Gaining weight? It may be something you cooked.

Very interesting blog post in Discover (link) about calories in cooked food. Long story short, cooked food contians more calories than raw food.

I shouldn't be posting this now as I'm dead tired, but I thought I'd get the thread going.

Now, as I recall from high school chemistry, a calories is a unit of measure of heat energy, defined as the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

So how do you measure calories in food? By burning the food to ash. You measure how much heat it gives off when burning, and that's how many calories it has.

But that's not how you figure calories in food, exactly. It's well known that proteins and carbohydrates each contain 4 calories per gram, and fats 9 per gram. So you actually analyze the various components of, say, a candy bar and add up the calories that way.

Well, the point of the article is that cooking alters the molecular structure of food's components. So, say, tightly packed starches are indigestible, but when cooked they unpack and become easy to digest. So a cooked potato would provide more calories than a raw one.

Read the article. it's interesting. and it may point the way for a better management of diet.

I may try a little experiment of my own. I'll try to eat four raw meals more per week (I already dine on raw vegetables most nights) and see what happens.

While you're at it be sure to take a multivitamin.

If you don't cook vegetables and other plants long enough, you will absorb far fewer vitamins from them. If you don't cook them, then you can't break down the cell wall of the plants well enough to absorb the beneficial nutrients. Unfortunately, we're not like cows. You'll get the fiber benefits, but you're going to lose the nutrients by going the raw route.

We should also talk about bacteria and ecoli.

http://www.radiancenutrition.com/2011/08/19/put-down-that-kale-smoothie-why-you-should-cook-your-food/

I remember reading that caloric intake is a combination of cooking process and gut flora. Certain people have bacteria in their intestines that make them more efficient at extracting calories from food. We might both eat the same cheeseburger, but you might receive an extra 100 or more calories because of your digestive tract.

Sometimes I think all this about suggesting food [or whatever] is more complicated than we thought is a bunch of hooey, then sometimes I realize there's plenty we aren't told. My wife sent me to the store as we were dying to make our own hamburgers [we like doing them on toast we slice ourselves very thick from good bread ]. My choices were $4.99/lb ground round or the 0.99/lb special. I couldnt resist the difference this time and regretted it. There is something besides the 80 vs 90% lean fat content, which actually I handled pretty well on the grill, but the damn burgers wanted to fall apart as we ate them [somehow they stayed together on the grill]. Having gotten used to handling the better stuff, I realize now there is something different about the way they grind these things. Evidently the better stuff isn't minced to bits! I wished I had known this, but I have never ever seen anything on the differences outside of fat content. BTW gourmets tend to say the 90% lean doesnt make a good burger.

I'm still not going to eat a raw potato even if it does have fewer calories.

Quote: Keyser

While you're at it be sure to take a multivitamin.

If you don't cook vegetables and other plants long enough, you will absorb far fewer vitamins from them.

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that.

But I'm not about to switch to an all raw diet, nor start any time soon. it's winter (officially today, BTW), and not a good time to eat cold food. Not to mention that in a culture that pretends cold weather is a Yankee phenomenon, the kitchen with a hot stove is about the only room that's bearable :) Maybe around March or so...

I'd like to know, too, whether the degree of cooking matters. For instance, does a medium rare steak contain mroe calories than a well done steak? Does pasta al dente provide slightly less calories than the limp noodles I preffer.

The point of the article, though, is that calorie counts in coooked food are not accurate. This has vast implications for weight loss diets. It also means the raw food diet may work pretty well, which would be a nice change for a fad diet. But back to the first point, suppose some low-fat, high-carb foods like carrots provide more calories when cooked than, say, a lean steak or a chicken breast.

BTW some foods, lilke beans, rice, and grains, are inedible unless they're cooked. You can swallow them, but not chew them. Maybe you can digest them

All I know is that I'm gaining a ton of weight here in Vegas, cooked or uncooked food. Any ideas on how to stay lean-ish while in town? (Besides staying away from the buffets?)

Quote: teddys

All I know is that I'm gaining a ton of weight here in Vegas, cooked or uncooked food. Any ideas on how to stay lean-ish while in town? (Besides staying away from the buffets?)

