What's up with the calories in beans?
 

I've noticed that the calories in canned beans varies quite a bit from brand to brand. For example, I bought a can of black beans the other day that claimed 70 calories per 1/2 cup serving. Yet, when I compared it to other brands, some listed the calories as high as 110 per 1/2 cup serving. That's a 40 calorie difference. Both brands listed black beans as the only ingredient.

If both brands are black beans with no added ingredients, how can there be this much difference in the calories? Are they different varieties of black beans? Different processing methods? Is one brand just wrong?

I've also noticed these same differences in calories in brands of pinto beans and chick peas (and one brand isn't consistently higher--for example the brand with lower calorie black beans might have the higher calorie pinto beans). Same thing with barley--my Safeway sells a brand of pearl barley that lists 120 calories per serving, but the brand Albertson's sells lists 160 calories per serving for what appears to be the exact same product.

Any ideas on where the differences come from?

I prefer to measure calories in beans by weight if I can. Due to the size of the beans, there may be a lot more beans in a .5 cup for some brands. Also, because of the shape of beans, you can "pack" quite a few more beans in a cup if you try.

Barbara, I've seen what you're talking about and have wondered the same thing. The weight and number of servings are identical. I have no idea how they could be different calorie counts!

The only thing I can think of it cook time being longer with one variety over another. I've bought a couple of different variety of kidney beans. The lower calorie beans are often softer, which means they may be cooked longer and have more water. I generally buy dried beans and soak/cook them myself. Like pasta, the finished volume can be quite different depending on how long you cook them.

Sometimes, some manufactuer's count fiber calories (which humans can't digest). Fiber, or cellulose is a plant carbohydrate, and therefore does technically have about 4 calories per gram. However while some animals can digest cellulose, human's can't. This is why a cow can eat and get fat on a diet of straws and grasses, but human's would starve to death because they couldn't use those calories. In essence, a pound of grass would have 0 calories to us, but more for a cow. It isn't really "fair" for manufacturers to count these calories, since humans can't use them. So a cereal or can of beans with 4 grams of fiber, may have 16 fewer usable calories than listed. Some manufacturer's do the math for you and subtract those calories, but many don't. If you see the word "net carbs" it usually means they have already done the math and the calorie count is accurate, but if it just says "total carbs" they may or may not be counting the fiber.

If you don't mind doing a little math, you can double check, but since this is a little time consuming, it's usually easier to just take the label at face value and realize that you may be overestimating your calorie intake by a little.

In case you're curious you would check their math this way


# of fat grams ____ x 9 = ________
# of protein grams ____ x 4 = ________
# of carb grams ____ x 4 = ________

add all these 3 sums together ________


(this might be the calories listed, but they would be wrong - at least for humans).
not take fiber grams ____ x 4 = _______ subtract this number from the total you just did above. This is the number of useable calories.

Oops, I found a mistake, so I rewrote the formula

In case you're curious you would check their math this way


# of fat grams ____ x 9 = ________
# of protein grams ____ x 4 = ________
# of carb grams ____ x 4 = ________

add all these 3 sums together ________


(this might be the calories listed, but if the food has any fiber in it, it would be wrong - at least for humans).


NOW take fiber grams ____ x 4 = _______ subtract this number from the total you just did above. This is the number of useable calories.

__________________
To make things even more confusing it isn't really 4 you should be multiplying the protein, carbs, and fiber by, it's more like 4.3 so your numbers might not add up exactly. Back to why it's easier just to take the label's word for it and realize it might be off by a few calories.

I've wonder that as well!

Anne! That may be the exact reason that some black olives are different. The softer ones (the ones we don't like) are less calories. Now if I could remember which ones!

There are several different varieties of beans. Just like there are different varieties of most vegetables/grains. I don't think it'd be that big of a difference though. It probably is the manufacturer taking in to account the fiber.

Colleen is certainly right: it's the fiber and the sneaky practice of subtracting calories from fiber. I bought the lower cal beans over the higher cal beans once and Nutridiary rejected the nutritional data: I had to do the math and add the fiber calories back in. The calories are the same, regardless of what the cans say.

Originally Posted by kaplods:
Sometimes, some manufactuer's count fiber calories (which humans can't digest). Fiber, or cellulose is a plant carbohydrate, and therefore does technically have about 4 calories per gram. However while some animals can digest cellulose, human's can't. This is why a cow can eat and get fat on a diet of straws and grasses, but human's would starve to death because they couldn't use those calories. In essence, a pound of grass would have 0 calories to us, but more for a cow. It isn't really "fair" for manufacturers to count these calories, since humans can't use them. So a cereal or can of beans with 4 grams of fiber, may have 16 fewer usable calories than listed. Some manufacturer's do the math for you and subtract those calories, but many don't. If you see the word "net carbs" it usually means they have already done the math and the calorie count is accurate, but if it just says "total carbs" they may or may not be counting the fiber.

Awesome, thank you so much for pointing this out because I've wondered the same thing in the past and I too was curious if it's because they counted the fiber (or not).

Oh Yes! I knew that some manufacturers did that (think Fiber One and La Tortilla Factory) but I never made that connection with the beans! And I have paid (a few cents) extra for the ones that had a lower calorie count, even though I logically knew canned black beans were canned black beans. :)

Thanks everyone. It's useful to know that some manufacturers subtract the fiber and some don't; I know fiber isn't digestible, but guess I had assumed everyone was doing the same thing. It's sort of annoying that this isn't regulated.

I have used your formula, kaplods, to check the calories on some foods, but I don't think I've tried it with the different brands of beans. I'll try it next time I'm at the store and see if that is what the difference is.

This also makes me wonder if I'm eating fewer calories than I think. Right now I am trying to lose the lbs I put on over the holidays, so I'm restricting my calories to 1200 a day. I'm very careful to never exceed this amount and sometimes come in below it. I also eat a lot of fiber, around 25g of fiber per day. If all that fiber is counted in my 1200 calories, I could actually only be digesting 1100 calories per day.