Calories in chips ??

[anonymous-user]

As I understand it the calories in potatoes varies upon how they are cooked. For example raw potatoes are lower in calories (as the body struggles to absorb raw spud), cooked potatoes are high in calories (body can easily absorb the calories in cooked spud) and at the other extreme I would expect incinerated potatoes to have few calories.

Raw = 79cals/100g
Boiled = 87 cals/100g
Incinerated = None?

Now I am calorie counting and occasionally have chips cooked in an air fryer (so no fat) but like them VERY well done. i.e. I slice them thin and cook til they are crispy with very little actual soft potato left and little water content - so they are towards the "incinerated" end of the spectrum.

Web sites always give calories for chips as if they are cooked to normal standards (ie golden brown on outslde with white fluffy spud inside) whereas mine are dark brown with only a little white potato. Any idea how many cals these will be per 100g?

Also as the cals are given by weight if you cook chips longer they give off more water so reduce in weight but water has no cals so surely giving cals by weight of chips is wrong ?

Any thoughts? TIA.

[Greshamst]

For chips, because you are using an air fryer, rather than deep-frying, you can weigh the raw potatoes, weigh the oil, log them individually and you have your answer.

I’m afraid I don’t have the knowledge to answer your cremated food question.

[fbc]

MikeStroud said:

As I understand it the calories in potatoes varies upon how they are cooked. For example raw potatoes are lower in calories (as the body struggles to absorb raw spud), cooked potatoes are high in calories (body can easily absorb the calories in cooked spud) and at the other extreme I would expect incinerated potatoes to have few calories.

The different calorific values aren't due to how your body processes the food - those values are purely measures of the energy content of the food before it enters your system.

Raw foods will have lower calorie density - ie less calories per 100g - since no water has been lost during the cooking process and water carries zero calories. Hence cooked food will have greater calorie density since some of that water will have been lost, so the food weighs less but the calorific value hasn't changed.

How you cook the food plays a part too - the more densely you 'divide' the food (by slicing, dicing, etc) has an impact on how much that food will increase its calorific value due to absorbing other foods (via differing surface areas), ie oils. That's why a baked potato will have fewer calories per 100g than very thick-cut wedges, which in turn will also have lower calorie density than thin-cut french fries, and so on until you reach crisps.

[anonymous-user]

Thanks for correcting my misconceptions :-)

[IanJ9375]

Go and see how Pasta recooked becomes a more complex carbohydrate and therefore the body is unable to break it down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

"Resistant starch"

[sgrimshaw]

IanJ9375 said:

Go and see how Pasta recooked becomes a more complex carbohydrate and therefore the body is unable to break it down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

"Resistant starch"

Thanks for that ... I love cold pasta and I really need to lose a few pounds (ok .... stones)

[IanJ9375]

sgrimshaw said:

Thanks for that ... I love cold pasta and I really need to lose a few pounds (ok .... stones)

It's a good way to make an easy change - there's no problem in reheating it so you don't need to have it cold.

I'd look at LCHF diet if you really want to knock some weight off, not as drastic as full Keto and a bit more sustainable oh and go lift some weights if you don't already.

[irocfan]

IanJ9375 said:

Go and see how Pasta recooked becomes a more complex carbohydrate and therefore the body is unable to break it down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

"Resistant starch"

I had read about that (and forgotten about it!) IIRC the pasta also can be re-re-heated for further benefits - reheated pasta here we come!!! I do wonder though, since this was published in 2014, if more has been done?

[IanJ9375]

irocfan said:

I had read about that (and forgotten about it!) IIRC the pasta also can be re-re-heated for further benefits - reheated pasta here we come!!! I do wonder though, since this was published in 2014, if more has been done?

Chilled potatoes is the latest thing - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC67699...

Lots about Resistant starch on the web

[anonymous-user]

IanJ9375 said:

Go and see how Pasta recooked becomes a more complex carbohydrate and therefore the body is unable to break it down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

"Resistant starch"

TY. The article seems to suggest it works the same with spuds. So for mashed or roast spuds, cook, cool overnight, cook the next day and calories halved ?

