# Pasta Confusion



## tritzia (Jan 27, 2013)

Can anyone tell me why Pasta is higher in calories once it is cooked?

 As it's only boiled in water and water is free of calories, it doesn't make sense
 why it would suddenly jump up in calories 

 No one would eat it raw anyway, unless they want to break their teeth 

 Thanks
 Tricia.


----------



## jennyema (Jan 27, 2013)

Why do you think that?


----------



## tritzia (Jan 27, 2013)

I see it in recipes etc all the time.
Thats why I had to ask I don't understand why diet recipes give different calorific values between raw and cooked pasta.
Hence my confusion.
Tricia.


----------



## chopper (Jan 27, 2013)

Maybe they are suggesting to put a little oil in the water and that may add a touch more calories???


----------



## tritzia (Jan 27, 2013)

No. I didn't see anything added to them.
Some of them were in weight Watcher recipes as well, Maybe it's a British thing.
when I google about Pasta Calories it applies to certain sites as well.


----------



## chopper (Jan 27, 2013)

Too funny.  I hope someone can help you come up with an answer. Sorry I cannot.


----------



## buckytom (Jan 27, 2013)

maybe cooked pasta is digested more thoroughly, therefore you get more calories out of it?

i don't know. just a guess


----------



## GLC (Jan 27, 2013)

It's hard to develop reliable cooked pasta calorie measures. But in general, speaking of plain flour and water pasta, 2 oz by weight cooks to about a cup, and both have roughly 210 calories. Cooking may make more of the flour become nutritionally available, but not enough to worry about. For dried pasta, the calorie content is essentially that of the same weight of flour. 

If some resource suggests a difference between one cup cooked and two ounces uncooked pasta, it will be the result of (1) plain error, (2) confusion over conversion of weight to volume measures. It's a little hard to be precise about cooked pasta, since the form of the pasta influences how it fills the typical one cup volume. 

Fresh pasta will have fewer calories than the same weight of dry, because there is still some water in it. 

Food label calories are derived using the Atwater system that assigns kcal values per gram for the components of foods, carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, with an additional value for alcohol. The values were originally derived by burning. So the calorie values for various foods are really the result of analyzing the components by weight and applying the standard values.


----------



## Cerise (Jan 27, 2013)

tritzia said:


> I see it in recipes etc all the time.
> Thats why I had to ask I don't understand why *diet recipes give different calorific values between raw and cooked pasta.*
> Hence my confusion.
> Tricia.


 
Welcome, Tricia.
The only thing I can think of is, pasta almost doubles in volume when cooked. If the recipe calls for 1 cup of pasta, calorie-wise, I might take it to mean 1 cup of cooked pasta.  So, I would think, cook 1/2 cup of raw pasta to equal 1 cup of cooked pasta.  Hope that makes sense.


----------



## jennyema (Jan 28, 2013)

Cerise said:


> Welcome, Tricia.
> The only thing I can think of is, pasta almost doubles in volume when cooked. If the recipe calls for 1 cup of pasta, calorie-wise, I might take it to mean 1 cup of cooked pasta.  So, I would think, cook 1/2 cup of raw pasta to equal 1 cup of cooked pasta.  Hope that makes sense.



I thought about this theory, too...  

But Tricia says that her recipes say that COOKED pasta is higher in calories.  Which the opposite of your theory.

You're right of course that dry pasta increases substantially in size when it cooks and plumps up.


Let's say a cup of dry macaroni is 200 calories.  A cup of cooked macaroni would only contain 100 calories since you only need 1/2 cup of dry to make it.

I can't think of a theory why cooked pasta would be  more caloric than its dry counterpart


----------



## Tombo (Feb 3, 2013)

Maybe when it is boiled, some of the molecules go through chemical conversion, thus leading to a higher level of calories


----------



## Oldvine (Feb 3, 2013)

I've never seen that information so no help here.  It doesn't even make sense that cooking in water and no other additions would make more calories.   If a cup of pasta cooks up to two cups it, one cup of cooked would be less calories than one cup of uncooked in my thinking.


----------



## Gravy Queen (Feb 3, 2013)

It's got to be a weight thing . So either choose your dry or cooked weight . Well it makes sense in my small head.....


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 11, 2013)

I'd question the recipe that tells you pasta gains calories when boiled.


----------



## Skittle68 (Feb 11, 2013)

If its true, I agree with the theory that cooked pasta is easier to digest, therefore your body is able to get more of the calories out of it. But why on earth would you eat raw pasta? The calories listed on the box would refer to PREPARED pasta, if there was a difference, right? Lol


----------



## Whiskadoodle (Feb 11, 2013)

Maybe they should cook dry pasta in dehydrated water, then there will be no caloric change.


----------



## Mad Cook (Sep 18, 2013)

tritzia said:


> I see it in recipes etc all the time.
> Thats why I had to ask I don't understand why diet recipes give different calorific values between raw and cooked pasta.
> Hence my confusion.
> Tricia.


You'd think cooked pasta would have fewer calories compared weight for weight than uncooked pasta because it absorbs water and swells.


----------



## Mad Cook (Sep 18, 2013)

Tombo said:


> Maybe when it is boiled, some of the molecules go through chemical conversion, thus leading to a higher level of calories


I suppose it's possible that the starch in the "raw" pasta converts to a form of sugar when it's cooked but, then, it would do so in the digestion process anyway. I can't see that it would make a difference.

This, of course, assumes we are talking about the pasta on it's own. Fettuccini Alfredo is a whole different matter


----------

