Calorie Question

Why would cooking change the nutritional value? If you fry something in oil, simply add the oil. Boiling shouldn't do anything.

Only confusion might be if you should take the raw or cooked weight of pasta or rice since they absorb water.

>>41522923
It's raw/uncooked weight on labels here in Norway.

>>41522864
this is bait right?

>being this autistic

>>41522923
It breaks down the bonds in the food and makes it easier to digest, decreasing the calories spent digesting it and therefore more net calories overall.

Basic evolution, when humans learned to cook, our food become more nutritional. I thought this was common knowledge? I especially assumed so on /fit/

>>41522864
Well if you burn it, you'll lose some calories.

>>41522864
>>41522923
>>41522996

Cooking actually change some of the food's parameters (nutrient absorbtion for your body).
So eating not properly prepared food can "modify" the macros up to an extent :
there'll still be X proteins , Y carbs Z fats, and A micronutrient, but those might not be all available for your body<

>>41523064
This guy understands.

I'm wondering if there is any way to account for this change?

>>41523034
Calories used for digestion are never taken into account in nutritional value or else most vegetables would have negative calories. Neither are unabsorbable proteins and the like.

The actual amount of macros in your food doesn't change from cooking it.

>>41523093
I'm >>41523064

Short answer :
No i don't think

Long answer :
Pretty hard.
Biological parameters are hard to estimate because of :
- Lack of accuracy of assesing methods
- Biological variations between individuals
That's why even the GI (glycemic index is not a reliable data - itreally bothered me when i learn it-)
Also calories are calculated roughly from those values :
1g carb/protein = 4kcal
1g fat = 9kcal
Those kcal values are rough estimations from the energy liberated by chemical reactions from your metabolism (correlated to the amount of ATP equivalent produced). They're not representative of the actual amount of energy given to your body, they only show how much energy is liberated when consuming 1g of carb/fat/protein in a metabolic pathway

>>41523102

Stop saying things. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Eggs are a perfect example.
The nutrition from a cooked egg is vastly different from that of a raw egg.
Same with meat. Same with, to some extent though less significant in terms of macronutrients, vegetables.

>>41523213
Well he was actually right about the macros of the food. X carbs/proteins/fats stays X carbs/prots/fats if they are not distorted by the cooking process
What differs mostly is their biodisponibility for your body, that's what i explained here >>41523064

>>41523213
Everything I said was correct you faggot