Weezl and friends Phase 2 -giving it a whirl for Shirl! Testing meal plan for a month

HowlinWolf

weezl74 wrote: »

howlin do you have a shiny new fridge freezer?

Well we went this morning, found one we liked and were told it could be delivered tomorrow. Brilliant I thought then remembered that the plug socket was designed for built in (the one that died was built in but I decided we would rip cupboard out to get bigger freezer space to accommodate batch cooking - sob my lovely kitchen sob). So we went home to measure and realised socket position would not allow desired ff to fit. So called sparky, he was very agreeable. Ripped cupboard and dead ff out. Sparky came and moved socket - lots of mess. Went back to shop and oooops sorry Mrs D but FF is not available for at least two weeks :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Tried two other shops but there the same one will take until the end of july to get in so went back to fist shop and ordered there. So we are without fridge or freezer until the 9th at the earliest. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: Frustrated!

weezl74

aless02 wrote: »

yup! :cool: i hope you will explain your logic, but I trust you

no it needs checking with other brains!

100g raw weight pasta absorbs 3 times it's own weight of water when cooking. Cooked pasta then, per 100g has a very diluted amount of the original nutrients. So doesn't that mean we need to go with the raw values, as that's what's on the shopping list?

Glad of anyone else who wants to check that logic!

nopot2pin

Sorry, I have been quite pants at keeping up recently...
But I hope everyone is well.
I hope I haven't missed too much.

HowlinWolf

weezl74 wrote: »

no it needs checking with other brains!

100g raw weight pasta absorbs 3 times it's own weight of water when cooking. Cooked pasta then, per 100g has a very diluted amount of the original nutrients. So doesn't that mean we need to go with the raw values, as that's what's on the shopping list?

Glad of anyone else who wants to check that logic!

but how will Shirley know that she is eating 100g of raw weight pasta once it is cooked? How will the portion size relate? This may well be a very very stupid question for which I apologise. Are any of the nutrients lost/transferred into the cooking water?

aless02

weezl74 wrote: »

no it needs checking with other brains!

100g raw weight pasta absorbs 3 times it's own weight of water when cooking. Cooked pasta then, per 100g has a very diluted amount of the original nutrients. So doesn't that mean we need to go with the raw values, as that's what's on the shopping list?

Glad of anyone else who wants to check that logic!

Agreed, but let's say 100g of pasta is 223mg potassium. That turns into 400g of cooked pasta, which works out to 176mg potassium - not the same number.

And for chickpeas, aren't they only double their raw weight? So 100g raw (875mg) is 200g cooked, which is 582mg - a rather large difference!

weezl74

HowlinWolf wrote: »

but how will Shirley know that she is eating 100g of raw weight pasta once it is cooked? How will the portion size relate? This may well be a very very stupid question for which I apologise. Are any of the nutrients lost/transferred into the cooking water?

we've always given her the raw weight of her ingredients howlin, so she doesn't have to guess what she shoulda started with IYSWIM?

Aless I've read your post a few times and I can't make my brain get it?

I'll get DH he's good at maths- he will explain it to me

aless02

weezl74 wrote: »

we've always given her the raw weight of her ingredients howlin, so she doesn't have to guess what she shoulda started with IYSWIM?

Aless I've read your post a few times and I can't make my brain get it?

I'll get DH he's good at maths- he will explain it to me

I can break it down a bit if he can't figure out my logic either!

polkadot

Weezl Ive sent it to you-now Im going to hide away with my aussie soaps for an hour-I know, Im sad

Allegra

That would suggest to me then that some raw weight nutrients are lost in the cooking water. Which would then mean - to me, not necessarily the rest of the world - that you can go with raw weight on say rice in a risotto, or anything in a soup (because you are also consuming the cooking liquid), but not for pasta or rice salad or anything where cooking liquid is poured away (because you are pouring away some of the nutrients). Nothing is ever simple, is it ?

Howlin, your query is much more straightforward, thankfully - she'll know she's consuming 100g raw weight pasta because that's what the recipes call for !

I'm sorry to hear about the fridge/freezer - we all rely so much on them, don't we ? It's bloomin' heartbreaking when they go and all that money/effort goes down the pan

weezl74

aless02 wrote: »

I can break it down a bit if he can't figure out my logic either!

he gets it, and is stumped. He can't explain it to me either!

So how should we have been doing it all along aless? boiling 100g pasta, draining it, weighing it working out what multiplier it's been affected by and then using that figure?

How much of a problem do you think this will have meant in the planners?

Probably an over-reaction but I want to depublish the website while we sort this one out :o:o:o