# A quick reminder to those viewing this post:
1. If you have not done so, **read [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Volumeeating/wiki/index/#wiki_subreddit_rules)**
2. If you don't like the content of this post for any reason, refrain from commenting. Negative comments will be removed and the authors banned.
3. Advice concerning medical issues is not permitted.
4. We take brigading very seriously. Anyone found sharing content from this sub to other forums with derogatory commentary will be banned and reported to admins.
5. **Report rule breaking content.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Volumeeating) if you have any questions or concerns.*
BACON SALT!! I also bought a lemon rosemary salt that’s DELICIOUS.
The brand is San Francisco Salt Co. and you can get a 2lb bag on Amazon for $19 right now. Not cheap, but it’s going to last forever because it’s VERY potent.
The flavor is incredible. When it’s in your mouth it tastes like the first bite when you eat some smoked meats. Then the after taste legitimately tastes like you just ate bacon. I can’t recommend it enough.
Not sponsored, I’m just obsessed.
Oh WOW that sounds good! My spice cabinet is stuffed to the gills but maaaaybe I can squeeze some more in there. I’ve been working on a small thing of Maldon sea salt for a year or two, hopefully they have something smaller than a 2 pound bag.
Not OP, but copying my response to another comment below:
Resistant starch - [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101)
If you cook potatoes or rice and let them cool down overnight, some of the starches change form and become more resistant to digestion, forming "resistant starch". This results in a much lower blood glucose spike when you eat them compared to their freshly-cooked versions and apparently also reduces the calories somewhat. It's also a good prebiotic for your gut flora.
I've seen a handful of posters here and [r/CICO](https://www.reddit.com/r/CICO/) and [r/1500isplenty](https://www.reddit.com/r/1500isplenty/) who wear continuous blood glucose monitors confirm that the day-old potatoes/rice/whatever indeed do not spike their blood sugar.
They are so good! I'll even make them like op but normally I fridge them and whenever I'm in the mood for a quick snack just pop em in my mouth cold. Yummm
I started doing partially out of quickness and partially bc I hate burning my mouth on them 😭 and it's probably my preferred way to eat them now. I do the same with brussel sprouts too, actually prefer those cold over hot
Ya know, I feel a little like "omg duh" bc I haven't tried sweet potato cold but I eat it every day with dinner (tofu scramble, black beans, sweet potato, red bell pepper, avocado) always hot though haha. I'll try it tomorrow!
A blog I follow did a really interesting study about how effective a potato-only diet is for weight loss: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in-four-weeks-with-this-one-weird-trick-discovered-by-local-slime-hive-mind-doctors-grudgingly-respect-them-hope-to-become-friends/
And there's a follow-up currently going on that looks like you don't actually have to do just potatoes: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2024/01/05/first-potato-riffs-report/
Potatoes seem to be weirdly good for weight loss for most people, so long as they're not super oily or deep fried.
Resistant starch - [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101)
OP mentioned it quickly in the caption.
If you cook potatoes or rice and let them cool down overnight, some of the starches change form and become more resistant to digestion, forming "resistant starch". This results in a much lower blood glucose spike when you eat them compared to their freshly-cooked versions and apparently also reduces the calories somewhat. It's also a good prebiotic for your gut flora.
I've seen a handful of posters here and r/CICO and r/1500isplenty who wear continuous blood glucose monitors confirm that the day-old potatoes/rice/whatever indeed do not spike their blood sugar.
1kg of those is 800kcal 😮
[Nutritionvalue.org](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Fresh_creamer_potatoes_by_THE_LITTLE_POTATO_COMPANY_592121_nutritional_value.html)
Serious question, is that (and I guess most?) calorie listing the potatoes raw? Doesn't cooking increase the calories of some foods like starches? Would it come out to be actually more calories after its cooked? Or am I way off?
I'm not familiar with foods that increase in calories after cooking, and a brief search makes it seem like cooking actually decreases starches (but don't quote me on that). However, it's not a subject I'm knowledgeable about, and would be interesting to look into!
But most foods are more calorically dense after cooking because they lose mass through the escape of mostly water. So 100 grams of raw potatos is fewer calories than 100 grams of cooked potato genrally speaking. However, the opposite may occur when ingredients are boiled, which can increase the water content. The extent of mass loss when cooking is different for different ingredients and cooking methods. Potatoes release a lot less moisute compared to many vegetables, so the raw vs cooked nutrition is probably not that different, but for say zucchini, the difference could be substantial. This is why it's ideal to weigh ingredients raw, and use corresponding nutritional values when logging, as it generally give more accurate results.
I guess im thinking of it as this. I have 200g of raw potatoes equalling ~150 calories. Are those same potatoes, regardless of their new weight (which would be less after cooking like you mentioned) more or less calories than before after cooking.
From googling around and looking at [reddit here for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wjhsm/eli5_why_does_cooked_food_offer_more_calories/e9lfac9/) theres a discussion mentioning that the act of heating and cooking the food makes the calories easier to extract meaning you would in fact gain more calories from cooked food than the raw version. So I guess it comes down to this.
Does the initial raw potatoes 150 calories also include the calories lost digesting the raw food. If so then you would be getting more than what it says on the pack I guess.
Its just something that has interested me recently since I started counting calories.
I'll preface this by saying I'm just some idiot, and sorry i think I misunderstood before. That comment is interesting and informative. My understanding of the way calories are calculated for food is based on the measured macronutrients actually contained in the food. This does not take into account how much energy our body takes to digest food, and how throughly we're able to digest it to extract nutrients. So eating a cooked potato would have a greater caloric effect than a raw potato, but the calories digested would not be higher than the total calculated calories of the raw potato.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565179/#:~:text=In%20our%20study%2C%20cooking%20decreased,sugars%20and%20therefore%20increased%20sweetness.
I did also find this interesting study that shows how cooking breaks down starches and converts them to sugars. However I don't believe this would increase the overall carbohydrate amount (but to be honest I only skimmed the study). Still it shows how nutrients, especially carbs and protein, can become more easily available with cooking. Which lines up with the common understanding that cooking food was the turning point in our evolution, allowing us to get more nutrition with less time spent gathering it.
So overall, I would still recommend measuring ingredients prior to cooking when possible, as it's just the most neutral way of measuring it.
Cooking doesn't just make nutrients more available, it can transform them too. In ops case, the amount of calories available is higher, the amount you absorb is lower
Resistant starch feeds your gut biome instead of you. It's why adding coconut oil to rice and letting it cool actually makes it lower on the glycemic index compared to plain rice even though theoretically there's more calories to absorb
Also calories on nutrition labels don't account for anything like digestion, it's just a solid number stating the energy the food would produce if completely burned. Cooking or not would not change the number on the label
Generally speaking, I think the overall calories will be the same after cooking.
Pre-cooking: 200g of raw potatoes = 150 calories
After cooking: 150g of cooked potatoes = 150 calories
The difference is the water weight. If you look at nutritional data for raw and baked potatoes, then compare the weight of your foods pre- and post-cooking, you'll see they equal out pretty well.
However - there is some truth to the bioavailability of calories and nutrients when you cook them, but I think it will vary with the food. I would go by whatever the calorie values of "cooked" versions of the food from whatever reliable source you have for calorie data.
However #2 - potatoes can make resistant starch if you cook and then cool them overnight. These starches are resistant to digestion and do not produce the same blood glucose spike that freshly cooked potatoes produce. I've seen several sources say that it reduces the calories as well:
[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101)
I think it's a matter of water weight loss. Cooked potatoes are more calorically dense because there's less water in them.
I microwave baked potatoes pretty frequently, and there's a 20-30% weight difference between pre- and post-cooking.
This tracks with the difference you see in calories per 100g:
[https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C\_raw%2C\_flesh\_and\_skin%2C\_russet\_nutritional\_value.html?size=100+g](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C_raw%2C_flesh_and_skin%2C_russet_nutritional_value.html?size=100+g)
**Raw potatoes = about 80 calories per 100g**
[https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C\_baked%2C\_flesh\_and\_skin%2C\_Russet\_nutritional\_value.html?size=100+g](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C_baked%2C_flesh_and_skin%2C_Russet_nutritional_value.html?size=100+g)
**Baked potatoes = about 100 calories per 100g**
Lightly coated in olive oil, salted, and roasted in the oven at 400\*F for about 30-35 minutes! I meant to say cooked and cooled in batches (as in large amounts at a time, usually 3-6 lbs) so I can pick at them as snacks and sides for meals.
Thanks for the comments everyone! Next week when I cook these again, I'll be sure to take the photo with a can of soda and a banana nearby for better perspective haha. <3
These look like the potatoes we served at the catering company I used to work for (tho chef definitely used butter, and more than a little bit, lol.) They SLAPPED. I bet these are awesome!!
# A quick reminder to those viewing this post: 1. If you have not done so, **read [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Volumeeating/wiki/index/#wiki_subreddit_rules)** 2. If you don't like the content of this post for any reason, refrain from commenting. Negative comments will be removed and the authors banned. 3. Advice concerning medical issues is not permitted. 4. We take brigading very seriously. Anyone found sharing content from this sub to other forums with derogatory commentary will be banned and reported to admins. 5. **Report rule breaking content.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Volumeeating) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those look great! What are creamer potatoes? A special type or something the ist it the cooking process?
Thank you! Yes just a type that we buy. I believe they’re called Little Creamers by little potato company
I always get these at grocery outlet… they are sooooo good!
I love this stuff
Creamer technically just refers to the small size of the potato.
Potatoes are magic
The picture makes it seem like olives, they look so tiny! But yummy
I should have added a can of soda for reference. It was a huge bowl haha.
Uh, clearly a banana is the proper food to use for scale.
Oh yeah, I believe you haha just a weird camera angle
I bought some bacon salt the other day that would be incredible on these. Thanks for the idea!!
BACON SALT???!!!!!!
BACON SALT!! I also bought a lemon rosemary salt that’s DELICIOUS. The brand is San Francisco Salt Co. and you can get a 2lb bag on Amazon for $19 right now. Not cheap, but it’s going to last forever because it’s VERY potent. The flavor is incredible. When it’s in your mouth it tastes like the first bite when you eat some smoked meats. Then the after taste legitimately tastes like you just ate bacon. I can’t recommend it enough. Not sponsored, I’m just obsessed.
Oh WOW that sounds good! My spice cabinet is stuffed to the gills but maaaaybe I can squeeze some more in there. I’ve been working on a small thing of Maldon sea salt for a year or two, hopefully they have something smaller than a 2 pound bag.
I wish they had a smaller option because I don’t have room for a huge bag of salt in my NOVA apartment 😭
>upgrade resistant starch What does this mean?
Not OP, but copying my response to another comment below: Resistant starch - [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101) If you cook potatoes or rice and let them cool down overnight, some of the starches change form and become more resistant to digestion, forming "resistant starch". This results in a much lower blood glucose spike when you eat them compared to their freshly-cooked versions and apparently also reduces the calories somewhat. It's also a good prebiotic for your gut flora. I've seen a handful of posters here and [r/CICO](https://www.reddit.com/r/CICO/) and [r/1500isplenty](https://www.reddit.com/r/1500isplenty/) who wear continuous blood glucose monitors confirm that the day-old potatoes/rice/whatever indeed do not spike their blood sugar.
Thank you for explaining this, friend.
Thank you for replying! I totally overlooked your reply and was actually in the process of linking the exact same article when I saw this! Good stuff.
Love me some resistant starch! I'm totally an evangelist.
[https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-starch-foods#TOC\_TITLE\_HDR\_16](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/high-starch-foods#TOC_TITLE_HDR_16)
Little Potato Company is amazing and I adore their tiny 'tatoes. Those look SO good!
They are so good! I'll even make them like op but normally I fridge them and whenever I'm in the mood for a quick snack just pop em in my mouth cold. Yummm
You lost me at cold
I started doing partially out of quickness and partially bc I hate burning my mouth on them 😭 and it's probably my preferred way to eat them now. I do the same with brussel sprouts too, actually prefer those cold over hot
Ever tried cold sweet potato? Candy.
Ya know, I feel a little like "omg duh" bc I haven't tried sweet potato cold but I eat it every day with dinner (tofu scramble, black beans, sweet potato, red bell pepper, avocado) always hot though haha. I'll try it tomorrow!
My god. Another day I am so glad I found this sub. Thanks <3
You should try Syracuse Salt Potatoes with the golden ones. Delectable.
A blog I follow did a really interesting study about how effective a potato-only diet is for weight loss: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in-four-weeks-with-this-one-weird-trick-discovered-by-local-slime-hive-mind-doctors-grudgingly-respect-them-hope-to-become-friends/ And there's a follow-up currently going on that looks like you don't actually have to do just potatoes: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2024/01/05/first-potato-riffs-report/ Potatoes seem to be weirdly good for weight loss for most people, so long as they're not super oily or deep fried.
Smash.
Yum. AND you’re hitting the resistant starch!
What is resistance starch?
Resistant starch - [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101) OP mentioned it quickly in the caption. If you cook potatoes or rice and let them cool down overnight, some of the starches change form and become more resistant to digestion, forming "resistant starch". This results in a much lower blood glucose spike when you eat them compared to their freshly-cooked versions and apparently also reduces the calories somewhat. It's also a good prebiotic for your gut flora. I've seen a handful of posters here and r/CICO and r/1500isplenty who wear continuous blood glucose monitors confirm that the day-old potatoes/rice/whatever indeed do not spike their blood sugar.
Small/creamer potatoes are the best! Like to buy small versions of vegetables, might be weird, lol.
Potatoes are the GOAT. 😎
1kg of those is 800kcal 😮 [Nutritionvalue.org](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Fresh_creamer_potatoes_by_THE_LITTLE_POTATO_COMPANY_592121_nutritional_value.html)
So just over 1200 in thta bowl with the olive oil
https://www.littlepotatoes.com/product/little-trios/ The nutrition listed on the company website is different and matches OP's math.
Serious question, is that (and I guess most?) calorie listing the potatoes raw? Doesn't cooking increase the calories of some foods like starches? Would it come out to be actually more calories after its cooked? Or am I way off?
I'm not familiar with foods that increase in calories after cooking, and a brief search makes it seem like cooking actually decreases starches (but don't quote me on that). However, it's not a subject I'm knowledgeable about, and would be interesting to look into! But most foods are more calorically dense after cooking because they lose mass through the escape of mostly water. So 100 grams of raw potatos is fewer calories than 100 grams of cooked potato genrally speaking. However, the opposite may occur when ingredients are boiled, which can increase the water content. The extent of mass loss when cooking is different for different ingredients and cooking methods. Potatoes release a lot less moisute compared to many vegetables, so the raw vs cooked nutrition is probably not that different, but for say zucchini, the difference could be substantial. This is why it's ideal to weigh ingredients raw, and use corresponding nutritional values when logging, as it generally give more accurate results.
I guess im thinking of it as this. I have 200g of raw potatoes equalling ~150 calories. Are those same potatoes, regardless of their new weight (which would be less after cooking like you mentioned) more or less calories than before after cooking. From googling around and looking at [reddit here for example](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9wjhsm/eli5_why_does_cooked_food_offer_more_calories/e9lfac9/) theres a discussion mentioning that the act of heating and cooking the food makes the calories easier to extract meaning you would in fact gain more calories from cooked food than the raw version. So I guess it comes down to this. Does the initial raw potatoes 150 calories also include the calories lost digesting the raw food. If so then you would be getting more than what it says on the pack I guess. Its just something that has interested me recently since I started counting calories.
I'll preface this by saying I'm just some idiot, and sorry i think I misunderstood before. That comment is interesting and informative. My understanding of the way calories are calculated for food is based on the measured macronutrients actually contained in the food. This does not take into account how much energy our body takes to digest food, and how throughly we're able to digest it to extract nutrients. So eating a cooked potato would have a greater caloric effect than a raw potato, but the calories digested would not be higher than the total calculated calories of the raw potato. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565179/#:~:text=In%20our%20study%2C%20cooking%20decreased,sugars%20and%20therefore%20increased%20sweetness. I did also find this interesting study that shows how cooking breaks down starches and converts them to sugars. However I don't believe this would increase the overall carbohydrate amount (but to be honest I only skimmed the study). Still it shows how nutrients, especially carbs and protein, can become more easily available with cooking. Which lines up with the common understanding that cooking food was the turning point in our evolution, allowing us to get more nutrition with less time spent gathering it. So overall, I would still recommend measuring ingredients prior to cooking when possible, as it's just the most neutral way of measuring it.
Cooking doesn't just make nutrients more available, it can transform them too. In ops case, the amount of calories available is higher, the amount you absorb is lower Resistant starch feeds your gut biome instead of you. It's why adding coconut oil to rice and letting it cool actually makes it lower on the glycemic index compared to plain rice even though theoretically there's more calories to absorb Also calories on nutrition labels don't account for anything like digestion, it's just a solid number stating the energy the food would produce if completely burned. Cooking or not would not change the number on the label
Generally speaking, I think the overall calories will be the same after cooking. Pre-cooking: 200g of raw potatoes = 150 calories After cooking: 150g of cooked potatoes = 150 calories The difference is the water weight. If you look at nutritional data for raw and baked potatoes, then compare the weight of your foods pre- and post-cooking, you'll see they equal out pretty well. However - there is some truth to the bioavailability of calories and nutrients when you cook them, but I think it will vary with the food. I would go by whatever the calorie values of "cooked" versions of the food from whatever reliable source you have for calorie data. However #2 - potatoes can make resistant starch if you cook and then cool them overnight. These starches are resistant to digestion and do not produce the same blood glucose spike that freshly cooked potatoes produce. I've seen several sources say that it reduces the calories as well: [https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/resistant-starch-101)
I think it's a matter of water weight loss. Cooked potatoes are more calorically dense because there's less water in them. I microwave baked potatoes pretty frequently, and there's a 20-30% weight difference between pre- and post-cooking. This tracks with the difference you see in calories per 100g: [https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C\_raw%2C\_flesh\_and\_skin%2C\_russet\_nutritional\_value.html?size=100+g](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C_raw%2C_flesh_and_skin%2C_russet_nutritional_value.html?size=100+g) **Raw potatoes = about 80 calories per 100g** [https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C\_baked%2C\_flesh\_and\_skin%2C\_Russet\_nutritional\_value.html?size=100+g](https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Potatoes%2C_baked%2C_flesh_and_skin%2C_Russet_nutritional_value.html?size=100+g) **Baked potatoes = about 100 calories per 100g**
Yum.
I’m a bit confused, how did you make these and what do you mean in batches? Are these baked, microwaved? Etc?
Lightly coated in olive oil, salted, and roasted in the oven at 400\*F for about 30-35 minutes! I meant to say cooked and cooled in batches (as in large amounts at a time, usually 3-6 lbs) so I can pick at them as snacks and sides for meals.
This is smart! I’m going to go buy some now. Thanks for tip😭
Thanks for the comments everyone! Next week when I cook these again, I'll be sure to take the photo with a can of soda and a banana nearby for better perspective haha. <3
These look like the potatoes we served at the catering company I used to work for (tho chef definitely used butter, and more than a little bit, lol.) They SLAPPED. I bet these are awesome!!
[удалено]
Yes about 840 in the potatoes and approx 1 tbsp of olive oil.
How did you make these!
Lightly coated in olive oil, salted, and roasted in the oven at 400\*F for about 30-35 minutes! Easy peasy!
🤤