Food Calorie Count Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
346
Location
NY
I am a bit confused when looking at caloric content of food weighed in ounces vs. grams .

The site calorie king lists 5.3 oz of potato at 116 calories .

5.3 ounces converted to grams = 150 grams .

At 4 calories per gram roughly, that would be 600 calories ? I am not sure if I am making a obvious mistake .
 
If your eating the right foods, caloric count is irrelevant.
coffee2.gif
 
I agree with eating the right foods just seems the math is off by a big margin .

I just want to see if this is affected by water content or something else I may have not taken into account .
 
Measurements for dry ingredients is different for wet ingredients I have a measuring cup with dual markings for this reason. Then to add complexity bulk foods where there is an air gap around the food such as breakfast cereal and it isn't packed into the measuring space like flour would doesn't convert easily either.

Best to look up your food in MyFitnessPal app on your phone/tablet.
 
Last edited:
So by your math 150 grams = 116 calories
150 / 116 = 1.29 calories per gram

Where are you getting 4 calories per gram from?
 
Food has water content, and water has zero calories.

When you do the math on the components, fat, protein and carbs, it tends to come close to the ultimate value.

http://www.umich.edu/~elements//web_mod/potato/fact.htm

Seems these folks have the potato as 80% water and 20% solids.

Let's see how close we get using the values on the web page:

Potato = 148g
Carbs = 26g
Fat = 0g
Protein = 4g

30g is about 20% of the 148g total, so that part is consistent with the measurement of fat, protein and carbs.

Calories = 4*c+4*p+9*f or 4*26 + 4*4 +0 = 104+16 or about 120 calories.

The carbs and protein must be rounded or some of the carbs are considered non-digestible (fiber.) I cannot explain the difference between the 120 calculated and the 100 depicted on the web page linked above. I suspect some error is allowed,

USDA claims a 213g potato is 163 calories. That's about .765 calories/gram of potato. The umich website above has our 148g potato with 100 calories, or about .676 calories/gram.

Dunno who has it right.

Originally Posted by sleepery
I am a bit confused when looking at caloric content of food weighed in ounces vs. grams .

The site calorie king lists 5.3 oz of potato at 116 calories .

5.3 ounces converted to grams = 150 grams .

At 4 calories per gram roughly, that would be 600 calories ? I am not sure if I am making a obvious mistake .
 
How are you getting 4 calories per gram for potato? It's closer to 0.8 kCal/g.

As an aside, the real unit is kilo calorie. In the USA we just call it a calorie. It's wrong but it's what we do.
 
I was assuming 1 gram of carbs is 4 calories . Also that potato is mostly carbs and a bit of protein also at 4 calories per gram .
 
I think you're probably better off with what the average caloric value is for size than getting clinical with the weight....unless your diet is 30% potatoes or you're more interested in the calculation...which I'm sure is a possibility

The USDA says a medium russet ( 213g ) is about 170 calories and a large russet ( 369g ) is about 290 calories. You could probably make approximations off of those figures. Red potatoes will have slightly less caloric value / different nutritional profile and you'd look up the average figures for them, etc.
 
Thanks for the information everyone . I think the big difference in those numbers I originally posted comes from the water content .
I never really thought about it too often but water plays a huge role in just about any foods composition and calorie count when it's weight is measured .

The MyFitnessPal app looks interesting .
 
Originally Posted by sleepery
Thanks for the information everyone . I think the big difference in those numbers I originally posted comes from the water content .
I never really thought about it too often but water plays a huge role in just about any foods composition and calorie count when it's weight is measured .

The MyFitnessPal app looks interesting .


There is also a fiber in there.
 
I use MFP to track what I eat, my exercise, etc. My nutrition plan limits me to no more than 60g carbs/meal and no more than 225g/day.

There is a pretty good database of foods already. You have to be careful, as there are some unrealistic values entered by users. I.E. if someone lists a whole pie at 300 calories, that's probably not accurate.

The calorie content of foods might shock you.

I used to stop after late night service calls and get a pack of 6 chocolate mini-donuts and a pint of chocolate milk. I could consume that in a matter of minutes. I just consumed 800+ calories.

I now have a coffee or diet soda and an apple, banana or a protein bar for something closer to 200 if I need a pick me up for the drive home.

Originally Posted by sleepery
Thanks for the information everyone . I think the big difference in those numbers I originally posted comes from the water content .
I never really thought about it too often but water plays a huge role in just about any foods composition and calorie count when it's weight is measured .

The MyFitnessPal app looks interesting .
 
Last edited:
I can relate to the chocolate milk consumption ! It is really hard to control myself when I have a cold half gallon of TruMoo at my disposal lol .
 
Originally Posted by tcp71
I suspect a lot of the potato's weight is made up of water, not just carbs.


This. If you dried out that entire potato it would weigh MUCH less.
 
Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
If your eating the right foods, caloric count is irrelevant.
coffee2.gif


Statement could not be further from the truth without knowing the goals of OP or anyone else for that matter.
 
Originally Posted by JLTD
Originally Posted by tcp71
I suspect a lot of the potato's weight is made up of water, not just carbs.


This. If you dried out that entire potato it would weigh MUCH less.

Right, but the intent is for the weight of a regular potato from your pantry.
So your statement is true and irrelevant given the topic.
 
There's stupid stuff too like retrograded starches that defy the "combustion equals calories" simple problem.

Retrograding starches doesn't change the CV if you burned it in a power station, but seriously changes how your body deals with the (now) resistant starches which lose digestibility while better feeding your gut bugs.

If a gorilla eats a bunch of leaves, his gut bugs turn it into medium chain fatty acids, which provide the energy...it's not so simple as a calorie being a calorie.

even the people who promoted that and made the bread food pyramid should have been shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top