Dry/Cooked Beans

Options
rwkling1
rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi everyone,

I've been getting into cooking my own beans lately, but I keep getting confused. I purchase a bag of pinto/black beans and I'm curious why I keep coming up with incorrect nutrition. Here are the nutritional facts for the black beans:

(Market Pantry Black Beans (dry))
Serving Size 1/4 (36g) dry
Servings per container about 12

Calories 70
Total Fat 0g
Total Carbohydrate 23g
Dietary Fiber 15g
Insoluable Fiber 14g
Protein 9g


So I weighed all of the beans (1LB bag) and it had 434g of dry beans in it (or 12.055 servings). This is where I get confused. After I cooked the beans, the 1LB bag (12.055 servings) gave me 6.25 Cups of cooked beans. Dividing the total 12.055 servings/6.25 cups, I get that each cup of cooked beans has 1.9288 servings of beans, giving me 135 calories. I looked online, and almost anywhere I look I find that a cup of beans has around 227 calories. Why is there such a difference? Am I looking at this all wrong?

Thanks to anyone who helps.
«1

Replies

  • raquele3394
    raquele3394 Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    Not sure but I would go with 227 calories per cup. I think 135 calories might be 1/2 cup cooked.
  • Derf_Smeggle
    Derf_Smeggle Posts: 611 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    So, beans are a solid. Cups are a liquid measurement. Liquid measurements for beans as a solid are inaccurate because beans absorb a huge difference in water depending on how long you cook them. Grams are a measurement of mass, and you should stick with them for solids, such as beans, rice, cereal, vegetables, fruits, meat, etc.

    You need the weight of the cooked beans, and then you could divide that by 12 to get your serving size weight cooked.

    Alternatively, you can divide the total uncooked weight by the total cooked weight to get a fractional multiplier.
    Example: 434g uncooked ÷ 868g cooked = .5

    Then dish up and weigh what what you want to eat, multiple by that fractional number for what your weight would have been uncooked.
    Example: 100g cooked × .5 = 50g uncooked
    then 50g ÷ 43g = 1.16 servings
    then 70 calories × 1.16 = 81 calories (rounded)



    P.S. - 434g does not equal 1 pound. 454g rounded to a whole number does.

  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    Thanks for the replies, to comment first, it's a 1 LB bag, but when I measured the dry beans it was 434g. Their label is never correct which is why you measure it rather than trust the amount of servings on the nutritional label.

    I weighed all of my beans after cooking and they all totaled up to 1,108g. So 12.055 servings of black beans creates 1,108g of cooked beans. Meaning (for the way I cooked my beans), there's 92.14g of cooked beans per serving. Out of curiosity, I dumped my beans into a measuring cup zeroed out on a scale, and it turned out to be 180g when I filled it level. I appreciate the responses but I'm still so confused. Somehow a cup of beans has 2 servings (140 calories) which seems way too low.

  • DaintyWhisper
    DaintyWhisper Posts: 221 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    It seems like you figured the math part out already. I did look online and the calories do seem a little low compared to a few sites. As for which is correct, I really don't know. :s I don't often eat beans so I'm not too familiar with its calories. I would personally go by what's on the label because it's for that product specifically. Try not to worry too much about all the other numbers online!

    I looked at can of black beans to compare calories.
    You're 92g of cooked beans = 70 calories
    70 ÷ 92 = 0.76 calories in each gram

    https://wedishnutrition.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/photo-54.jpg
    On this can of black beans:
    130g of beans = 100 calories
    100g ÷130 = 0.77 calories in each gram.

    It seems to match up well if you do it that way. Hope this helps somewhat!



  • musicfan68
    musicfan68 Posts: 1,126 Member
    Options
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, I dumped my beans into a measuring cup zeroed out on a scale, and it turned out to be 180g when I filled it level. I appreciate the responses but I'm still so confused. Somehow a cup of beans has 2 servings (140 calories) which seems way too low.

    That's why you WEIGH them, and not measure them in cups. This is where serving sizes are irrelevant, and grams are relevant.
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    I understand that... but what confuses me is the 87 calorie per cup difference? I could understand 10-30 calories, but 87 calorie difference in one cup? Dang.
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    And comparing them to canned beans is difficult, the serving sizes on canned beans includes the liquid :/ I did that before with a can of beans and they include the excess fluid in the servings
  • musicfan68
    musicfan68 Posts: 1,126 Member
    Options
    According to the USDA listing for cooked beans, 100 g is 132 calories, so 180 is about 240 calories.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,997 Member
    Options
    I eat a lot of dried/cooked-myself beans. Daily, as a matter of fact.

    I weigh the beans before cooking and after without the water and portion them accordingly. So far it has been fine as far as my weight. Just enter a recipe or mark the top of your storage container. I tend to cook four portions at a time, portion them into two portions per container and then freeze one container. The weights do vary slightly after cooking, but it's close enough.
  • raquele3394
    raquele3394 Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I eat a lot of dried/cooked-myself beans. Daily, as a matter of fact.

    I weigh the beans before cooking and after without the water and portion them accordingly. So far it has been fine as far as my weight. Just enter a recipe or mark the top of your storage container. I tend to cook four portions at a time, portion them into two portions per container and then freeze one container. The weights do vary slightly after cooking, but it's close enough.

    That is a good idea!!
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,997 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?

    135 per uncooked portion weight (or whatever the package says for uncooked calories - beans vary depending on the type.) Then weigh your own cooked beans to see how much that particular batch weighs. If you cook four portions at one time, weigh the entire batch after cooking and divide by four. The added weight is just water and how much they have absorbed.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?

