Serving size question?

Options
hellooo..
Okay so heres a stupid question.. but Im still baffled. ;~;
So Ive seen before bags of rice that say calories for "uncooked" rice.
e.g. 1 cup of uncooked rice = 250 calories.
who the heck eats rice uncooked...

Okay so If I have 1 cup of uncooked rice and it makes like 2-3 cups of cooked rice..
Can I still eat all that (3 cups cooked) and its still 250 calories?
Does calorie content increase after its cooked? It just seems to good to be true..

Same with my kroger generic steel cut oats.
it says 0.5 cup of "uncooked" oats = 150 calories.
But when I cook that amount.. its like 2 full cups cooked.
???

Replies

  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    As long as you don't put anything with Calories in it - such as butter, or whatever else you'd use for flavoring - yes.

    eta: The below posters are correct, though. Weighing on a food scale will likely be more accurate than using a measuring cup. That said, it still holds - whatever you weigh out will have the same Calorie content (provided it's cooked in water and not added to) will have the posted Calorie count.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,564 Member
    Options
    They say uncooked because after you cook it there's a large variance in the size of the serving, as it's hard to say how much water the rice or oats absorbed during cooking.

    Truthfully, it will probably be more calories as you're measuring the item instead of weighing, which is more accurate.
  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    hellooo..
    Okay so heres a stupid question.. but Im still baffled. ;~;
    So Ive seen before bags of rice that say calories for "uncooked" rice.
    e.g. 1 cup of uncooked rice = 250 calories.
    who the heck eats rice uncooked...

    Okay so If I have 1 cup of uncooked rice and it makes like 2-3 cups of cooked rice..
    Can I still eat all that (3 cups cooked) and its still 250 calories?
    Does calorie content increase after its cooked? It just seems to good to be true..

    Same with my kroger generic steel cut oats.
    it says 0.5 cup of "uncooked" oats = 150 calories.
    But when I cook that amount.. its like 2 full cups cooked.
    ???

    Yep--but I'd recommend getting a food scale and weighing it out rather than measuring.
  • ShrinkinMel
    ShrinkinMel Posts: 982 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    It's because rice and pasta expands as cooked people measure dry before cooking. You can measure either but I'd be sure you are consistent with what you track on here. So, for example, if you eat 1 cup cooked don't chose the 1 cup dry measurement on the database which would obviously be more calories than you ate since you know 1 cup dry cooks into 2-3 cups. Just example not saying everyone should eat 1 cup. ;) But yes if you pick 1 cup dry rice and it makes 2-3 cooked then you should be good at the calories for the 1 cup dry. I think it has both options for good reason. Like say I'll cook say 2 cups dry but I don't eat all that its for the family so I will sometimes measure 1 cup cooked and then I'd want the cooked 1 cup option from the database so I'm not putting in more calories than I actually had.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,034 Member
    Options
    My rice says a serving is 1/4 cup uncooked, which is 180 calories. I eat 75 grams of cooked rice, which is 107 calories. This is supposed to be 1/2 cup cooked, but who knows how tightly you are supposed to pack the rice in the cup. Using a digital food scale eliminates that issue.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    That's why you weigh dry.
  • accioavocado
    accioavocado Posts: 13 Member
    Options
    ahh thank you guys :> Maybe ill play it safe and just measure the cooked amount as that serving size calories.
  • Queenmunchy
    Queenmunchy Posts: 3,380 Member
    Options
    ahh thank you guys :> Maybe ill play it safe and just measure the cooked amount as that serving size calories.

    The opposite is what you would wan to do. Weigh it dry in grams and log that. If you add other things like butter, weigh that and log that too.
  • MorganMoreaux
    MorganMoreaux Posts: 691 Member
    Options
    ahh thank you guys :> Maybe ill play it safe and just measure the cooked amount as that serving size calories.

    That's not playing it safe, that's actually increasing your margin of error as many of those foods absorb water, and not every individual piece is going to absorb water evenly so if you try weighing it cooked you can't determine the weight from water versus the weight from the food item to determine calories. Weigh it dry and then cook it - that's the only way to know for certain how much you are truly eating. It's not difficult and if you're going to take the time to do it you might as well do it correctly. Don't over think it. Good luck on your journey!
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,223 Member
    Options
    ahh thank you guys :> Maybe ill play it safe and just measure the cooked amount as that serving size calories.

    Wanted to also say that this is not playing it safe. This is making your calorie count even more incorrect. Weigh it dry. Cook it. If you cooked it in just water, the finally cooked amount is the exact same amount of calories regardless of the volume increase because water has zero calories. The only way the cooked amount would increase in calories is if you used broth or added butter, etc.
  • bekim123
    bekim123 Posts: 391 Member
    Options
    Reading this I learned something new today...
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    Options
    You can do either.

    Just make sure you use the right entry in the database. You will find entries for pasta, rice, chicken, meat, veggies etc both raw and cooked, just pick the appropriate one.

    While I agree that you are probably going to get a more accurate estimate if you weight things raw, this isn't always possible (leftovers, cooked chook etc) and I find the cooked entries work just fine for me.