082 Member
    Camo_xxx wrote: »
    The calories in a particicular piece of food doesn't change, just the weight of the food does from cooking out or adding water content.
    For example, meats lose water weight, pasta gains water weight.

    The USDA has calorie data for both cooked and raw and both are in the MFP database.
    When you search the data base just specify which one want.

    Example:
    Chicken breast , raw, USDA
    Or
    Chicken breast, cooked, USDA

    FYI , The difference is about 10 calories per ounce for boneless skinless,
    Raw, 44
    Cooked, 34
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    The nutrient levels will sometimes change when a vegetable is cooked. Has to do with the heating process I believe kills somethings but enhances others. That is why it is recommended to eat raw and cooked vegetables.
  • janeybees
    janeybees Posts: 19 Member
    Thanks everyone, clearer now
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. First of all, you have to accept that the calorie numbers on food are not exact numbers for how much energy we absorb. They are estimations.

    Cooking does in fact increase the amount of calories that our bodies can absorb from food. It does not affect the "Atwater" calorie numbers (that is, how calories are calculated for the purposes of labeling on packages). So if you took a piece of steak that was calculated to be 100 calories raw, it would still be calculated to be 100 calories after cooking it. However, in reality you'd be absorbing more calories from the cooked version. How much more is variable.

    To confuse matters even more, cooking changes weight too. Fortunately that actually is helpful in the this situation b/c it offsets the increased absorption of calories from cooking.
  • ahamm002
    ahamm002 Posts: 1,690 Member
    janeybees wrote: »
    Ok, that makes sense...got all in a muddle after coming across this
    http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy/&sa=U&ei=eUA5VfGpMIvbarLJgJgG&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHV3FGEWMSUkBiMQxH8NY4Nl3lCuA

    The whole starch being more caloric when cooked freaked me out!

    That is a good but confusing link. Here is another link that comments on the one you posted and explains things more clearly:
    http://www.curiousread.com/2009/07/calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are.html
This discussion has been closed.

Categories