Weight-Loss Problem with accurately weighing boiled foods

Weight-Loss
Slim Col

Slim Col

New member
As a part of my daily routine I weigh everything I consume in order to estimate - as accurately as possible - my daily calorie intake.

A problem arises when I try to estimate the calorific values of foods that have been cooked in water. It's easy enough to weigh something after it's been cooked but it's impossible to weigh foods that have been mixed with other ingredients during the cooking procedure. Up until now I've been weighing the individual ingredients before cooking them and adding 20% to account for the extra weight gained during cooking.

Is this an accurate way in which to weigh ingredients? Does the amount of weight gained during cooking vary for different foods? Is there a better method of doing this?

Thanks for any advice!
 
I tend to measure everything with pre-cooked weight. If something shrinks during cooking, the I have some bonus calories to play with for the day... but it's just easier for me to do the pre-cooked weight.
 
The problem with using the pre-cooked weight is that the food gains weight during cooking; 500g of potatoes will become approximately 600g after cooking. If you're calculating the calories for the pre-cooked weight, you're grossly underestimating the actual calorific value.

I was doing this up until recently, causing me to underestimate my intake by roughly 300 calories per day.
 
well i don't like potatoes so that's not an issue for me -every food I've seen -unless you're adding a ton of stuff to it - shrinks while cooking -I've not seen anything that goes up in volume -

if you're boiling foods -it's just water that being added..
 
well i don't like potatoes so that's not an issue for me -every food I've seen -unless you're adding a ton of stuff to it - shrinks while cooking -I've not seen anything that goes up in volume -
Click to expand...
My experience as well.

-----------

However, Even if a food did "enlarge" during cooking. Its calorie total would remain the same. "Heat" can't add calories to food. In fact, it would be more likely to have the opposite affect.
 
Sure, it's only water, but if you're referring to a chart that shows the value for boiled vegetables, you should ideally weigh the veg' after it's been cooked. If you use the uncooked value you're grossly underestimating the actual amount of calories.

Sorry to appear so anal about this but I want to be as accurate as possible.
 
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here but where are you getting this data from?

Looking at - which is based on the USDA database -and what most calorie counting sites refer back to

100 grams of a boiled potato has far fewer calories than 100 grams of a baked potato - which would lead me to believe that a boiled potato absorbs water while cooking, therefore making it with less calories.
 
However, Even if a food did "enlarge" during cooking. Its calorie total would remain the same. "Heat" can't add calories to food. In fact, it would be more likely to have the opposite affect.
Click to expand...

Cooking does NOT add calories to food, I state again... ;)
 
I'm clearly not articulating myself very well. Here's what I'm trying to say:

I often make curries and this involves cooking different types of veg together. I cannot physically separate the veg afterwards so how do I accurately figure out the weight for the individual types of vegetables after they've been cooked.

Weighing ingredients before cooking is not a very accurate system; All veg gains weight during cooking because it takes-on water. The water clearly doesn't add any calories but it adds weight meaning that, for example, 500g of potatoes becomes 600g. Obviously I want to be as accurate as possible when calculating the calorific value of a specific ingredient.

My question is simple: Is there a practical way of doing this?

Presently I'm simply weighing ingredients before cooking them and adding 20% to the weight to account for the effect of cooking in water. I'm not entirely sure if this is practical.
 
If you curry contains
1 cup of carrots
1 cup of potatoes
1 cup of some random vegetable
1 cup of lite cocunut milk
2 tbs curry powder

Enter all the ingredients - pre cooking weight... just make sure you enter everything you're using in te recipe.. there are a bunch of recipe creator sites on the web that will create the nutrition info for you... just add your igredients
 
I tend to use because it contains an extensive database of foods and is very specific. There aren't many ingredients you wont find on there.

What sites would you guys recommend?
 
I've been following along the thread and am confused about the confusion.

If I make a dish with a number of ingredients, I can compile the number of total calories. Cooking will not alter that (except in the case of grilling which will liquidize fats, making them run off or frying foods, which will allow them to absorb fats).

I would not expect boiled foods to change caloric content as a result of boiling. However, the volume of the food may well be altered. Examples are Spinach which will decrease in volume due to wilting and oatmeal or pasta, which will increase in volume because of swelling.

The caloric content of a cup of cooked pasta is lower in calories than a cup of uncooked pasta. A cup of cooked pasta contains a large percentage of water.

So in figuring the caloric total of a recipe with numerous ingredients it would be necessary to figure out the calories in the raw, uncooked ingredients. Suppose this were to total 1200 calories. Divide this by the desired number of servings and the rest is just math. Whatever the end volume is, each serving will be some percentage of the unchanged total, so an accurate assessment can be made.

If you would rather work in volumetric units you will need to dust off your geometry :)

Hope this helps!

David C
 
DCarr10760 said:
So in figuring the caloric total of a recipe with numerous ingredients it would be necessary to figure out the calories in the raw, uncooked ingredients. Suppose this were to total 1200 calories. Divide this by the desired number of servings and the rest is just math. Whatever the end volume is, each serving will be some percentage of the unchanged total, so an accurate assessment can be made.
Click to expand...

Two problems with doing it that way...

1. I'm assuming that some foods can lose calories when cooked. Thus it's inaccurate to base your calculations on the uncooked calorific value.

2. It's often not possible to find information on websites that gives the calorific value of foods in their uncooked state.
 
I tend to use more than any other resource - and if i looked up something like chicken I'd get a heap of results back


and at that point i could pick and choose the chicken I was using - whether i wanted the raw weight or cooked weight...

broccoli would give me the same option


so I just m ake sure when i'm entering data - i'm entering what I am actually having...
 
Slim Col said:
Two problems with doing it that way...

1. I'm assuming that some foods can lose calories when cooked. Thus it's inaccurate to base your calculations on the uncooked calorific value.

2. It's often not possible to find information on websites that gives the calorific value of foods in their uncooked state.
Click to expand...

Except for fats being cooked out of a food like most meats I don't know that it's possible. In the case of curries, stews, soups, etc., etc. The fats that are cooked out remain in the broth and you eat them.

I suppose for accuracy's sake in fried foods you could measure the fat runoff and subtract that from the total.

It may, in fact, be difficult to find the uncooked food, but the FitDay site, which I use, often lists an incredient raw as well as cooked.

I believe it is more accurate to use the raw food and to incorporate the fat used in cooking as an ingredient, rather than use the prepared caloric value since it is hard to know how the food was prepared in the test kitchen.

Of course, it is wise to remind ourselves that we are dealing with approximations here and while it is all well and good to be accurate, it would be impossible to completely calculate the caloric value for any food with 100%accuracy. The best one can hope for are small deviations that will as often be above the theoretical value as below.

David C
 
I guess you're right David; it's practically impossible to be 100% accurate calculating the caloric value of any given meal. Still, I like to be as accurate as possible to ensure that I'm not over or under-estimating the amount.

I bet they don't have this problem in Star Trek.
 
I like this one:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top