Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
BITTERQUILL Posts: 1,639
1/25/12 9:20 P

I do the same and also get no measurable change in volume. I would use the raw measurement, if the volume hasn't changed. Some of the nutrients might be a bit off (not as much as if you'd cooked it more heavily), but the calories should be pretty close.

ETA: Ha, I'm a little too slow tonight.

Edited by: BITTERQUILL at: 1/25/2012 (21:21)
1/25/12 9:19 P

In that case I would just track it as raw emoticon emoticon

SPOORK Posts: 1,193
1/25/12 9:17 P

I meant to include this in my original post: I measured before and after, both times the broccoli measured 2 cups. I don't over steam my broccoli (it's always still very crunchy) so there are aren't really any changes in volume.

BITTERQUILL Posts: 1,639
1/25/12 9:17 P

I'm guessing the significant caloric difference is because heavily steamed broccoli is softer and you can hypothetically cram more into a cup? Cooking does destroy some nutrients but I can't imagine that it would more than double the calories.

1/25/12 9:11 P

veggies usually shrink when cooked - a cup of raw broccoli takes up more space and will have fewer calories for the volume, so track them according to when you measured your serving (pre or post cooking)

SPOORK Posts: 1,193
1/25/12 9:04 P

Should steamed broccoli be tracked as fresh or cooked? This might seem like a silly question, but normally I track it as fresh but I just realized that there is a nutritional difference. 2 cups fresh is 49 calories and 572mg of potassium while 2 cups of cooked broccoli is 109 calories 914.2mg of potassium.

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Last Post:
1/10/2017 1:36:36 PM
3/8/2017 6:55:07 PM
2/12/2017 8:23:36 PM
5/19/2017 10:01:48 AM