You just made me laugh out loud, thanks. The whole
point of being in Vegas is the food, you can always
lose the weight later. But you won't always be in Vegas.
Eat, enjoy, quit worrying about it.

What I don't understand in these discussions is why not just eat less?:-) I mean, if you like raw food, that's one thing, but if you'd rather have a properly cooked meal, why force yourself to eat yuky stuff, rather than just eating less of what you like?
Doesn't make very much sense, does it?

Also, the title of the article is kinda misleading. The calorie count is not wrong. It tells you how much calories the piece of food contains what part of that will your organism get if you eat that food, is a different question, and depends on many factors, including how the food is cooked if at all, among others.
If anything, cooking the food brings your actual calorie intake closer to the "official count". Calorie count is the amount of energy contained in the food. Cooking does not add any energy to it, just makes it possible for you to extract more of what's already there.

Edit: Oh, and the winter actually begins tomorrow (the 22nd), at 5:30 am this year, not today :)

Quote: teddys

All I know is that I'm gaining a ton of weight here in Vegas, cooked or uncooked food. Any ideas on how to stay lean-ish while in town? (Besides staying away from the buffets?)

1) Undertake a masochistic excercise routine (like the Wizrd does <w>) every day, and twice on Sundays.

2) Have your jaw wired shut (you can play most any game with hand signals anyway)

3) Play a system. The more it promises the btter. That way you won't have any money for food :P

Quote: weaselman

What I don't understand in these discussions is why not just eat less?:-) I mean, if you like raw food, that's one thing, but if you'd rather have a properly cooked meal, why force yourself to eat yuky stuff, rather than just eating less of what you like?

Some things are always best raw. Spinach, for example. I like it raw, I can't stand it cooked in any way.

But that's not the point. The point is how cooking affects calorie and nutrient absorption, and how best to take advantage of such changes in your diet. Take me, for example. I try to eat for lunch at least four vegetarian meals per week. Mostly this means whatever I cook for myself on weekends. Now, some things I do, like apsta with vegetables, would work about as well if the vegetables were raw. Suppose I just sautee the onion and garlic, but not the mushrooms, celery, broccoli and cabbage. Instead I just add them tot he sauce after it's heated. Do I gain less calories that way? the dish changes, yes, but not much. I wash the produce before cooking it anyway, so that doesn't change at all.

Now, conventional wisdom is: it doesn't matter whether you cook them or not, vegetables are vegetables. We're learning that's not so.

Quote:

Doesn't make very much sense, does it?

Actually it does. many weight loss diets are temporary things. a lot of people will give up eating well for, say, six months, if that lets them shed 40 pounds. of course when they retake their old habits it won't take them enarly so long to gain them back :P

Went to Bradley Ogden last night. Total bill for two before tip was $278. This might be a good way to lose weight -- at this rate, I'll be broke. Amazing food, though.

Quote: Nareed

Now, conventional wisdom is: it doesn't matter whether you cook them or not, vegetables are vegetables. We're learning that's not so.

Conventional wisdom tells you that how the food is prepared does not matter? Hmmm ... Never heard of such wisdom.

Quote:

Actually it does. many weight loss diets are temporary things. a lot of people will give up eating well for, say, six months, if that lets them shed 40 pounds. of course when they retake their old habits it won't take them enarly so long to gain them back :P

Yes, what I don't get is why does it always have to be something yucky to be a "diet". There could be other considerations (like intolerance to certain kinds of nutrients, pancreas problems, indigestion etc.), but if all you care about is calorie count, why not simply eat less of stuff that you actually enjoy eating instead of torturing yourself and chewing raw grass? :)

Cooking vegetables in water has the effect of losing nutrients to the water itself. When cooking vegetables, I always steam, as the taste and nutrients are maintained. Alot of nutrients are in the skins of vegetables.

I doubt that the caloric intake in raw vegetables vs cook would make any discernable difference on your weight. If cooking releases 10 - 20% more calories per serving, it's not a big difference. If you just fill up on vegetables, you won't be getting anywhere close to your daily caloric intake anyway. I would concentrate far more on reducing meats, sugars, and unncessary items from your diet. whether you eat a vegetable raw or cooked won't make a difference.