Why do beans have less protein after cooking?

Q. If you boil beans, they lose their protein?

According to google search, 1 cup RAW of pinto beans is 41 grams of protein, but if you boil them they become 1.9g / cup. Why is this so?

The discrepancy in protein per cup is due to the difference in volume between a dried bean and a cooked bean.

When the dried beans are cooked or soaked, they absorb the liquid they are cooked/soaked in, which causes them to expand.

From a quick google search, dried beans can expand up to 2-3 times their original volume after an overnight soak and 3-4 times their original volume after cooking. So if you started with 1 cup of dried beans, you will on average end up with 3 cups of cooked beans. i.e. On average, 1 cup of dried beans will contain 3x the protein of 1 cup of cooked beans.

The same applies to other dried food stuff such as grains, legumes and lentils. The only difference is the amount of water they will absorb. To make it easier and less confusing to track these calories, weigh them raw and log them  based on the raw nutritional information for that ingredient.

Related reading:

Recipe book and cooking advice for beans, legumes and lentils:


Cooking Dried Beans,Peas and Lentils:

Bean conversions:

Dried grains to cooked conversions:

Accuracy of self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference in a general adult


Self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference (WC) are widely used to estimate the prevalence of obesity, which has been increasing rapidly in China, but there is limited evidence for the accuracy of self-reported data and the determinants of self-report bias among the general adult Chinese population.

Using a multi-stage cluster sampling method, 8399 residents aged 18 or above were interviewed in the Jiangsu Province of China. Information on self-reported height, weight, and WC, together with information on demographic factors and lifestyle behaviors, were collected through structured face-to-face interviews. Anthropometrics were measured by trained staff according to a standard protocol.

Self-reported height was overreported by a mean of 1.1 cm (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.0 to 1.2). Self-reported weight, body mass index (BMI), and WC were underreported by −0.1 kg (95 % CI: −0.2 to 0.0), −0.4 kg/m2 (95 % CI: −0.5 to −0.3) and −1.5 cm (95 % CI: −1.7 to −1.3) respectively. Sex, age group, location, education, weight status, fruit/vegetable intake, and smoking significantly affected the extent of self-report bias. According to the self-reported data, 25.5 % of obese people were misclassified into lower BMI categories and 8.7 % of people with elevated WC were misclassified as normal. Besides the accuracy, the distribution of BMI and WC and their cut-off point standards for obesity of a population affected the proportion of obesity misclassification.


  • BMI = measure of “bigness”
  • Waist Circumference =  measure of abdominal adiposity
  • People tend to under-report weight, BMI and WC.
  • People tend to over-report height
  • ~25% of people who classified themselves as within “normal – overweight” BMI based on self-measurements are actually obese based on the directly measured stats.

Use of BMI

The Body Mass Index (BMI)

  • Recognised that it does not differentiate between the muscular and the overweight, except at very high BMIs
  • Does not distinguish between individuals with different types of fat distribution.

Waist circumference (WC)

  • Measure of abdominal obesity
  • Commonly under reported

Self-report vs Actual

  • People tend to over report height, especially as they get older.
  • People tend to under-report weight, BMI and WC across all age group and income groups
  • Women tend to under-report more than men
  • Obese/overweight = over-report height, under-report weight, BMI and WC
  • “Healthier” people (eg. exercise, non-smokers) tend to over-report height and under-report WC


  • ~25% of people who classified themselves as within “normal – overweight” BMI based on self-measurements are actually obese based on the directly measured stats.
  • increased incidence of misclassification amongst women vs men

Nutritional aspects of women strength athletes

Nutritional aspects of women strength athletes
J S Volek, C E Forsythe, and W J Kraemer


Strength training elicits sports related and health benefits for both men and women. Although sexual dimorphism is observed in exercise metabolism, there is little information outlining the specific nutritional needs of women strength athletes. Many women athletes restrict energy intake, specifically fat consumption, in order to modify body composition, but this nutritional practice is often counter‐productive. Compared to men, women appear to be less reliant on glycogen during exercise and less responsive to carbohydrate mediated glycogen synthesis during recovery. Female strength athletes may require more protein than their sedentary and endurance training counterparts to attain positive nitrogen balance and promote protein synthesis. Therefore, women strength athletes should put less emphasis on a very high carbohydrate intake and more emphasis on quality protein and fat consumption in the context of energy balance to enhance adaptations to training and improve general health. Attention to timing of nutrient ingestion, macronutrient quality, and dietary supplementation (for example, creatine) are briefly discussed as important components of a nutritionally adequate and effective strength training diet for women.


  • Strength training = good
  • Women utilize more fats and less carbs than men during exercise
  • +ve nitrogen balance required for LBM gains
  • Adequate fat intake required for health gains and optimal hormonal profile
  • Carbs essential for performance -emphasize mico-nutrient-rich and unprocessed whole foods as source of carbs
  • Protein recommendation: 1.4–1.8 g/kg
  • No adverse effects of high protein intake in healthy individuals
  • Good idea to pad workouts with protein-rich meals
  • Creatine = good

Continue reading “Nutritional aspects of women strength athletes”