    It's 227 per cup. The reason for the discrepancy is the insoluble fiber. If you look at the original label, they say it's 70 calories/serving but the details show 23g carbs and 9g protein which at 4cals/g would be 128 calories (32x4). That's a 58 cals/serving difference stemming from them subtracting the insoluble fiber (listed as 14g/serving). 58cals/14g is 4.14cals/g.

    From what I've read, insoluble fiber calories are 2 cals/g, which is sneaky of them to subtract 4 cals/g, thereby understating the cals/serving even more, but those are details.

    Moral of the story is - Some labels exclude calories from insoluble fiber so when in doubt, add the total carbs, proteins and fats and see if the math adds up to the stated cals/serving, to verify.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,997 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?

    It's 227 per cup. The reason for the discrepancy is the insoluble fiber. If you look at the original label, they say it's 70 calories/serving but the details show 23g carbs and 9g protein which at 4cals/g would be 128 calories (32x4). That's a 58 calorie difference stemming from them subtracting the insoluble fiber (listed as 14g/serving). 58cals/14g is 4.14cals/g.

    From what I've read, insoluble fiber calories are 2 cals/g, which is sneaky of them to subtract 4 cals/g, thereby understating the cals/serving even more, but those are details.

    Moral of the story is - Some labels exclude calories from insoluble fiber so when in doubt, add the total carbs, proteins and fats and see if the math adds up to the stated cals/serving, to verify.

    In the US they don't subtract out the fiber. I'm standing by my answer as fiber doesn't affect calories on US products in 2017.
    135 calories per 35g (or per package serving) dry weight.
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?

    It's 227 per cup. The reason for the discrepancy is the insoluble fiber. If you look at the original label, they say it's 70 calories/serving but the details show 23g carbs and 9g protein which at 4cals/g would be 128 calories (32x4). That's a 58 calorie difference stemming from them subtracting the insoluble fiber (listed as 14g/serving). 58cals/14g is 4.14cals/g.

    From what I've read, insoluble fiber calories are 2 cals/g, which is sneaky of them to subtract 4 cals/g, thereby understating the cals/serving even more, but those are details.

    Moral of the story is - Some labels exclude calories from insoluble fiber so when in doubt, add the total carbs, proteins and fats and see if the math adds up to the stated cals/serving, to verify.

    In the US they don't subtract out the fiber. I'm standing by my answer as fiber doesn't affect calories on US products in 2017.
    135 calories per 35g(+/-) dry weight.

    She already did the math on cooked vs raw. That's not where the problem lies. She took 1.9288 servings x 70cals/serving and got 135cals. If she were to use the 128 calories/serving (which doesn't exclude insoluble fiber), she would end up with 1.9288 x 128 = ~ 247 calories. And that would only be a 20 calorie difference (from 227/cup), which is acceptable.
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    So the true question then is: does fiber/insoluble fiber contain calories?

    PS: She is a he
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    http://www.nutritionmyths.com/how-many-calories-in-fiber/

    Really quick also, here's an interesting article. It sort of supports what Traveler120 is saying.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,997 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    But does that mean it's ~135 calories per cup or ~227 calories per cup?

    It's 227 per cup. The reason for the discrepancy is the insoluble fiber. If you look at the original label, they say it's 70 calories/serving but the details show 23g carbs and 9g protein which at 4cals/g would be 128 calories (32x4). That's a 58 calorie difference stemming from them subtracting the insoluble fiber (listed as 14g/serving). 58cals/14g is 4.14cals/g.

    From what I've read, insoluble fiber calories are 2 cals/g, which is sneaky of them to subtract 4 cals/g, thereby understating the cals/serving even more, but those are details.

    Moral of the story is - Some labels exclude calories from insoluble fiber so when in doubt, add the total carbs, proteins and fats and see if the math adds up to the stated cals/serving, to verify.

    In the US they don't subtract out the fiber. I'm standing by my answer as fiber doesn't affect calories on US products in 2017.
    135 calories per 35g(+/-) dry weight.

    She already did the math on cooked vs raw. That's not where the problem lies. She took 1.9288 servings x 70cals/serving and got 135cals. If she were to use the 128 calories/serving (which doesn't exclude insoluble fiber), she would end up with 1.9288 x 128 = ~ 247 calories. And that would only be a 20 calorie difference (from 227/cup), which is acceptable.

    Right. 20 calories is within the range of acceptable error per packaging guidelines - fiber or not. 100 calories isn't. :smile:
  • Traveler120
    Traveler120 Posts: 712 Member
    edited June 2017
    Options
    rwkling1 wrote: »
    So the true question then is: does fiber/insoluble fiber contain calories?

    PS: She is a he

    Oops, sorry!

    According to https://fiberfacts.org/fibers-count-calories-carbohydrates/, they say:
    " The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that fibers fermented by bacteria provide about 2 calories per gram of fiber. Insoluble fibers travel to the intestine with very little change. Instead of being digested, insoluble fibers increase bulk, soften stool, and shorten transit time through the gastro-intestinal tract. Because these fibers are not digested at all, the FDA estimates that insoluble fibers do not contribute any calories."
  • rwkling1
    rwkling1 Posts: 8 Member
    Options
    All good! I appreciate all the help - So, my last question is, I have seen online that fiber has no calories (quoted by Traveler 120), but I've also seen that fiber/insoluble fiber has 2cal/g. Thoughts?

Categories