Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Calories in Whelk

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calories in Whelk

    I have a question.
    Today I ate a mollusk called "Whelk" apparently in english, I'm french so here it's called "Bulot".
    When I enter it on PaleoTrack, I get something like more than 200 kcal for 100 g of cooked whelk, but when I search about it in french, "Bulot cuit" I get something like 100 kcal for 100 g.
    Also, on some sites, "Whelk, cooked, shelled" is listed at 100 kcal for 100 g.

    What's your opinion ?

    Thank you very much
    Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
    (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

  • #2
    I would go with the French version. You guys are the experts on mollusks
    Maybe it has something to do with whether you enter raw or cooked? I googled it real quick and the raw version was around 116 kcal for 3 oz but the cooked (moist heat) version was 234 kcal for 3 oz.
    F/37yr/5' 5"
    SW: 154 March 2011
    CW: 140 July to Oct 2011
    PB: 145 gained 5lbs in first 4 months March to July 2012
    With a combo of PB and IF-ing 5 days a week (1 x 1200 calorie meal per day) I have lost 15 lbs PB/IF = 130 lbs July 2012 to current
    GW: 120
    Ultimate Goals ar to be: Happy/ Fit/ Energetic/ Feel great/ Balanced/ cure my thyroid and adrenals

    Comment


    • #3
      Yep, but well, mollusks in general tend to stay about the same weight raw and cooked, for example there's not a big difference between raw shrimps and cooked shrimps.
      I ate 180 g of shelled whelks and it didn't feel like 460 kcal at all to be honest, it was rather "lean" like most seafood.

      In french "Bulot cuit" means Cooked whelk.
      I think I'll go for the french version

      Thanks for your input.

      If anyone wants to participate in this wonderful debate, feel free to share your opinions !
      Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
      (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

      Comment


      • #4
        I can just unhelpfully add that I don't ever want to eat something with as unattractive a name as whelk.

        Comment


        • #5
          Haha, "Bulot" sounds much better actually

          But they are quite beautiful

          Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
          (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

          Comment


          • #6
            I used to love reading the Guinness Book of Records as a kid, and I remember reading about the record for number of whelk eaten at one time. That was the first time I had ever heard of whelk. I Googled to see if I could find that record, but found this instead:

            The world record for eating mayonnaise is held by Oleg Zhornitskiy; he ate 4 - 32 ounce bowls in 8 minutes.

            If eating whelk sounds gross, you could always just sit down and chow on some mayo...

            Comment


            • #7
              My thoughts are to always go with the raw weight calories if you are the cook.

              Here's why. If you search for something like chicken, pork, etc., there are usually some hits for "baked," "pan fried," etc. But we all bake differently at different temperatures, and we like different levels of rare/medium/well done. As you bake something, the water in the meat is evaporating out which is why cooked meat has more calories per ounce than raw meat. Since the way something is cooked is more variable than the raw, I go with the raw.

              When I find variables even in the raw, I just keep searching until I find a trend. If four sites say X calories and one site says Y calories, I go with the majority.
              "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

              B*tch-lite

              Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

              Comment


              • #8
                Yep but the whelks were pre-cooked from the fishmonger.
                I usually go for the raw weight calories too
                Thanks for your replies everyone
                Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
                (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Daydreamer View Post
                  Yep but the whelks were pre-cooked from the fishmonger.
                  I guess you're just screwed then. Do an estimate on those beautiful mollusks.
                  "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                  B*tch-lite

                  Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    We find knobbed whelks (conchs) in the sand at low tide when we vacation at the beach on the Delaware Bay in the summer. I hear they're difficult to get out of the shell and I'm not sure how polluted the water is so we just look for them and let them go on their way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I've had whelk before and they are very lean, and quite tough. I went searching for calorie count just now and my findings were consistent with yours, which us shocking to me. How can something so low in fat and is generally a protein contain so many calories per serving? Curious.
                      F 28/5'4/100 lbs

                      "I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath; do your research."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X