Chicken protein content

brianam204

I am curious and I am sure I am not the first person to ever question this, but I can't seem to find the answer easily on Google...

Why is it that there seems to be a wide variety in the protein count of chicken? Is it a discrepancy that some things report it as 30+ per 100g? Most product packages reference it as being 18-22, even for "extra lean" chicken breast.

3dogsrunning

Linking the ones that report it as 30+ g per 100g might help clarify the question.
Or a screenshot.

Yi5hedr3

7 grams/ounce.

brianam204

Most of the time I've seen it referenced, it's come from magazines, either paper or online... Some of them are known for being less reliable, but some of them are seemingly legitimate ones that you'd imagine would be researching their *kitten*.
Livestrong says 29g for 3oz
Random forum - Numerous people cite 30g
Bodybuilding.com quotes 24g per 3oz

I found a bunch on the MFP database (and they are "verified" sources too, not just random stuff), and took screenshots though I don't have my phone on me right now.

Obviously there is a difference between cooked and raw chicken. But the majority of cooked chicken breasts quote about 20g/100 or so, as well as most sliced deli meat and almost any product made with chicken gets within a little bit of that give or take.. And the only times I actually see 30g are by people claiming that chicken simply *is* that amount without any evidence.

lemurcat12

USDA (which is the source I go to) has:

Chicken breast, raw, meat and skin -- 21 g of protein/100 grams.
Chicken breast, meat and skin, cooked, roasted -- 30 g of protein/100 grams.
Chicken breast, raw, meat only -- 22.5 grams of protein/100 grams.
Chicken breast, meat only, cooked, roasted -- 31 grams of protein/100 grams.

The deli-like option -- from luncheon meats, chicken breast, fat-free, sliced, roasted -- is only around 17 g protein/100 grams, but also fewer calories. I wonder if it has proportionally more water.

Christine_72

This is where I go when i want to double check

http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search

brianam204

So I suppose from the perspective of someone who mostly just cooks their own food from raw ingredients for a diet, it's better to just use the USDA numbers for "cooked" in there and then account for sauces/etc independently.

And here I'd been reporting numbers wrong up til now, I guess. Which would explain why I've typically come up short trying to do 40+% protein macro.

Thanks, Lemur.

3dogsrunning

brianam204 wrote: »

So I suppose from the perspective of someone who mostly just cooks their own food from raw ingredients for a diet, it's better to just use the USDA numbers for "cooked" in there and then account for sauces/etc independently.

And here I'd been reporting numbers wrong up til now, I guess. Which would explain why I've typically come up short trying to do 40+% protein macro.

Thanks, Lemur.

@brianam204 - if you are cooking your own I would go with the USDA for the "raw" data. That would be your most accurate way.

lemurcat12

3dogsrunning wrote: »

brianam204 wrote: »

So I suppose from the perspective of someone who mostly just cooks their own food from raw ingredients for a diet, it's better to just use the USDA numbers for "cooked" in there and then account for sauces/etc independently.

And here I'd been reporting numbers wrong up til now, I guess. Which would explain why I've typically come up short trying to do 40+% protein macro.

Thanks, Lemur.

@brianam204 - if you are cooking your own I would go with the USDA for the "raw" data. That would be your most accurate way.

Unless it's bone-in, which is when I use the cooked data.