48

No, because what is evaporating is water.


45

There's definitely some rounding going on because the peanut butter has 100.1g of nutrients per 100g of product. This isn't enough to explain the discrepancy. Adding up the nutrients on the roasted peanuts gives 95.4g. I think we can assume the other 4.6% is water. So perhaps more water has been driven off the peanut butter. What I think is more likely (...


42

Flatly, the calories are in the filter: in the grounds that you dump on your compost. In the water that went through the grounds, there are mostly aromatic substances and traces of coffee oils, few enough that a cup of coffee has (rounded) 0 calories. The caloric values given for coffee beans are valid if eaten - which is rarely done in significant amounts ...


35

Most of the weight in fresh fruit is water, which has no calories. When you dry the fruit, the remainder is concentrated, so there are more calories in a given volume or weight. Sulfur dioxide is a preservative with anti-microbial properties. The claim of 3.6 times the energy is specious.


31

Your question goes near the answer. As you can read on those nifty tables on products, calories come from mainly three sources: Fats, sugars and protein. There are also fibres, alcohol (that are not counted as carbs) like ethanol and organic acids but the first three is packed with them. So fat have 9 kcal/g, carbs 4kcal/g and proteins also 4 kcal/g (...


19

I'm afraid you interpret the tables wrong. You aren't destroying calories, you are adding water (=0 cal) to the dry rice. As the rice absorbs the water, you are in fact measuring rice + water for cooked rice. This is true for calorie tables that measure by volume (like here) and by weight. If you are cooking your rice by boiling and straining, you are ...


16

Drinks are mostly water. If besides that it's just flavorings and artificial sweeteners, there's nothing with calories in it. So zero-calorie drinks are a really obvious thing to make: just take some existing drink, replace any sugar with artificial sweeteners, replace any actual food content (e.g. fruit puree) with flavorings, and it'll be zero calorie. To ...


10

I had an application not long ago for which I needed the answer to the question as written. America's Test Kitchen (sorry, paywalled) has a recipe for banana bread that I love. I save over-ripe banana chunks in the freezer until I feel like making banana bread. The recipe calls for "6 large very ripe bananas (about 2 1/4 pounds), peeled". My bananas were ...


10

My guess is that the peanut butter is 100% peanuts but not 100% of the peanuts are being used in it. That's like sea salt that is 100% from the Atlantic Ocean. It still contains a smaller amount of water (and consequently a larger amount of sodium) than the Atlantic Ocean does. Or 100% pure orange juice which fortunately omits the orange peels.


10

Conventionally, drying is only the first step. The second is burning it and seeing how much energy is given off. But this isn't always the best way to determine the calories that your body gets from the food, as it doesn't deal with bio-availability - basically, can your body extract that energy from the food? Diet foods often cellulose or other fiber ...


9

The best way to be confident is to check some clear nutrition facts directly. The USDA reports that "Pasta, dry, unenriched" has 371 calories per 100g, and "Pasta, cooked, unenriched, without added salt" has 158 calories per 100g. So your 176 calories per 100g seems to be for cooked pasta; it's way too few calories for 100g dry, even if your pasta is ...


8

None of them are right—or, all of them are right. "Ground bison" does not fully describe the product. Any ground meat is produced from one or more cuts of varying fat content, and usually does not have the same overall fat content as the average across all cuts of meat for that animal. So, to have a chance at comparing these different sources of information,...


8

Per the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 28, the "refuse" content of a banana is 36%, attributed to the peeling. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2159?format=Full


8

These days, mostly software. In the good/bad old days, by actually burning it (or having a laboratory do that for them). Software is much simpler (unless you are writing it, though it is probably more tedious than complex.) Input ingredients and quantities, out comes calories. For a restaurant that assumes that the recipe used for calculation matches the ...


8

Those ingredients you mentioned, you wanted to add, are all possible, i guess. Fat tends to make the ice cream creamier, even at low temperatures. There are many recipes out there involving egg yolk, though, because it has other properties as well. It serves as an emulsifier, which binds water to fat. This prevents separation. There are other emulsifier, too,...


7

Remember that calories are basically how much energy you can get by burning stuff. If you try to evaporate a cup of coffee, you will only have a small amount of dark brown residue left. If you didn't use a filter, you'll have more residue. People usually don't drink up the ground coffee in their cups, so for the purpose of counting how much burnable material ...


7

The difference is water. 1 TBS uncooked rice has 3 times the volume after it's cooked. No calories are lost.


7

I don't know about it being the most caloric ingredient, but arctic explorers eat butter to help provide the roughly 9000Cal per day that they need. I assume this is a trade-off across a number of factors, such as energy content, ease of carrying, ease of portioning, behaviour in cold weather and so on. For example, pure oils probably have higher energy ...


6

SAJ14SAJ's answer is very good for the basic case. There are a few exceptions. First, if you have an ingredient which is partly discarded, it can be hard or impossible to find out what part ended up in your final food. If you deep fry vegetables in oil, you will have to calculate the change in oil weight to find out how much oil got absorbed. Worse, if you ...


5

Use Wolfram Alpha, it is just adding them up. But any lab result has to use average ingredient figures too. You need to allow for variance in supply i.e protein level of flour changes with variety and season. It produces pretty labels, all ready to go! e.g. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100g+flour+and+100g+butter+and+50g+sugar


5

Pumpkin pie is basically a custard, removing the yolks could change the texture of the pie. Yolks contribute both proteins and fats to the pie which are important for the structure of the filling as well as its creaminess/smoothness. In general, two whites can be used to replace one whole egg. Avoid whipping or over-mixing the filling to prevent making ...


5

Use Wolframalpha, it is just adding them up. Your products may not exactly match Wolframs average products, but many labs use average ingredient figures too As @rumtscho mentions the change or loss in the fermenting/cooking process will affect the final results. There have been books published with tables showing the changes caused by fermentation and ...


5

In general, in most jurisdictions, the calories would be based on the edible portion (or the commonly eaten portion), so oranges without the peel, nuts without the shell.


5

Presuming that the nutrient labels are accurate (for some value of "accurate"), I can think of two reasons for the difference. Nutrient labels are rounded very aggressively (as in, to the nearest multiple of 10). Thus, doing math on the numbers is likely to result in so much error propagation that any differences are meaningless. Peanut butter generally ...


5

There are at least a dozen varieties of peanuts. Some are better for whole peanuts and others for peanut butter. Possibly there are some nutritional differences between varieties. Also the preparation could come into play, dry roasting vs oil roasting.


5

Take one or two scoops of your soup (prefer the solid parts), put it into a blender, blitz until smooth and put it back into your soup. You'll get zero additional calories and zero awful stuff your grandma wouldn't identify as food. This obviously only works if we're not talking about a broth.


5

The nice thing about calories is that they are very constant, mixing or combining things does not change the sum of calories. So in short, calculate the calories you add (the applesauce) and the calories you leave out (eggs, oil). Add and subtract these from what the box says and you're done. If the box gives calories per unit or serving, you'd first have ...


5

It depends. If your ingredients are just flour, salt, yeast and water, you’ll be reasonably close, but not really exact. If you are dealing with a more complex recipe, added milk, eggs, sugar, fats, seeds... the values will be way less precise. But: There’s always some deviation, even between different batches of flour, and all values you will find in ...


5

Yes, some will be lost. But how much will depend on a number of factors, and my quick google-fu was unable to find research that specifically addresses the question of lost calories. It's not just water. Research related to the question seems to mostly be centered around the topic of air quality. As such, measurements just care that there's SOMETHING in ...


5

Short answer - no. Due to Conservation of Mass, your body cannot gain more grams of mass than it consumes. Long answer - maybe. Eating certain foods could cause you to retain more water, more unprocessed waste in your colon, etc. However, if you account for all the mass from all sources, then it must always balance out.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible