Those calories seem wrong. What do you think?

Steins_Gate
Steins_Gate Posts: 9 Member
edited November 28 in Food and Nutrition
https://victoriouseating.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/p1010330.jpg

For cooked rice noodles:
Serving size: 2 oz
Cals 270
0f
65c
2p

There's no way 2 ounce of cooked rice noodles can contain 270 cals? I ate some pho today and took it to go. Measured the cooked noodles and it was 9.3 oz. No way I ate +1200 calories of noodles, trust me I would know. lol

Replies

  • ValerieMartini2Olives
    ValerieMartini2Olives Posts: 3,024 Member
    You weigh noodles dry. Not after cooking.
  • Steins_Gate
    Steins_Gate Posts: 9 Member
    edited January 2016
    ValerieMartini2Olives wrote: »
    You weigh noodles dry. Not after cooking.

    There is no dry weight for those noodles. The picture I posted and macros are for the cooked noodles.
  • Stuart107
    Stuart107 Posts: 17 Member
    edited January 2016
    I suspect it might be a actually be right... USDA (http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6584?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=rice+noodles) gives 109 kcal / 100g (61 kcal / 56g).

    Edit: Not a kcal/kJ mixup as I thought :)
  • OyGeeBiv
    OyGeeBiv Posts: 733 Member
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5790/2
    176 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice noodles is 192.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5722/2
    174 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice is 169.

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    64crayons wrote: »
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5790/2
    176 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice noodles is 192.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5722/2
    174 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice is 169.

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.

    From the same site 1 oz of cooked rice noodles are shown as 31 cals
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,337 Member
    Looking at the picture you posted, I can't see anywhere that it says cooked. In fact if your divide the 907g package size (which would be dry) by the serving size of 56g, you get the 16 servings they say you should. That all makes me think that the 270 calories is for 56g dry.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5789/2

    2 oz serving of uncooked rice noodles on this site show as 208 calories so definitely looks like calories for uncooked noodles
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    When it doesn't specify, it's always dry/raw.
  • OyGeeBiv
    OyGeeBiv Posts: 733 Member
    ChrisM8971 wrote: »
    64crayons wrote: »
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5790/2
    176 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice noodles is 192.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5722/2
    174 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice is 169.

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.

    From the same site 1 oz of cooked rice noodles are shown as 31 cals

    1 ounce = 28.34 g

    Above it's showing a serving of 176 grams, which is ~ 6.28 ounces

    31 cal/ounce x 6.28 ounces = 194 calories

    It's only different by a few calories
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    64crayons wrote: »
    ChrisM8971 wrote: »
    64crayons wrote: »
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5790/2
    176 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice noodles is 192.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5722/2
    174 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice is 169.

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.

    From the same site 1 oz of cooked rice noodles are shown as 31 cals

    1 ounce = 28.34 g

    Above it's showing a serving of 176 grams, which is ~ 6.28 ounces

    31 cal/ounce x 6.28 ounces = 194 calories

    It's only different by a few calories

    Just to clarify I wasn't questioning your numbers but giving the 1 oz value so the OP could more readily calculate the calories for is portion size
  • OyGeeBiv
    OyGeeBiv Posts: 733 Member
    ChrisM8971 wrote: »
    64crayons wrote: »
    ChrisM8971 wrote: »
    64crayons wrote: »
    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5790/2
    176 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice noodles is 192.

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5722/2
    174 grams (1 cup) of COOKED rice is 169.

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.

    From the same site 1 oz of cooked rice noodles are shown as 31 cals

    1 ounce = 28.34 g

    Above it's showing a serving of 176 grams, which is ~ 6.28 ounces

    31 cal/ounce x 6.28 ounces = 194 calories

    It's only different by a few calories

    Just to clarify I wasn't questioning your numbers but giving the 1 oz value so the OP could more readily calculate the calories for is portion size

    Oh, no problem :smile: I did the math so it's easy for anyone to see that your numbers and mine (really - the website's) are essentially the same no matter how you slice it. Now, I want noodles! I may just have to stop off and get some pho on my way home. YUM.
  • Steins_Gate
    Steins_Gate Posts: 9 Member
    The picture posted is for cooked noodles. Cooked rice noodles come in those packages.
  • ValerieMartini2Olives
    ValerieMartini2Olives Posts: 3,024 Member
    56g is a pretty standard size for dry noodles. You are to weigh the noodles dry to get the proper calorie count. Noodles absorb a ton of water when cooking so they will be significantly heavier than when they are dry.
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Steins_Gate wrote: »
    The picture posted is for cooked noodles. Cooked rice noodles come in those packages.

    If that is the case then unless each noodle has a pure fat centre then the calories shown on that label are not correct!
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,337 Member
    Steins_Gate wrote: »
    The picture posted is for cooked noodles. Cooked rice noodles come in those packages.

    So are they precooked or dry in the package?
  • Steins_Gate
    Steins_Gate Posts: 9 Member
    rileysowner wrote: »
    Steins_Gate wrote: »
    The picture posted is for cooked noodles. Cooked rice noodles come in those packages.

    So are they precooked or dry in the package?

    they already come cooked in the package
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Ok lets look at the numbers, the 2 oz serving is 56 g so if the composition of those noodles were 100% carbs (forget that the label says they contain a little protein because the calories per gram is the same) then the calories would be 56g x 4 calories = 224 calories. 270 is high even on that basis and if cooked those noodles must contain some calorie free water, so the packaging is wrong!
  • litsy3
    litsy3 Posts: 783 Member
    It looks like they've just stuck the standard label for the dried product onto the package of cooked noodles. 56g is about the amount of dry noodles you would cook to make a normal-sized serving.
  • joniboyce20gmailcom2015
    joniboyce20gmailcom2015 Posts: 1 Member
    O p
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,098 Member
    64crayons wrote: »

    Using "ounces" for measurements can be very confusing, because you don't really know if they're using dry or wet ounces (meaning 16 ounces in a pound, or 8 ounces in a cup). They're not interchangeable. You're better off using grams.

    Not disagreeing, just expanding, because I see a lot of confusion about this on these boards.

    The correct abbreviation for what you call wet ounces (that is, fluid ounces) is fl. oz., not oz. Fluid ounce is a measure of volume, not of mass. And if the package label or other source of nutrition information is only in fluid ounces, the user is pretty much forced to use that, or some other measure of volume. You can convert fluid ounces to milliliters (although I think the number of milliliters in a fluid ounce differs slightly from one English-speaking country to another, since the U.S. cup is 240 ml, and hence a fluid ounce is 30 ml, but I've seen references from users in other countries to 250 ml cups, which gives you a 31.25 ml fluid ounce). You can't convert fluid ounces (volume measure) to grams (mass/weight), unless you somehow happen to know the specific gravity of the food (or want to determine it experimentally in your kitchen, which doesn't seem very practical).
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    2 oz. = approx. 56grams. There's no way something can weigh 56 grams but contain 67 grams of macros. There's got to be a typo in the nutritional info.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories