I know there has been some posts on this topic and it probably has been established that it is smarter to weight meat raw and get the calories from there. But what about rice? IT NEARLY TRIPLES FROM COOKED TO RAW. Honestly, I would rather weigh it raw because that basically means I would only have to eat a sandwich of 800 calories. But I want to do what’s right. But even before I get to that, I’ve tried to get an answer from CT about this but not successful: If carb, fat, and protein grams are determined after burning it in the calorimeter, why is his preference measuring nutrients and even insisting that it’s more accurate?
It’s really hard to decipher the intent of your question, but I’ll take a stab at it.
You’re asking why not use bomb calorimeter readings and instead measure nutrients? Most people don’t have bomb calorimeters, for starters. One gram of protein or one gram of CHO is always 4 kcals, and one gram of fat is always 9 kcals. It’s very simple to figure out using those numbers.
Or am I misunderstanding you?
[quote]Xab wrote:
It’s really hard to decipher the intent of your question, but I’ll take a stab at it.
You’re asking why not use bomb calorimeter readings and instead measure nutrients? Most people don’t have bomb calorimeters, for starters. One gram of protein or one gram of CHO is always 4 kcals, and one gram of fat is always 9 kcals. It’s very simple to figure out using those numbers.
Or am I misunderstanding you? [/quote]
Thank you for replying. I hoped both questions would be answered but I guess you chose to answer the second part only. I guess my question is how is measuring nutrients more superior and more accurate to measuring calories? Basically I’m asking, is it better to count calories or count protein, fats, and carbs? Do not say both as I’ve found that they sometimes do not add up with each other.
If I understand your question correctly the confusision is coming from raw weight kcals vs cooked weight kcals, no? An item such as raw rice has about 350-400 kcal per 100g. However, when it is cooked it takes in water so the same amount of cooked rice 100g has far less calories per 100g.
So, if you cook 100g of rice and weight it afterwards it should weigh more but will still have the same amount of calories. Chicken and other meats, on the other hand, lose water when they are cooked and will therefore increase in calories per unit mass. If a 100g chicken breast is cooked it might end up weighing something like 80g (just a guess) but it will still have ~100 kcal before and after… assuming it was bbqed without any oil marinade or whatnot. Is that clear?
Oh and most will say that counting proteins, fats and carbs is superior to calories alone. I try not overdo it in any sense, the biggest focus for me is the amount of protein.
Keep thinking of this shit.
huh weird, i wonder why sites like nutritiondata and fitday list cooked with less calories. But for the most part, I wanted to find out why is it like this and so forth. So why is counting proteins, fats, and carbs superior to counting calories?
it just is bro, your just suppose to count grams of portein, crabs, and fats
i dont know where your getting these calories from, or where you find out how many calories something has, but not every website will have the same amount of calories per the same item, just like not everyone cooks or bakes or makes the same food exactly the same,everyone ahs their own way of cooking stuff,
the most basic and simple thing to do is to count your grams of nutrients, not the calories
hope that helped
[quote]young n wrote:
it just is bro, your just suppose to count grams of portein, crabs, and fats
i dont know where your getting these calories from, or where you find out how many calories something has, but not every website will have the same amount of calories per the same item, just like not everyone cooks or bakes or makes the same food exactly the same,everyone ahs their own way of cooking stuff,
the most basic and simple thing to do is to count your grams of nutrients, not the calories
hope that helped[/quote]
thank you.