cooked meat weight vs raw meat weight

bennyup

Can someone advise which weight I should use when entering into my calculator? I've found that my 500g packaged raw steaks can be down to as low as 380g after they're cooked...
Cheers

tammyc226

raw unless the database option you pick says its cooked.

gagnon9691

I always enter the raw weight

Metazoick

Raw is almost always best for any single ingredient on here, unless the name of the food includes a cooking method

jpaulie

raw weight always, meat fish chicken doesn't matter, unless as above person says it is from a cooked option or recipe

hbrittingham

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

runnerchick69

Some say before and some say after but I've been weighing after cooked for years and have not had any problems keeping all the weight off

redpandora56

i go raw as i assume it's better to round up than down. it's also a lot easier to get raw info, and i imagine it's more accurate than cooked as how you cook it would make a difference (how much fat is rendered off etc.) but for really lean things like chicken, i'll go cooked if it's available

Mitchbay91

I've always cooked meat in bulk due to sheer laziness.

In reality a raw weight is more accurate than a cooked one.

There is a lot of variation between what people deem 'cooked' and hence a large variation in the differences in raw and cooked weights.

That being said, a food entry which specifies that the meat is cooked should be sufficient. That has been my experience anyway.

erickirb

hbrittingham wrote: »

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

But the package is based on raw calories. So if you eat a 500 gram cooked steak and the package says 600 grams, you are getting all the cals from the 600 grams, so you will be under reporting the amount you are actually eating.

JFreemanIF

Weighing raw is generally recommended just because it can be difficult to establish how much fat and water is shed during the cooking process, making the cooked weight of meat less consistent. If you're not kidding yourself about, e.g., cooking oil used, or how much fat was drained off in a burger, you should be fine weighing either before or after cooking. Just make sure whatever journal entry you choose corresponds to raw or cooked.

RSEC75

All depends on which the person who entered it in the database based it on (or whatever other source you have for the calorie count).

Many foods change weight due to loss of water during coooking. That changes the weight but not the calories. If the calorie count you are entering was based on the raw weight, but you measure the weight of your food cooked, then you won't be getting the right calorie count. Same the other way arround, if it was entered based on cooked and you weigh it raw you won't get the correct count.

I prefer to measure raw, that way it's consistent with what happens when I weigh out to add to recipes. Also most of the entries on MFP seem to be for raw. If I'm not sure of an entry I search around for other places that quote calories for the item or something similar, that gives me a rough idea if the MFP entry is right and what it's based on.

La5Vega5Girl

i will weigh raw then add-in my cooking oils, ingredients, etc. into MFP. USUALLY the package of the food will give information "based on uncooked weight" so that is the more accurate form of finding the calories. then, you can add your oil if you saute, or sauces if you marinate. like a p.p. said, if you have a 500g steak (cooked) and enter 500g on MFP, but the raw weight was 600g, you are missing 100g of calories. the packaging will let you know the correct calories in most cases.

LolBroScience

Raw

PwrLftr82

hbrittingham wrote: »

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

This makes no sense.

Raw.

itsMcKay

ALWAYS raw unless the package states cooked.

I know it's been said a few times but it's very important you get more of those responses and take them seriously as the people who say "cooked" are very very wrong and I'd hate to see you reap the consequences of their mistakes.

jasonmh630

hbrittingham wrote: »

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

First: If you are logging your meat in ounces, you're already underestimating... Solid foods should be weighed with a digital scale in grams to ensure an accurate log.

Second: Yes, the weight does decrease once it's cooked... BUT you're still getting the calories and nutritional breakdown of the raw product. For example, 300g of steak (cooked) is still the same calories/fat/protein as 400g (give or take) of raw steak.

VeryKatie

jasonmh630 wrote: »

hbrittingham wrote: »

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

First: If you are logging your meat in ounces, you're already underestimating... Solid foods should be weighed with a digital scale in grams to ensure an accurate log.

Second: Yes, the weight does decrease once it's cooked... BUT you're still getting the calories and nutritional breakdown of the raw product. For example, 300g of steak (cooked) is still the same calories/fat/protein as 400g (give or take) of raw steak.

Plus it's too dependent on how well it's done. Maybe not a big deal for chicken or fish which is always cooked through, but for beef (and maybe pork), a medium rare steak will weigh more than a well done steak. The "cooked" MFP options may not be representative. That being said, if you're eating at a large deficit, all you'll be potentially doing it under/over eating a bit (assuming you're not eating ONLY meat) so you might still lose weight alright. It matters more when you're closer to your goal weight (or struggling with those last 10 lbs).

Back when I had more to lose, I just used to size of my hand to estimate meat sizes and it was fine. I can't do that any more, I need to be more exact.

jasonmh630

VeryKatie wrote: »

jasonmh630 wrote: »

hbrittingham wrote: »

I used cooked weight. I am not eating the raw weight, I'm eating however many ounces it is cooked.

First: If you are logging your meat in ounces, you're already underestimating... Solid foods should be weighed with a digital scale in grams to ensure an accurate log.

Second: Yes, the weight does decrease once it's cooked... BUT you're still getting the calories and nutritional breakdown of the raw product. For example, 300g of steak (cooked) is still the same calories/fat/protein as 400g (give or take) of raw steak.

Plus it's too dependent on how well it's done. Maybe not a big deal for chicken or fish which is always cooked through, but for beef (and maybe pork), a medium rare steak will weigh more than a well done steak. The "cooked" MFP options may not be representative. That being said, if you're eating at a large deficit, all you'll be potentially doing it under/over eating a bit (assuming you're not eating ONLY meat) so you might still lose weight alright. It matters more when you're closer to your goal weight (or struggling with those last 10 lbs).

Back when I had more to lose, I just used to size of my hand to estimate meat sizes and it was fine. I can't do that any more, I need to be more exact.

^^^ This, as well.

bennyup

Thanks everyone, I've probably been under calculating but I'll go with raw from now on. The only time I have a problem is when I've precooked for lunch the next day and have to measure the cooked weight. I'll just add more on or be more vigilant when I'm cooking the raw pieces to know the weights.

brookechooka89

I have a high school ratio math test question for you.

Q.1.: If I have 1.8kg of raw roast meat

...then cook it

The roast meat is now 1.2kg of cooked roast meat.

If I measure 200g of cooked roast meat, what did it weigh raw?

What is the calculation?

A: (1800 / 1200) x 200 = 300

It's all well and good to weigh raw food, but when you're cooking roast meats, it's hard to feel like you're not just guessing / over estimating / under estimating.

I like to eat what's on my plate without feeling guilty that I've under calculated. I'm also a bit OCD when weighing so I like to be fairly close to the mark.

I hope this has helped atleast 1 person out there

stacey_rayner

brookechooka89 wrote: »

I have a high school ratio math test question for you.

Q.1.: If I have 1.8kg of raw roast meat

...then cook it

The roast meat is now 1.2kg of cooked roast meat.

If I measure 200g of cooked roast meat, what did it weigh raw?

What is the calculation?

A: (1800 / 1200) x 200 = 300

It's all well and good to weigh raw food, but when you're cooking roast meats, it's hard to feel like you're not just guessing / over estimating / under estimating.

I like to eat what's on my plate without feeling guilty that I've under calculated. I'm also a bit OCD when weighing so I like to be fairly close to the mark.

I hope this has helped atleast 1 person out there

Thank you it has.

Francl27

I do both. When I cook for more than one person, I just end up weighing it cooked. Lost 80 pounds. Not the end of the world. Steak is an approximation anyway as your steak won't have exactly as much fat as the next one. I make sure to use the correct entries though (or something similar... using some 92% lean beef tonight for tacos, and there's no cooked entry for that, so I'll use the 90% entry).

For things like chicken legs you have no choice anyway, as the raw weight includes the bone but the nutrition info doesn't.. so unless you remove the bone before cooking, it won't be accurate anyway.