Should chicken be weighed before or after cooking??

RocknRollNurse36

Just wondering if I should weigh the chicken breast before or after cooking? Thank you in advance

dopeysmelly

I generally do it after cooking, because I usually cook more than I need for one meal, unless if it's part of a dish, in which I use the recipe builder. I use the generic (no *) database entry for the cut of meat, whether or not there is skin and the method of cooking, and weigh it in grams.

RocknRollNurse36

Thank you very much appreciate it..

diannethegeek

The nutrition information on the label is for the raw weight (unless it's specified otherwise). It won't make a huge difference if you need/want to weight it after cooking as long as you make sure that you're using an appropriate entry in the database (ie. don't use a grilled entry if you boiled it, etc).

astrose00

I was thinking about this the other day. I almost always log it before cooking and this is why: The meat has moisture in it. The moisture level will vary depending on how and how long you cook it. I think the more accurate measurement will be prior to cooking. I made a whole turkey breast (well I guess it was two breasts) over the weekend. Then I cut it up and put it in a storage bag for the week. When I weigh it, I can see that 6 ounces is a lot more than it would have been if I had weighed it raw. So I am just kind of eyeballing it so I don't eat more than I should. I pretty much know how much chicken weighs either way so I assume the amount of turkey breast I can have is a little more than the chicken.

astrose00

I'm thinking that dryer cooked meat weighs less than wetter cooked meat but both have the same amount of protein and, more importantly, calories.

joneallen

I always weigh it cooked

RocknRollNurse36

thanks everyone

tycho_mx

There are entries for both cooked and uncooked versions of many meals in the database. Some by weight. More accurate is to keep tally of things pre-cooking, but not always possible.

Another option - I buy 3 double chicken breasts. They are 3 lb total. So you can judge by portion size if strict accuracy is not needed for each meal (you know at the end of the package, that was 3 lb).

RocknRollNurse36

Thanks, that is another good option

lemurcat12

diannethegeek wrote: »

The nutrition information on the label is for the raw weight (unless it's specified otherwise). It won't make a huge difference if you need/want to weight it after cooking as long as you make sure that you're using an appropriate entry in the database (ie. don't use a grilled entry if you boiled it, etc).

This. I cook bone-in chicken a lot, so have to use the cooked entry. What's important is not using a raw entry (like the information from the package) for cooked entry, as it will understate the calories significantly, as the cooked weight is lighter.

Barring appropriate package information, the best entries in the database for meats like chicken, as well as produce, are from the USDA and do not have asterisks. For chicken, you'd look for "chicken-breast, raw, meat only" or "chicken-breast, cooked, roasted, meat only" or some such. It's important to chose raw or cooked based on when you weighed the meat and to identify the way it was cooked (roasted/baked/pan fried/any dry heat method will be different than a cooked in liquid method, for obvious reasons).

RockstarWilson

This is where I go for discrepancies like that:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/

it calculates parts of a whole with respect to masses. Chicken is matter, and all matter has mass, so it is good to know what the mass is comprised of. Meat packaging will tell you what is in it raw, but depending on how it is cooked, it can lose nutrient or water value. For instance, ground beef is portioned to 112g, or 4 oz, of raw product. But if you take the actual mass after you cook it, it will most likely be between 75-85g, or roughly 3 ounces. This loss is significant, because the lost mass is almost entirely fat. I -believe- that the packaged calorie content reflects the ground beef as a whole, not taking into account that the fat runs off the meat. They have to assume that the consumer will eat every bit of what is in the meat. If you are fat conscious, just take the ground beef out of the pan and take the mass of the grease in the pan. Times that number (in grams) by 9, and you have the amount of fat calories (and mass) that was removed from the meat.

Chicken is different, though, as it does not have near the fat content of beef, and is, for the most part, separated from the lean meat and intact with itself. Since it is in the form of skin, it separates less, unlike the texture of the fat in ground beef. Ere go, you do not lose much nutritional mass when cooking chicken (unless you burn it), and most of what you lose is water.

MyChocolateDiet

in the food diaries there are options for both when you log. just type raw or cooked when you type in chicken.

BombshellPhoenix

Always raw unless stated otherwise

Chieflrg

The nutrition label of the brand I eat has it weighed raw or uncooked. I found that when I grill it if I just multiply the cooked by 1.25 & it is very close.

shai74

Stuff weighs less when it's cooked. I always weigh the raw ingredients and then cook them, but I think I'm short changing myself calories. For example, raw bacon has a lot of calories, but after I've cooked it in the oven it weighs a lot less and there's a fair bit of fat left in the tray that I don't eat. I just can't figure out a way to accurately record it cooked. It's not accurate - cooked could mean still quite moist, or cooked most of the fat out of it, there's no way to know.

970Mikaela1

I weigh it cooked. Seems to work for me.

eldamiano

Is this a serious question?