/* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
LET ME KNOW. */

For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
(120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
inaccurate as well.

While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
does that change the calculation(s)?

On Jul 14, 5:54�pm, Adam > wrote:
> /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> LET ME KNOW. */
>
> For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> dish." �For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> calories when the cooking is finished? �I would expect some of the oil
> would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> are in/on my food. �Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> any impact? �If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? �Is there a
> rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? �80% of original calories?
> 75%? �50%? 0%? �I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> inaccurate as well.
>
> While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> does that change the calculation(s)?

There's no way you're going to be able to get an exact calorie count
on all the foods you eat. Even two identical foods may have different
calorie counts. As far as oil goes it really depends on what type of
food you're cooking with the oil and if you're frying it at the proper
temperature. Why don't you just measure how much oil you start out
with and then measure the oil again after you're done frying. Then
just divide the amount of calories by how many portions you're
making. It won't be exact but it'll be close enough.

On Jul 14, 5:54�pm, Adam > wrote:
> /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> LET ME KNOW. */
>
> For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> dish." �For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> calories when the cooking is finished? �I would expect some of the oil
> would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> are in/on my food. �Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> any impact? �If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? �Is there a
> rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? �80% of original calories?
> 75%? �50%? 0%? �I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> inaccurate as well.
>
> While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> does that change the calculation(s)?

Also, if your oil is burning away it means it's too hot. Oil
shouldn't burn.

On Jul 14, 6:27 pm, " > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:54 pm, Adam > wrote:
>
>
>
> > /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> > LET ME KNOW. */
>
> > For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> > accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> > dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> > (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> > calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
> > would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> > Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> > are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> > any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> > I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
> > rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
> > 75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> > inaccurate as well.
>
> > While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> > does that change the calculation(s)?
>
> Also, if your oil is burning away it means it's too hot. Oil
> shouldn't burn.

"Burn" was a poor choice of words.

I appreciate the responses. I agree that it would be difficult/
impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
was curious how one might go about it regardless. I like your
suggestion.

Adam > wrote:

>I appreciate the responses. I agree that it would be difficult/
>impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
>was curious how one might go about it regardless. I like your
>suggestion.

I would start by gathering nutritional data for various fried
and sauteed foods, and determining from that how much
oil they have absorbed. Then, you could look for
a way to associate food items you commonly cook in oil,
and similar food items in the available data.

For example, 4 ounces of McDonald's french fries have
19 grams of oil in them. If your fried potatoes
are about as greasy as McDonald's, you could choose to
use a similar figure.

Steve

On Jul 14, 6:38�pm, Adam > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 6:27 pm, " > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 5:54 pm, Adam > wrote:
>
> > > /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> > > LET ME KNOW. */
>
> > > For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> > > accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> > > dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> > > (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> > > calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
> > > would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> > > Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> > > are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> > > any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> > > I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
> > > rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
> > > 75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> > > inaccurate as well.
>
> > > While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> > > does that change the calculation(s)?
>
> > Also, if your oil is burning away it means it's too hot. �Oil
> > shouldn't burn.
>
> "Burn" was a poor choice of words.
>
> I appreciate the responses. �I agree that it would be difficult/
> impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
> was curious how one might go about it regardless. �I like your
> suggestion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One of the best sites I've found for showing how many calories are in
certain foods is
http://thedailyplate.com

There's a search box on the lefthand side of the page where you can
type in any food and it will give you the nutritional information for
that food. You be as general or as specific as you need to be. You
can even narrow the search by brand names. For example, if you type
in "french fries" and then click the search button you can then click
on the button that says filter results by brand and the scroll down
the list to the brand you're interested in and click on it.. A large
order of fries from Burger King is 580 calories. A large order of
fries from McDonalds is 500 calories. Once you find the item that
matches what you're looking for you can click on it and it will take
you to a page with more detailed nutritional information.

Adam wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > > On Jul 14, 5:54 pm, Adam > wrote:
> >
> > > > > /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> > > > > LET ME KNOW. */
> >
> > > > > For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> > > > > accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> > > > > dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> > > > > (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> > > > > calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
> > > > > would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> > > > > Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> > > > > are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> > > > > any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> > > > > I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
> > > > > rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
> > > > > 75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> > > > > inaccurate as well.
> >
> > > > > While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> > > > > does that change the calculation(s)?
> >
> > > > Also, if your oil is burning away it means it's too hot. Oil
> > > > shouldn't burn.
> >
> > > "Burn" was a poor choice of words.
> >
> > > I appreciate the responses. I agree that it would be difficult/
> > > impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
> > > was curious how one might go about it regardless. I like your
> > > suggestion.- Hide quoted text -


<snippage>

The obvious way would be to measure out some oil with known calorie
content. Then one fries a weighed amount of the target food in that oil.
After frying, drain the excess oil back into the fry pan. Weigh the oil
to find out how much the food absorbed. One can then calculate the
calories based on the amount of oil absorbed. No point in weighing the
food, as it will lose water during the frying process.