[Greshamst]

You could follow all the advice above on reheated pasta, and low carbs high fat diets.

Or you could just eat less calories than you burn.

One of them is guaranteed to make you lose weight.

[IanJ9375]

Greshamst said:

You could follow all the advice above on reheated pasta, and low carbs high fat diets.

Or you could just eat less calories than you burn.

One of them is guaranteed to make you lose weight.

Yes generally the low carb one....

Calories in does not equal calories out but then you'd need to understand the lack of reporting of conflicts of interest

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-suga...

[Greshamst]

IanJ9375 said:

Greshamst said:

You could follow all the advice above on reheated pasta, and low carbs high fat diets.

Or you could just eat less calories than you burn.

One of them is guaranteed to make you lose weight.

Yes generally the low carb one....

Calories in does not equal calories out but then you'd need to understand the lack of reporting of conflicts of interest

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/theres-no-suga...

You can put on weight and not eat carbs.

You cannot put on weight if you consume less calories than you burn.
So literally, only one of those options is guaranteed to work. And it’s not the one that talks about whether carbs are ‘good’ or ‘bad’

[IanJ9375]

Greshamst said:

You can put on weight and not eat carbs.

You cannot put on weight if you consume less calories than you burn.
So literally, only one of those options is guaranteed to work. And it’s not the one that talks about whether carbs are ‘good’ or ‘bad’

Harvard have done a study and concluded that following a low carb diet (20% total calories) burn roughly 250 calories per day more than those on a high carb diet (60% total calories)

So again all calories are not equal - that's just science unfortunately not opinion.
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583

I've lifted this from elsewhere as I couldn't put it better in my own words to be frank -
Why is this important? It shows why the conventional wisdom to eat less, move more and count your calories is not the best path to weight loss. Numerous studies show better weight loss with low-carb diets compared to low-fat diets, and now studies like this one help us understand why.

Our bodies are not simple calorimeters keeping track of how much we eat and how much we burn. Instead, we have intricate hormonal responses to the types of food we eat. It’s time to accept this and get rid of the outdated calories in-calories, calories-out model, thus allowing for more effective and sustainable long-term weight loss.

[Murph7355]

IanJ9375 said:

...
Why is this important? It shows why the conventional wisdom to eat less, move more and count your calories is not the best path to weight loss. Numerous studies show better weight loss with low-carb diets compared to low-fat diets, and now studies like this one help us understand why.

Our bodies are not simple calorimeters keeping track of how much we eat and how much we burn. Instead, we have intricate hormonal responses to the types of food we eat. It’s time to accept this and get rid of the outdated calories in-calories, calories-out model, thus allowing for more effective and sustainable long-term weight loss.

Both apply.

You consume less energy than you expend and you will drop weight.

But carbs can weigh more heavily(sic) in some people than others.

Running on a low carb diet and shovelling in less energy than you use may well see more dramatic and sustainable weight loss and potentially lead to a healthier diet. It certainly seems to have with me

The converse is that no matter how few carbs you eat, if you shovel in way more than you use, you'll gain weight.

I don't see any of these things as mutually exclusive concepts. They tend to be painted as such when places have diets to push

[IanJ9375]

Murph7355 said:

Both apply.

You consume less energy than you expend and you will drop weight.

But carbs can weigh more heavily(sic) in some people than others.

Running on a low carb diet and shovelling in less energy than you use may well see more dramatic and sustainable weight loss and potentially lead to a healthier diet. It certainly seems to have with me

The converse is that no matter how few carbs you eat, if you shovel in way more than you use, you'll gain weight.

I don't see any of these things as mutually exclusive concepts. They tend to be painted as such when places have diets to push

I'm not saying to just do one thing to be honest - I'd advocate weight lifting as well as moving more for sure, I just wanted to get across the point that all calories are not equal, that thinking has been proven out of date.

Getting back to the original point I made on this thread which is if someone wants to change one simple thing to start them off then simply reheating their pasta could well be something that aids them as you'll be less effective at stripping the calories out of it.