How many calories you think this meal has? Its spaghetti bolognese

About tree fiddy

more than you should eat

but not too many to count them yourself before cooking the meal you idiot

>Not eating beans with rice

Never gonna make it

>>39895817
About 700-750 educated guess

600, small as fucking plate.

>>39895817

>those 25% bf veinless hands

Man I see stuff like this and I fucking cringe in horror but at the same time I feel so thankful I don't look like that anymore

>>39895817
>bolognese
>beans
Yeah, no.

Looks like 2 servings of pasta and maybe 6oz beef. Ill say its not more than 600cal unless you used some sugar shit sauce.

File: 1480367545941.jpg (37KB, 621x672px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 621x672px

>spaghetti bolognese

>no spaghetti
>beans

File: 1483375719989.png (180KB, 1028x608px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1028x608px

>>39895817
>Spaghetti Bolognese
>Is not Bolognese, does not contain spaghetti

>>39895817
600
also nice b8 thread

>>39895833
>measuring food before cooking it

Lmao

>those fingers
lol who the fuck cares you manlet, you're never going to look good anyway

>>39895863
I'm about 14-15%.
I guess my hands just store more fat than normal

>>39895865
wanted to try it. Didn't work too well.

Do my hands look really that fat?

>>39895908
you're supposed to weigh it before cooking, retard.

>>39895948
Do you eat the raw food or the cooked version of the food?
Like which is the one going into your body and being digested?

>>39895944
They don't look fat but they don't look like the hands of someone who lifts for some reason.

>>39895971
Because the nurtient information on the package is for uncooked food. You can't possibly say how much the cooked stuff actually has. Also fucking water retention with pasta, rice, etc. If you're weighting cooked pasta and just calculating the calories based on this weight with the information on raw pasta, you are counting way way more than you eating since cooked it has multiple times the raw weight while actually loosing nutrients.

>>39896063
>Water contains calories

>>39896084
>what is reading comprehension

>>39896084
Nowhere in that post is "water containing calories" even remotely implied
Maybe try reading it again

>>39896063
Maybe we cna safely assume anyone weighing portions of pasta does so before the cooking. Like any sane, civilized person would.
As for nutrients, is it true that cooked pasta would lose carbs just from being cooked in water?

>>39895817
honestly hard to tell because your hand is a really shitty size indicator, based on the fact that the rotini is probably standard size I would hazzard a guess at at least 600 (there is no way it is less than 500).

>>39895817
fuark i haven't had this with meat cooked in tomato sauce in a while

File: 123544585322.png (197KB, 2500x1645px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 2500x1645px

>>39896084

>>39896142
yes and no, the trace amounts lost are negligible and it's mostly a starchy coating that is lost

also if you know anything about how calories are counted in the lab then you would know ALL calories listed per portion are (good) estimates and not a precise amount, so the amount of variance between a cooked and uncooked version is similar to the delta measured when doing calorie testing, so don't worry about it

for some foods it can matter a great deal but most people are cognizant of that (IE ground beef if you drain the fat, melted cheese separating the oils/fat but that is also a factor as to why ground beef (etc) doesn't have a calorie listing on the product at the store

>>39896142
>As for nutrients, is it true that cooked pasta would lose carbs just from being cooked in water?
Just look at the water you cooked the pasta in - it's cloudy because of the starch that gets lost while cooking. Because of that starch the cooking water is sometimes used to thicken the sauce. I don't really know how much it is though. Probably neglegible.

File: topcat-reads-your-retarded-post.jpg (36KB, 580x417px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 580x417px

>>39895931

ok pajeet, whatever delusions make you happy.