Weight Loss Support Give and get support here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-14-2009, 05:06 PM   #1  
Kimberley
Thread Starter
 
kimberleyanddarren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 53

S/C/G: 23st 6lbs

Height: 5ft 11

Default Does anyone know?

This may be abit of an odd question lol
But does anyone know if roast things (such as potatoes and carrots) have extra calories than the equivalent boiled? (assuming of course you dont add anything to them to roast them such as oil or butter)

Or would they both have the same calories?
kimberleyanddarren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 05:10 PM   #2  
Moderating Mama
 
mandalinn82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Woodland, CA
Posts: 11,712

S/C/G: 295/200/175

Height: 5' 8"

Default

Nope - they'll be pretty much the same. The nutrient content of the boiled might be a bit lower, as some vitamins and minerals leach out into the water, but the calorie counts will be the same.

I always count my veggies as "raw" using my calorie counter, then cook however I please (adding extra cals for any add ons, of course).
mandalinn82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 05:52 PM   #3  
Trying so hard....
 
MugCanDoIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,350

S/C/G: 298/298/145

Height: 5'7"

Default

But wouldnt the potatoes and stuff cooked with the roast, have absorbed some of the roast juice, altering their calorie content?
MugCanDoIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 05:53 PM   #4  
Moderating Mama
 
mandalinn82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Woodland, CA
Posts: 11,712

S/C/G: 295/200/175

Height: 5' 8"

Default

I read "Roast things" as "things which are roasted in the oven". If there's an actual ROAST involved, that might make a difference...

Although, because I measure things raw, it wouldn't make a difference for me. If there are 600 calories in my roast raw, and 200 calories in my veggies raw, it'll still be 800 calories total, even if some of the meat juice calories leave the roast itself and migrate into the veggies and raise their calories...because no calories are created or removed in a food just by cooking it, you'd still come out the same in the end.
mandalinn82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 06:20 PM   #5  
Senior Member
 
Thighs Be Gone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,629

S/C/G: HW/232 SW 215/ CW 133/GW 120's

Height: 5.7 and 1/2

Default

A friend of mine who hosts WW meetings told me once that veggies can carmelize into a sugar during the cooking process and are counted differently on WW because of it. I don't know if it's true but it's what she said.
Thighs Be Gone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 06:29 PM   #6  
Moderating Mama
 
mandalinn82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Woodland, CA
Posts: 11,712

S/C/G: 295/200/175

Height: 5' 8"

Default

Sugar can't caramelize unless it's there to start with.

Every food item has some constituent parts...sugars, vitamins, fat molecules, etc. Veggies have some natural sugar, have some fiber, have some carbohydrate.

Now, when you cook that food, you might lose components...for example, if you cooked a roast, and fat and juices dripped off and you didn't consume them, that would be a calorie reduction in the roast, but NOT in the total pan (the calories are still there...they're just in a part you're no longer consuming). You may also change the chemical form of some of the components (for example, a sugar caramelizing), which can alter flavor, but again, isn't going to alter the calories in the components. The original energy is all pretty much still there (physics and chemistry 101...you don't create matter out of nowhere, and it doesn't vanish to nowhere either) in all major cooking techniques. I suppose if you were doing something extreme enough to vaporize your food in cooking it, or if you burned it to cinders, you'd experience some calorie loss in the food, but hopefully you're not doing either of those!

Now, different cooking techniques DO effect the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load of foods, which is how quickly those foods are digested and converted to blood glucose...cooking method makes a big difference, as certain cooking techniques makes the sugars in foods more easily digested. But it's not going to change the number of sugars that are there, just how quickly they hit your blood.
mandalinn82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 07:00 PM   #7  
Closed
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,811

S/C/G: 244/165/137

Height: 5' 7"

Default

And don't forget that GI is a measure of an item of food eaten in isolation. When you have a mix of foods at the same time, such as potatoes with steak and salad, the GI of each item is moderated by the presence of the others...
Kira
kiramira is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 07:50 PM   #8  
Senior Member
 
kaplods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wausau, WI
Posts: 13,383

S/C/G: SW:394/310/180

Height: 5'6"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thighs Be Gone View Post
A friend of mine who hosts WW meetings told me once that veggies can carmelize into a sugar during the cooking process and are counted differently on WW because of it. I don't know if it's true but it's what she said.
I've been a WW member dozens of times, and have learned that the WW leaders have little to no nutritional training, and can have some pretty off-the-wall personal theories that are not at all endorsed by WW.

Carmelizing sugars could theoretically reduce the calorie content slightly (but only if the sugar had gone past carmelizing into actually burnt. If it's black, a few of the calories have been burned away, but the calories lost wouldn't be significant until the food was burnt far beyond edible).
kaplods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 10:33 PM   #9  
Senior Member
 
bacilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 572

Height: 5'6"

Default

I read it as roasted in the oven also. I count my veggies as raw, then roast/grill them. I would assume that the calorie count would change if I cooked them together with meat, but that doesn't happen in my house.
bacilli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 10:44 PM   #10  
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,346

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods View Post
I've been a WW member dozens of times, and have learned that the WW leaders have little to no nutritional training, and can have some pretty off-the-wall personal theories that are not at all endorsed by WW.
+1000
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 11:38 PM   #11  
Baby Stepping Along
 
p7eggyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver Metro Area
Posts: 312

Default

Ok, not to hijack the thread but the idea that it's all the same makes total sense to me but I always wonder about spinach. Most places I see spinach servings defined, the cooked is WAAAAAY more than the amount that would be produced by the raw serving being cooked. I'm not going to have the right amounts but I think leafy greens are 1 cup per serving but the cooked spinach is supposed to be a 1/2 cup. 1 cup of spinach definitely does not cook down to anything close to a 1/2 cup. Anyone have any insight on that? I just count the raw and if I cook it, so be it but I've been wondering.

Peg
p7eggyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 12:05 AM   #12  
Boston Qualifier and MOM
 
ennay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,346

Height: 5'3.75"

Default

Well...see with spinach it depends a lot on how LONG you cook it. another reason to measure your veggies raw and ignore the "cooked" entry. I can cook a lb of spinach down to about 2 cups, or I can cook it down to about 4 or...

Also, fitday often ASSUMES added fat when you pick cooked versions of veggies.

Personally spinach is one that I can barely bring myself to record at all. One of those huge costco containers of spinach is like 100 calories.

Last edited by ennay; 07-15-2009 at 12:06 AM.
ennay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 12:46 AM   #13  
Senior Member
 
Bumbleberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 164

S/C/G: 225/178.5/135

Height: 5'3

Default

I have to say, I personally have never got fat eating veggies so I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Bumbleberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 11:38 AM   #14  
Kimberley
Thread Starter
 
kimberleyanddarren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 53

S/C/G: 23st 6lbs

Height: 5ft 11

Default

yes, by roast i meant just cooked in the oven (ie. not with a joint of meat just on their own in a tray) i much prefer roast carrots and potatoes to boiled ones so i was wondering if they were more fattening, i think you also feel more full with roast things than just boiled ones, which may be a mental thing than a physical thing but anyway if they are the same in calories i shall be very glad! lol
kimberleyanddarren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 11:43 AM   #15  
Senior Member
 
mayness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Central NY
Posts: 1,309

S/C/G: 160/160/115

Height: 5'2"

Default

Do keep in mind that they'll have a different number of calories by weight or volume, because roasting will make them lose more water. So, like a few people said earlier, measure/weigh them while raw to know for sure.

For example: if you take 10 baby carrots and boil them, then take 10 identical baby carrots and roast them, the roasted ones will be lighter and take up a little less space. So if you're measuring your veggies by weighing them or using measuring cups after cooking, you might be eating more or less than you think you are.
mayness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.