Otherwise, try putting a weighed piece of the target food in a
calorimeter and determine the calories. Put an equal weight of the
fried/drained food in the calorimeter and repeat. Adjust for lost water
and there you are! Simple <vbg>

Adam wrote:
> /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> LET ME KNOW. */
>
> For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
> would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
> rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
> 75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> inaccurate as well.
>
> While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> does that change the calculation(s)?


I'm sure someone will have the answer. In the meantime - no
sarcasm intended, swear to God - I think what matters most is not how
much oil you use, rather how consistent you are in counting calories.
Take a bathroom scale for example. You've been weighing yourself on
that scale for a year. Now you find out the scale was off 10 pounds.
Does it matter? Not really. You know how much you've lost or gained
on the basis of that single scale, and that's good enough. Same with
counting calories - which I've done - not because I'm majorly fat,
more because I have a habit of measuring things, to the point that I
have an uncle who calls me "the measuring man" - it's a matter of
consistency. Sure, it's good to have the facts, and I hope you get
them in this case. But if by chance you don't (fat chance), just
remember, just like that bathroom scale, it doesn't matter if your
system is off, as long as it's the only one you use.

For instance, let's say for a year you've been eating an apple a
day and counting it as 200 calories. Now you find out it's really
only 100 calories. I say stick with the wrong answer, because it's
the one you've been using. If you fall off the diet then come back
again, ok, at that point, starting your diet friesh, by all means call
it 100 calories. Know what I mean?

I have another measuring question to addle your brain. Your
question concerns added calories. How about lost calories, ever
wonder about that one? For example, when a fat-filled meat is used to
make a burger, how much of the fat drains off during cooking?
Probably not much if you like it raw. This is like your question in
reverse, and I've asked them both ways, so I understand.

Tommy Joe

On Jul 15, 7:33*pm, Arri London > wrote:
> Adam wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 14, 5:54 pm, Adam > wrote:
>
> > > > > > /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> > > > > > LET ME KNOW. */
>
> > > > > > For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> > > > > > accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> > > > > > dish." For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> > > > > > (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> > > > > > calories when the cooking is finished? I would expect some of the oil
> > > > > > would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying)..
> > > > > > Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> > > > > > are in/on my food. Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> > > > > > any impact? If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> > > > > > I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? Is there a
> > > > > > rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? 80% of original calories?
> > > > > > 75%? 50%? 0%? I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> > > > > > inaccurate as well.
>
> > > > > > While we're on the subject, what about when you brush a food with oil;
> > > > > > does that change the calculation(s)?
>
> > > > > Also, if your oil is burning away it means it's too hot. Oil
> > > > > shouldn't burn.
>
> > > > "Burn" was a poor choice of words.
>
> > > > I appreciate the responses. I agree that it would be difficult/
> > > > impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
> > > > was curious how one might go about it regardless. I like your
> > > > suggestion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> <snippage>
>
> The obvious way would be to measure out some oil with known calorie
> content.

All oil is 9 Kcals per gram.

John Kuthe (gonna get an A in my Nutrition class!)...

John Kuthe wrote:
>
> On Jul 15, 7:33 pm, Arri London > wrote:
> > Adam wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:54 pm, Adam > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> > > > > > > LET ME KNOW. */
> >
>
> > > > > I appreciate the responses. I agree that it would be difficult/
> > > > > impossible to get a perfectly accurate calculation of all foods, but I
> > > > > was curious how one might go about it regardless. I like your
> > > > > suggestion.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > <snippage>
> >
> > The obvious way would be to measure out some oil with known calorie
> > content.
>
> All oil is 9 Kcals per gram.
>
> John Kuthe (gonna get an A in my Nutrition class!)...


LOL and TY. Didn't write my reply out correctly... the number of
calories will depend on the *amount* of the oil, which is what I should
have said.

Good Luck with your class!

In article
>,
John Kuthe > wrote:

lots of snippage
>
> All oil is 9 Kcals per gram.
>
> John Kuthe (gonna get an A in my Nutrition class!)...

As the resident (former) nutrition professor, you have hereby earned an
A--on this quiz. For the OP, you should count the amount of oil that
was incorporated into the food, not what was left over in the pan.
Temperature makes a difference in the amount of oil absorbed by food.
If you cook at a lower heat, it takes longer for the food (for example,
a chicken leg) to cook and there is an increased propensity for the food
to absorb more oil. If the chicken leg has the skin (and fat) on it,
you may wind up with more fat in the pan after frying than when you
started because the chicken fat was rendered into the pan. As you can
see, there are lots of variables to deal with.

Counting calories is doable if you are obsessive-compulsive and eat ONLY
what you measure out, cook, and eat, or foods that have nutrition
information readily available (although this is not always accurate).
For the non-obsessive-compulsive types, here are the things that should
be "counted":

What the scale says--look for weekly changes, not daily changes.
Waist circumference--this is a more accurate predictor of cardiovascular
disease and type 2 diabetes than weight or body mass index. Risky waist
circumferences are greater than 35 in (89 cm) for women, greater than 40
in (102 cm) for men.
How many minutes per week do you engage in vigorous physical activity
(the type that raises your heart rate). This can include more than
light housework, gardening, stair climbing, walking, and aerobic
exercise like swimming. Aim for at least 200 minutes per week (about 30
minutes per day) to maintain weight, 300 per week (45 or more minutes
per day) to lose weight.

Cindy

--
C.J. Fuller

Delete the obvious to email me

On Jul 14, 5:54*pm, Adam > wrote:
> /* IF THERE IS A MORE APPROPRIATE GROUP I SHOULD SENT THIS TO, PLEASE
> LET ME KNOW. */
>
> For calorie counting, I'm curious how to get an accurate, or even semi-
> accurate, calculation for calories cooking oils contribute to a "final
> dish." *For example, if a recipe calls for 1 tablespoon of olive oil
> (120 calories, I think), do I count all those calories for my total
> calories when the cooking is finished? *I would expect some of the oil
> would "burn away," and some would remain in the pan (if frying).
> Therefore I would guess that I should not consider all those calories
> are in/on my food. *Does the amount of pan surface area covered have
> any impact? *If I had 1/2 the pan covered by my food, would I estimate
> I'm absorbing 1/2 the oil I originally put in the pan? *Is there a
> rule of thumb for this kind of estimate? *80% of original calories?
> 75%? *50%? 0%? *I don't think it would be 0%, but 100% seems
> inaccurate as well.

When deep fat frying, I would go by the listings for KFC or some other
fried food chain as to the final calorie count and fat content. That
is, unless you weigh the pan with the oil before adding the food, and
after removing the food, then figure out how much oil was absorbed by
the food and go from there.

A nutritionist that I work with says that when counting calories, even
folks in her profession are often off by over 600 calories per day (on
the low side), so when I saute or pan fry things, I just use the
calorie count of the oil added to the pan and don't worry about how
much is left in the pan when I remove the food.

On Jul 18, 3:03�pm, maxine > wrote:
> A nutritionist that I work with says that when counting calories, even
> folks in her profession are often off by over 600 calories per day (on
> the low side), so when I saute or pan fry things, I just use the
> calorie count of the oil added to the pan and don't worry about how
> much is left in the pan when I remove the food.-

If they're off by as much as 600 calories a day then they need to find
another profession. To maintain my weight of 155 pounds I have to
consume 2400 calories a day. Now I know on some foods I might be
underestimating the number of calories and on others I'm probably
overestimating but on average it comes out to 2400 calories a day.
There's no way I could be off by 600 calories.

As far as something like fried chicken legs goes, one can only come up
with a ballpark figure. Even if you know the weight of the chicken
leg, you don't know the exact percentage of lean vs. fat vs. bone in
that particular leg. You can only go by what they say is the number
of calories in a typical fried chicken leg. Of course your chicken
might actually contain more calories than the average for one reason
or another. So if you ate several chicken legs on a regular basis
your estimation of the number of calories you're consuming would be
grossly underestimated.

On the other hand, if you eat a variety of food you can probably
figure that you're going to be over in your estimate in the number of
calories in some foods and under in your estimate of the number of
calories in other foods. What really helps is to use a digital scale
to weigh everything. People might be surprised to find out that
they're really eating 6 ounces of meat when they though they were
eating just 3. On packaged foods I don't go by the serving size. I
figure up the total number of calories in the whole thing and then
figure out what percentage of the whole I'm actually eating. If
something says 200 calories a serving and it says 8 servings and I eat
1/3 of it then I count that as 533 calories. Like I said, it's
impossible to be exact on any individual food but on average one
should be able to come within plus or minus a few calories of their
daily goal.