Eggs

lizliotti
lizliotti Posts: 1 Member
edited November 29 in Food and Nutrition
Does anyone know why fried eggs in Pam are zero calories but hard boiled eggs are not?

Replies

  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,979 Member
    Since this is a crowd-sourced database, you have to be cautious about entries. Many are entered wrong or simply outdated and some foods vary by region/country. Double check entries against labels and use the USDA database for whole foods. You can add "usda" to your search and/or use the website directly: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Because fried eggs in Pam are not 0 calories. They are the same calories as however many eggs and however much Pam. Better to log separately like that with the USDA entries or checking information on packages and not to trust all entries, many of which are sketchy.
  • PurpleSparkles85
    PurpleSparkles85 Posts: 44 Member
    Wonder if someone from WW posted it. They are not counted on the new program, like chicken isn’t.
  • missysippy930
    missysippy930 Posts: 2,577 Member
    Everything has calories except water, herbs and spices have calories, but it’s a negligible amount. Eggs fried in Pam would have a few more calories than hard boiled eggs. Don’t trust the database, especially if it shows zero calories.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    They used to say that eggs had zero calories because it took more to digst them than they yielded in calories. Probably Urban Myth.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    A note on cooking sprays learned the hard way from someone who had a small calorie allowance at one point:

    Pam has 9 calories per gram. Some people have a heavy hand with it, and if they want to track it, they can weigh the can before and after using so they know exactly how many calories they're adding to their food. It can add up if you're making free use of it.
  • nicsflyingcircus
    nicsflyingcircus Posts: 2,894 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    A note on cooking sprays learned the hard way from someone who had a small calorie allowance at one point:

    Pam has 9 calories per gram. Some people have a heavy hand with it, and if they want to track it, they can weigh the can before and after using so they know exactly how many calories they're adding to their food. It can add up if you're making free use of it.

    If I am using Pam (or similar product) I slap my pan on the scale, spray and see how many grams I got. I never thought to just weigh the can, lol
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    A note on cooking sprays learned the hard way from someone who had a small calorie allowance at one point:

    Pam has 9 calories per gram. Some people have a heavy hand with it, and if they want to track it, they can weigh the can before and after using so they know exactly how many calories they're adding to their food. It can add up if you're making free use of it.

    I can't believe I never thought of this.

    Now I don't have an excuse not to weigh my Pam anymore.

    I still probably won't weigh it, though, since I'm in maintenance. But folks who have a small deficit and are struggling should definitely do this if they use a lot of Pam!
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    A note on cooking sprays learned the hard way from someone who had a small calorie allowance at one point:

    Pam has 9 calories per gram. Some people have a heavy hand with it, and if they want to track it, they can weigh the can before and after using so they know exactly how many calories they're adding to their food. It can add up if you're making free use of it.

    I used to put the can on the scale, tare, spray, and put back on the scale. Negative number = grams used. I found that each second of spray is about 1 gram, so that's how I count it now.
  • pinggolfer96
    pinggolfer96 Posts: 2,248 Member
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    They used to say that eggs had zero calories because it took more to digst them than they yielded in calories. Probably Urban Myth.


    Yup, no such thing as a negative calorie food....not even celery
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited November 2018
    pinggolfer96 wrote: »
    apullum wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    A note on cooking sprays learned the hard way from someone who had a small calorie allowance at one point:

    Pam has 9 calories per gram. Some people have a heavy hand with it, and if they want to track it, they can weigh the can before and after using so they know exactly how many calories they're adding to their food. It can add up if you're making free use of it.

    I can't believe I never thought of this.

    Now I don't have an excuse not to weigh my Pam anymore.

    I still probably won't weigh it, though, since I'm in maintenance. But folks who have a small deficit and are struggling should definitely do this if they use a lot of Pam!

    Things like this I don’t weigh since they stay constant in my diet. Getting too fixated on something like this ends up being more unhealthy mentally in the long run. I choose not to track aminos i add to my pre in raw form, bcaas, seasonings, crystal light....etc because their minute calories are a constant whether I’m in a deficit or a surplus

    You likely have more calories to play with, though, and have never been in the petite woman club!

    I do remember one time a poster was liberally spraying butter flavored spray all over her vegetables and not counting it because it was "zero calorie" on the label. She was on 1200 calories and was going crazy with the stuff and was wondering why she was having trouble losing weight.

    She was wiping out a 250 calorie deficit by not carefully counting calories, and her not counting things like her liberal use of the butter flavored spray (up to 100 calories of the stuff!) contributed to that.

    For some people, this stuff matters.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories