Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Calories in Whelk page

  1. #1
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371

    Calories in Whelk

    Shop Now
    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. #2
    mom5booklover's Avatar
    mom5booklover is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bozeman, MT
    Posts
    109
    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

  3. #3
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371
    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 )

  4. #4
    Comma's Avatar
    Comma is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    459
    I can just unhelpfully add that I don't ever want to eat something with as unattractive a name as whelk.

  5. #5
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371
    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 )

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,534
    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...

  7. #7
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,027
    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.

  8. #8
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371
    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 )

  9. #9
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote 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.

  10. #10
    Lynna's Avatar
    Lynna is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Newark, Delaware USA
    Posts
    1,714
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •