This came up in the intermittent fasting thread --
Not finding a quick answer and I sort of would like to know how off I am in my calorie tracking ...
Using oatmeal as an example:
Per Caloriecount.com, steel-cut oats, uncooked, is 600 calories per cup. I make that a couple of times a month and will get anywhere from 2.5 to 3 cups cooked oats from it. I eat a half cup cooked at a time. So on cereal that I got a total of 2.5 cups I count it as 120 calories, and on cereal that I got a total of 3 cups from I count it as 100 calories.
Is that wrong?
If the calories are more accessible in cooked foods than in uncooked foods, I suppose it probably is.
I'd appreciate any insight into this area, thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlorde (Post 9452184) The calories in uncooked oats may be far less accessible; it's true of most veg. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylee (Post 9452226) Interesting, thanks. I've not been taking that into account in my calorie tracking. I'll have to look into this. |
Not finding a quick answer and I sort of would like to know how off I am in my calorie tracking ...
Using oatmeal as an example:
Per Caloriecount.com, steel-cut oats, uncooked, is 600 calories per cup. I make that a couple of times a month and will get anywhere from 2.5 to 3 cups cooked oats from it. I eat a half cup cooked at a time. So on cereal that I got a total of 2.5 cups I count it as 120 calories, and on cereal that I got a total of 3 cups from I count it as 100 calories.
Is that wrong?
If the calories are more accessible in cooked foods than in uncooked foods, I suppose it probably is.
I'd appreciate any insight into this area, thanks.
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=264339&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire