| Author | Post |
|---|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 24 Mar 2006 08:38 am |
|
Looking at a 100g portion of vegetables: as a rule, 100g cooked has (according to calorie counters, like the one I'm using) less calories than 100g of raw vegetables of the same type. True for most of them.
On the other hand, I've been able to identify a few exceptions to that rule, where 100g cooked is more calories. They are: Celery, Courgettes(Zuchini), Peppers, Pettits Pois, Beetroot, Butternut Squash, Yam
- The question is: (for the majority of veg) why is cooking (boiling is usually the stated cooking method) reducing their calories per 100g portion?
- Is their chemical make-up altered by cooking?
- Or perhaps they become more able to absorbe the water they are boiled in, and so water becomes a higher constituent of the 100g portion?
- I'm particularly interested in that water possiblity, as I usually microwave my vegetables rather than boil them. Their weight actually reduces as a result (steam evaporates). For example 500g of raw Swede reduced to 360g cooked Swede. I don't know what would have happened if I boiled it instead.
Also, how are the exceptions explained away?
If anyone has a clue (or if they actually boil their veggies and can weigh them before and after) I'll be most grateful!
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 24 Mar 2006 05:28 pm |
|
This is just a guess, Nir, but those are all pretty watery vegetables. If they give up any moisture during the cooking process, then they'll weigh less cooked than uncooked, as you note. But, if they've lost water, they will inevitably be more calorie-dense per unit weight (though it shouldn't amount to a hill of beans, if you'll excuse the metaphor).
Anyone else got a theory?
|
Be A Cow
Senior Member
|
Posted: 24 Mar 2006 05:44 pm |
|
| I agree with NevD about the vegetables that end up with more calories because of loss of water. But as for the ones coming out with less . . . maybe cooking breaks them down more so it requires less effort for you body to process them??
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 24 Mar 2006 05:49 pm |
|
Presumably those that emerge from the process with less calories per unit weight have absorbed water. So they will be among the denser vegetables, I guess.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 25 Mar 2006 02:13 am |
|
nevd wrote: Presumably those that emerge from the process with less calories per unit weight have absorbed water. So they will be among the denser vegetables, I guess.
So where does this leave me and my Swede (see above)??? Cooking reduced its calories per 100g, but it didn't expand - it actually reduced from 500g to 360g!
|
NevD
New Member
| Joined: | 26 Oct 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1536 |
|
Posted: 25 Mar 2006 11:12 am |
|
They're a tricky lot, those Scandinavians...
Can't see how it could be less calorie dense. 500 g in, 360g out - the difference must be water, so it has as many calories in 360g as it used to in 500g, ergo more calorie dense.
My only other theory is that you have an advanced form of micrwave oven that is teleporting calories from certain of your vegetables to a destination as yet unknown. (Not much of a theory, I admit).
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 25 Mar 2006 06:47 pm |
|
Not just swede, but more or less any veg. Take carrots for example. 100g of raw carrots is 35 kcal/100g (agreed?). Now microwave them and they're supposedly 24 kcal/100g. Yet they are now roughly 80% of their former weight. So if I started with 100g raw carrots (35), I now have 80g (0.8 x 24 = 19.2). I see a fair bit of steam so I'm assuming some water evaporates.
The question is: if I didn't microwave those carrots, but boiled them instead, would my 100g of carrots actually gain weight by absorbing water from its surroundings? (ps any kind soul willing to do that boiling experiment for me? I'm not quite set-up for it at the moment)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2006 08:43 pm |
|
The results are in! I got my act together and boiled some Swede the traditional way (for ages, covered in boiling water in a saucepan). My portion went down from 87g to 81g (at a certain point), its final weight when fully cooked was 83g (reabsorbing some water?). So, surrounded by water, it still clearly lost some mass.
So (according to calorie lists) 100g of cooked Swede has less calories than 100g of faw swede and I will end up with (slightly) less grams of it too - so it definitely loses calories in cooking. I guess it is about breakdown of chemical bonds (cooking supposedly similiar to digesting - hence cooked veggies have higher GI values)
Eating cooked vegetables:
pro less calories, sometimes tastes nicer.
con higher GI value, loss of fibre and other nutrients.
I can now go back to Microwaving my veggies - takes a lot less time and supposedly keeps more vitamins in etc.
|
Current time is 03:29 pm | |
|
