Why does Basmati rice have so many calories?
dave_in_ni
Posts: 533 Member
I generally eat brown rice, never been a lover but its supposedly better for you so just have always ate it. Came across a post on Instagram saying about white and brown rice and there wasn't much difference bar fibre content and I do like white rice so went out and bought some at the weekend. Just had a shock when I go to enter it into MFP.
My typical brown basmati rice, 56g = 66 calories
White 52g = 186 calories
Nearly 3 times the amount of calories, I thought that can't be right but it is. The rice in question. https://bit.ly/2HlgGkj Why is this? I think I am gonna have to bin this, I can't justify the calories.
My typical brown basmati rice, 56g = 66 calories
White 52g = 186 calories
Nearly 3 times the amount of calories, I thought that can't be right but it is. The rice in question. https://bit.ly/2HlgGkj Why is this? I think I am gonna have to bin this, I can't justify the calories.
2
Replies
-
Don't know where you got the calorie content for your brown basmati, but it is dead wrong. The white looks correct though. There is very little difference in the calorie content of brown vs white rice, be it Jasmine, Basmati, long grain, etc.33
-
Fatty_Nuff wrote: »Don't know where you got the calorie content for your brown basmati, but it is dead wrong. The white looks correct though. There is very little difference in the calorie content of brown vs white rice, be it Jasmine, Basmati, long grain, etc.
It can't be wrong, I've been eating various brands of brown rice almost daily for 3 years, I take 50g always under 100cals10 -
Your brown rice may have the calories per gram of cooked rice (about 1-1.3 calories per gram is typical for any rice cooked without fat), while the white might have it per gram of uncooked. Cooking adds weight from water without adding calories, so calorie density goes down. All types of rice are more or less close in calorie density if prepared the same way.22
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »Fatty_Nuff wrote: »Don't know where you got the calorie content for your brown basmati, but it is dead wrong. The white looks correct though. There is very little difference in the calorie content of brown vs white rice, be it Jasmine, Basmati, long grain, etc.
It can't be wrong, I've been eating various brands of brown rice almost daily for 3 years, I take 50g always under 100cals
Here is a similar brand in brown basmati 60 grams dry =211 calories
https://bit.ly/2RWXhKN7 -
Ok this is a head *kitten* now. Here is a screen shot old Vs new https://imgur.com/a/IYLO7RJ I scanned from bar code2
-
I now see my error, brown is coming as cooked white not cooked, I've now been under counting for years it seems41
-
That's not a bad thing if you look at it sideways. This means your TDEE is a little bit higher than your previous data indicates!13
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »That's not a bad thing if you look at it sideways. This means your TDEE is a little bit higher than your previous data indicates!
Yes but this has annoyed me. Nearly all foods show as uncooked, why is rice different?2 -
I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked4
-
Yes, it can be annoying, which is why I tried to lighten it up. Basically, the reason is: manufacturers suck sometimes. Always make sure to read the label carefully for things that need to be cooked, you may discover some other items you've been undercounting. Personally, I have not seen any rice that had the info for cooked, it's always for dry. I have to use official databases when I want to weigh cooked rice. So, it's your manufacturer, not rice in general. Same goes for some types of pasta, I remember someone mention labels for cooked pasta which is odd and I have never seen it in person.8
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
weigh uncooked, log uncooked, weigh cooked, log cooked....16 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.14 -
Brown rice: 214 cal/125 gram serving
https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/360351/woolworths-select-microwave-brown-rice
Basmati rice: 184 cal/125 gram serving
https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/360348/woolworths-microwave-basmati-rice-basmati-rice
Potato (boiled): 87 cal/100 grams = 109 cal/125 grams
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2556/2
Potato, baked, flesh and skin, without salt: 93 cal/100 grams = 116 cal/125 grams
https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2770/2
I eat all these, as desired.
8 -
Check all your foods in something like the USDA Nutrient Database or Canadian Nutrient File (websites free online) whenever possible. It's the easiest way to be sure that you are logging the right nutrition info.5
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »Ok this is a head *kitten* now. Here is a screen shot old Vs new https://imgur.com/a/IYLO7RJ I scanned from bar code
Not sure in this case, but what sometimes trips people up is thinking that scanning from barcode is more accurate, calorie-wise. Unfortunately, it isn't.
Bar code is still just pulling up user-entered data from MFP's crowd-sourced database, so we still have to check carefully on first use. Once we've got a checked entry in recent/frequent foods, use it from there rather than scanning.12 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »That's not a bad thing if you look at it sideways. This means your TDEE is a little bit higher than your previous data indicates!
Yes but this has annoyed me. Nearly all foods show as uncooked, why is rice different?
This might not be true depending on where you shop. Almost all groceries from Sainsbury's have labels for cooked.0 -
Fatty_Nuff wrote: »Don't know where you got the calorie content for your brown basmati, but it is dead wrong. The white looks correct though. There is very little difference in the calorie content of brown vs white rice, be it Jasmine, Basmati, long grain, etc.
I was actually thinking it was the white rice in the OP that looked off. The brown looks closer to correct.
0 -
The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.8
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Were you losing weight over the past 3 years?4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.9 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Were you losing weight over the past 3 years?
No. First 6 months, rest I maintained2 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.
These do come with weight, that's why I use them. They're USDA entries, they're just displayed in search in cups but have dropdowns in 100 grams.17 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
The good (USDA) entries for potatoes (and all foods) do specify cooked or not.
On packages, it's typically uncooked unless it says otherwise.
Scanning the bar code brings up whatever the person who created it put in, so isn't especially reliable unless you double-check it.7 -
The barcode scanner is nothing more than a false sense of security. If an entry seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you are unsure, you can always double-check online. The USDA site is a great resource, as mentioned. I use it all the time.5
-
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Well, considering that you've also been thinking you maintain on fewer calories than people have told you you likely do, it's not surprising. Depending on how often you eat rice, this could be part of the reason behind that discrepancy.
As far as potatoes -- it's simple. Look for either the cooked or uncooked version, depending on what you're making and eating. I prefer the uncooked entry, since I do my weighing when I prep my meal to cook, and not when I plate to serve.6 -
dave_in_ni wrote: »The problem is a lot of foods give you the nutritional info but dont say if it's cooked or not. Potatoes are a prime example. As for rice I'm giving up on it, my only real reason for eating it was low calorie and now it's not, still can't believe I've been tracking that wrong for 3 years.
Why are you giving up on it? Has your weight progress been what you wanted it to be for the past three years? If you have been reaching your goals then there is no problem. If you haven't been reaching your goals then just adjust the amount you eat. Brown rice is filling and is a great addition to an overall healthy diet.4 -
How much have you been off with the incorrect entry? 120 calories a day should not be large enough to maintain if your deficit is .5lb/week or higher. The .5lb deficit is -250 below your maintenance. So not a large deficit but enough that’d you still lose a bit.0
-
Completely get the shock after all this time, especially when it was your primary motivation for eating it in the first place! However, there’s a silver lining here, which is pretty rad if you think about it.0
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »dave_in_ni wrote: »I think I'll go back to potatoes, I only ate rice as I thought it was low cal, are potatoes measured cooked or uncooked
Potatoes are not that far from rice in calories if we're talking cooked, no fat. They're only like 30 or so calories lower or less per 100 grams cooked. When you feel like eating potatoes, eat potatoes, when you feel like eating rice, eat rice. 30 or 40 calories shouldn't be what decides what you eat.
As for logging, when you log any food on the planet, if you're weighing it uncooked, log it as uncooked. If you're weighing it cooked, log it as cooked. Find the corresponding database entry to the state of your food (cooked/uncooked). Personally, I like weighing everything raw when possible.
ETA to add an example:
If I weigh my potatoes after baking, this is the entry I would use
If I weigh them before baking, this is the entry I would use
The difference for potatoes is not that large, but it's good practice to do this for all foods because for some foods the difference is huge.
Personally, I would not use either of those entries as they will not be accurate. You should ideally use entries that come in weight rather than cups or as a pice, slice etc. I would also check whether this weight corresponded with the USDA database for the ingredient.
Actually, both of those entries are very good entries. They're examples of the old-school ones with USDA syntax. If you look them up, there are a boatload of different serving sizes in the drop-down, including 100g.
Most of the "best" entries, the ones of this type, are noticeable by that USDA syntax (after a while you get a feel for their bureaucratic style and just recognize it), and most often the default serving size - like the ones showing in the list in the screen grab - are often in cups. The other serving sizes are normally there, including grams, plus things that are useful for estimating (for restaurant food, say) like different sizes (by inch) of potatoes.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions