I wonder if they added the analysis for hard-boiled at a later date and they had changed their rounding rules. That's where the difference is coming from-- 5g fat vs 5.3.
At any rate, it's not enough to worry about. Some days your large egg will be 50g, sometimes 47, sometimes 52, so you're not getting exactly the same as *any* of these listings on any given day, anyway.
I would check those listings for size and cooking method, too. I agree, if you accessed a foreign source, the values won't be absolutely comparable. Although... the difference of tiny increments should hardly matter!
One site I've found which has been an excellent resource for foods (and even restaurants) is calorielab.com/foods/eggs/39 That particular link goes right to the page on eggs, but if you "back up" on the address you'll find a truly incredible array of listings.
That site says, for a large ( 50 g ) egg... raw : calories - 71.5 protein - 6.3 fat - 5 carb - 0.4
hard-boiled : cal - 77.5 pro - 6.3 fat - 5.3 carb - 0.6
poached ; cal - 71 pro - 6.3 fat - 5 carb - 0.4
I'm not sure why there's discrepancies in the values for different cooking methods. Perhaps something in the way the proteins denature? perhaps differences in the daily specs for the bomb calorimeter I *presume* they used to measure them? No idea. Still, I don't think the miniscule differences listed would be significant to your nutritional plan. It is a curiosity, though.
I didn't check other cooking methods, since, as has already been mentioned, they include ingredients not purely egg.
I also just went to check the USDA database, which says pretty much the same thing as the site mentioned above. You can check that info at: ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
Take a second look at the raw versus hard boiled listing you used. I seriously suspect that you accidentally looked at medium raw egg, not large. It should be 78. Egg sizes are standardized in the US. It's not like a "large" apple, which is whatever an average person looks at and thinks is large. A large egg in the US is between 57-64grams, and the calorie count should be the same whether it's raw or boiled. (As another member said, the listing for scrambled assumes it has milk added and is cooked in some sort of fat.)
It's also possible that you somehow found a Canadian listing, possibly entered by a member. The Canadian egg standard is just a tiny bit smaller, although it still shouldn't make an 8-calorie difference.
Scrambled eggs are not just eggs that have had the yolk and white mixed into each other. Scrambled eggs include milk and butter, which is why the calorie and fat numbers are higher. The hard boiled and raw numbers may just reflect the increase in portion sizes over the years. In other words the 70 number for raw comes from a time when eggs were a little bit smaller and the 78 reflects the newer larger large egg size.
Fitness Minutes: (86,377)
6,909 8/10/13 1:51 A
I was just exploring recently re. raw eggs... Apparently, according to several sites, only about 50% of the protein in raw eggs is accessible. The cooking process is supposed to: provide for a "higher rate of protein absorption from cooked eggs which results from the structural changes in the protein molecule induced by heating. Cooking eggs provide more easily absorbed protein without any of the risks associated with consuming raw eggs."
Fitness Minutes: (10,537)
22 8/10/13 1:07 A
Might be a stupid question that I'll regret asking later...but why are the calorie counts for eggs so different? One large raw egg is about 70 cals, hard boiled is 78, scrambled is 92, etc...according to the SP Nutrition tracker. The fat and protein numbers vary also. Why is that? Does something happen in the cooking process to make it that way?
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.