Stupid question

cloneme_losehalf
cloneme_losehalf Posts: 356 Member
edited October 3 in Food and Nutrition
I was logging my lunch today. Two Boca Burgers flame grilled, green pepper, medium onion, worchestershire sauce and cayenne pepper. Now with that said, I sprayed a little olive oil cooking spray on my grill pan (it says 0 calories on the can), cooked the veggies with the worchestershire and cayenne and when they were about done added the burgers. That's it. I come to the computer to log it and a grilled onion is 130 some calories??????????????????? One burger is only 120 calories. Does anyone know there is a different way I should have logged the onion??? is it higher than a raw onion because sugars come out??? Ideas anyone???

Replies

  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    Sounds a bit high for grilled onion - was that for one cup? Have a look on the database for other entries, most things are in loads of times....
  • _SusieQ_
    _SusieQ_ Posts: 2,964 Member
    I went to another site to confirm, this is what I found:
    http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-fresh-or-dried-vegetables-onions-all-types-raw-edible-portion_f-ZmlkPTcwOTUw.html
    Even a large onion is just 63 calories, a medium is 46. I would delete that one you picked and try again. :)
  • cloneme_losehalf
    cloneme_losehalf Posts: 356 Member
    I didn't measure... I just used the whole medium onion. Never thought it or the pepper would be that big of an issue on calories. I am just shocked that the onion is more than the burger!!!
  • Jorra
    Jorra Posts: 3,338 Member
    The person who entered the grilled onion into the database probably used oil that has calories. (Meaning not a spray, but a measurable amount of oil) I always enter raw values because you never know how the person prepared the food before entering it into the database!
  • techymum
    techymum Posts: 168
    I wonder if the grilled onion that you were looking at was including a fat component. Maybe whomever had added it in, had added, say 1 or 2 tablespoons of butter to cook it. That's all I can think. I would go back, and add it in as a raw vegetable.
  • teamsaris
    teamsaris Posts: 30
    That seems CRAZY high. I would make sure that the entry is correct...perhaps the person who entered it used butter to cook the onions?

    Check out this web page for more info on cooked onions :)

    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_calories_in_cooked_onion

    Hope this helps!!!

    p.s. your post made me hungry ;)
  • somerreese
    somerreese Posts: 25
    I'm thinking the grilled onion that is 130 calories is grilled in butter or actual oil - not pam or whatever 0 calorie cooking spray you used - that would raise the calorie count.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    I didn't measure... I just used the whole medium onion. Never thought it or the pepper would be that big of an issue on calories. I am just shocked that the onion is more than the burger!!!

    It is not more than the burger. Most food entries are done by users, this "onion" may have been cooked with oil and what not. Try finding another onion in the database. and grilling it, if you did not add any oil, will not add more calories. so you could go with raw as the caloric content would be the same.
  • cloneme_losehalf
    cloneme_losehalf Posts: 356 Member
    I don't mind having it listed as the higher calories. LOL! I just about hit the floor when I saw it came up more calories than the burger! 46 calories is what I was told for a raw onion. That's why I wondered if cooking it changed it. Maybe the 130 was grilled with butter some kind of oil???

    Thanks for your help!
  • pa_jorg
    pa_jorg Posts: 4,404 Member
    The person who entered the grilled onion into the database probably used oil that has calories. (Meaning not a spray, but a measurable amount of oil) I always enter raw values because you never know how the person prepared the food before entering it into the database!

    I usually enter raw too for that same reason.
  • lorishultis
    lorishultis Posts: 95 Member
    Yeah it sounds like you got an off entry... Remember a lot of these are put in by the users. I try to use the ones that dont have the asterisk * by them - I trust them more than the user entries - no offence anyone, lol.
  • Eleisabelle
    Eleisabelle Posts: 365
    I'd use the "raw onion" calories, not grilled onion.

    A "grilled onion" is a specific recipe that uses butter and chicken bouillon, which way ups the calories of just a plain onion cooked on a grill with Pam.

    http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/grilled-onions/detail.aspx
  • lockef
    lockef Posts: 466
    Just log the raw ingredients. Sometimes the foods in the database include other ingredients for preperation (butter, oils...).
  • MarieS1967
    MarieS1967 Posts: 37 Member
    I just checked on MFP and one onion states 68 calories. The calories you came up with did not seem realistic as we all know, all foods have calories and yes naturally occuring calories, but we know veggies are low in calories. Use your own judgement as it is not only about the calories quantity as it is QUALITY of the calorie. Good Luck!
  • mlhoole
    mlhoole Posts: 2
    Onions when cooked down have alot of sugar in them. Could be a reason for the higher calories, but the value to the taste and the fact that the calories are not fat calories make it a better choice to use your calories.
  • atomiclauren
    atomiclauren Posts: 689 Member
    I was frustrated with guessing about vegetables so I try to weigh them and use either FDA or USDA guidelines (there are a few of those in the database already). It's kind of a pain to log them the first time around (unless there's a reliable entry in the database already) but after it's saved it's not too bad..
  • lorishultis
    lorishultis Posts: 95 Member
    Okay - you got me google'ing... lol.
    I found this lik: http://www.livestrong.com/article/415871-are-grilled-onions-okay-for-a-diet/
    and it says "Raw onions have 46 calories per cup, most of which come from carbohydrates, and are virtually fat free, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nutrient Database. Onions grilled or sautéed with oil have 115 calories per cup, with the difference in calories supplied by fat calories. If you are limiting your fat intake, you must factor in the 9.4 g of fat that the cooked onions have."
    So it sounds like the grilled onion you used was accounting for the fat in the oil that you didnt use.
  • cramernh
    cramernh Posts: 3,335 Member
    agreeing here...
    Ive been building my own list of foods that we use here at home on my personal account. Ive built them by entering the item in, and calculating it by 1 ounce. That way, if I make a recipe, I can adjust the amount where I am measuring it by one ounce at a time.
  • cloneme_losehalf
    cloneme_losehalf Posts: 356 Member
    Thanks again. It was not such a big deal about having to log high calories. It was just a shock when you think you are making better choices than normal for a veggie to be more than the burger. LOL! (Only been at this two weeks, by asking this on the onion now I will know the best ways to do this.)
  • lauehorn
    lauehorn Posts: 183
    I didn't measure... I just used the whole medium onion. Never thought it or the pepper would be that big of an issue on calories. I am just shocked that the onion is more than the burger!!!

    Maybe the entry you chose was one someone entered and they cooked it with oil? That would account for the higher calories.
  • kimfield99
    kimfield99 Posts: 22 Member
    Another thing you may want to keep in mind is how decpetive cooking sprays like Pam can be. They figure it's a rather quick spray of the pan, but more often than not consumers use more than 1/3 of a second to spray a pan. 6 seconds is about 50 calories and 6 g of fat. I usually add a tsp of oil to my recipes when cooking with spray. It is easy to get to that number when cooking veggies. There is a push to make those labels more accurate. http://cspinet.org/new/201108021.html talks specifically about Pam and a few other common foods that bill themselves as one thing when in fact they are quite another.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories