Using pulses is a good way of getting
protein and making a large portion on fast days. I have been
wondering how home cooked pulses compare with tinned ones
nutritionally, and not surprisingly home cooked ones contain fewer
calories, more protein and less salt (apparently much of the high
salt content in canned chickpeas is reduced by thoroughly rinsing but
I haven't been able to find data on this). I'm not surprised that
the commercial/canned chickpeas weigh more, because the convention is
that each tin contains 240g drained weight of chickpeas. Heavier chickpeas have a
higher water content, which is a common way for food producers to
give us consumers less food for more money. (It's also the reason
many processed meats and fish have a high salt content, because the
higher the salt the more water the product will hold).
Here is the comparison for one cup
home-cooked chickpeas vs canned :-
Home-Cooked | Canned | |
---|---|---|
Weight | 164.0g | 240.0g |
Calories | 269.0 | 286.0 |
Total Fat | 4.0g | 7.0g |
Sodium | 11.0mg | 718.0mg |
Total Carbs | 45.0g | 39.0g |
--Fibre | 12.0g | 10.0g |
--Sugars | 8.0g | 10.0g |
Protein | 15.0g | 11.9g |
Vitamin A | 1% | 0% |
Vitamin C | 4% | 0% |
Calcium | 8% | 6% |
Iron | 26% | 15% |
http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?tname=newtip&dbid=10 and
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calorie-chart-nutrition-facts.
Since I'm going to all this trouble to improve my diet and lose weight it would be daft to eat less nutritious food – especially on fast days – so I'm going to cook my own pulses from now on.