Counting bacon

Tobysgirl212

So I'm curious how you log bacon. The Applegate Farms nutrition label says 2 slices, pan fried is 60 calories and weighs 14 g. The raw pieces are together 56g. So, I guess they are counting on you cooking the heck out of it?

juggernaut1974

Tobysgirl212 wrote: »

So I'm curious how you log bacon. The Applegate Farms nutrition label says 2 slices, pan fried is 60 calories and weighs 14 g. The raw pieces are together 56g. So, I guess they are counting on you cooking the heck out of it?

I don't know too many people who eat bacon raw.

StaciMarie1974

Cooked meat is often lighter than raw meat. Moisture evaporates out.

But personally I don't pan-fry bacon. I buy the pre-cooked kind, microwave for 30-45 seconds. Usually about 30-45 cals per piece. I figure a good bit of the grease has already drained away, and I blot it w/ paper towels best I can. I don't buy this option for the calories, but because its easier and less messy to make.

callsitlikeiseeit

you weigh meats raw. actually almost EVERYTHING is weighed raw, if you're doing it correctly as that is how the nutritional value is initially calculated.

i weigh it on a scale, cook it, log it, eat it.

ValerieMartini2Olives

Because the nutrition info says "2 pan fried slices 14g", you would weigh this particular product after cooking it in a pan with no added oils/butter, etc.

brower47

callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »

you weigh meats raw. actually almost EVERYTHING is weighed raw, if you're doing it correctly as that is how the nutritional value is initially calculated.

i weigh it on a scale, cook it, log it, eat it.

Except when the label specifies "pan fried".

Cook it and then weigh it. The lower weight is due to water loss and fat loss.

Tobysgirl212

OK, I know it's meant to be cooked. The question is how crispy to make it. If you don't pan fry very long, the way my husband does, one slice is going to have a lot more calories than a crispy piece with most of the fat rendered. So, I cooked it the way I like it and it turns out that two slices cooked weighed 50g, not 14. I find this label misleading. Anyway, I guess I'll log it as two pieces equally about 120 calories.

juggernaut1974

Tobysgirl212 wrote: »

ok, I know it's meant to be cooked. The question is how crispy to make it. If you don't pan fry very long, the way my husband does, one slice is going to have a lot more calories than a crispy piece with most of the fat rendered. So, i I cooked it the way I like it and it turns out that one cooked piece weighed about 25g, not 7. I find this label misleading.

Well I'm not sure how a label could possibly be created that would allow for all possible variations of cooking times.

That said, this should be an eye opener for all those who wonder why weighing is so highly recommended for accuracy.

KANGOOJUMPS

Canadians do not log bacon.

Tobysgirl212

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

Tobysgirl212 wrote: »

ok, I know it's meant to be cooked. The question is how crispy to make it. If you don't pan fry very long, the way my husband does, one slice is going to have a lot more calories than a crispy piece with most of the fat rendered. So, i I cooked it the way I like it and it turns out that one cooked piece weighed about 25g, not 7. I find this label misleading.

Well I'm not sure how a label could possibly be created that would allow for all possible variations of cooking times.

That said, this should be an eye opener for all those who wonder why weighing is so highly recommended for accuracy.

It is pretty eye opening. In the past I would delight in eating all that bacon, plus the drippings, haha. There's no fooling yourself when you weigh

GauchoMark

Tobysgirl212 wrote: »

ok, I know it's meant to be cooked. The question is how crispy to make it. If you don't pan fry very long, the way my husband does, one slice is going to have a lot more calories than a crispy piece with most of the fat rendered. So, i I cooked it the way I like it and it turns out that one cooked piece weighed about 25g, not 7. I find this label misleading.

so... like with every other food in the database, it is simply an estimate. There is a certain amount of error when you compare actual vs. the printed value.

As for logging meat, I ALWAYS try to log the cooked value unless I am eating sushi! Even though it might not be exact, I still think that it is more accurate than the raw value due to the fat being rendered and water evaping.

In most cases the cooked value is probably close enough, but in the case of high fat content foods or foods that maybe you don't cook to well done like a steak, there can be some error. So... if you REALLY want to be anal about things (and I have done this) you can log both the cooked and uncooked meat and look at protein to try to estimate what you really ate.

For example - if I am having a 6oz (raw) steak and it is medium rare.

6 oz "Beef, loin, tenderloin steak, boneless, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, select, raw"
37g protein
10g fat
0g carb
241 cal

I know that as I cook it, the fat content will change but the protein won't. So, if I estimate that medium rare is 1/2 raw, then I can log 3 oz of raw steak. That gives me 18.5 g protein. So, I just need to log enough of the grilled on to get 37g total.

so, with a little math or trial and error, you end up with:
2.1 oz Beef, loin, tenderloin steak, boneless, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, select, cooked, grilled
18.5g protein
4.3g fat
0g carb
118 cal

and

3 oz "Beef, loin, tenderloin steak, boneless, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, select, raw"
18.5g protein
5g fat
0g carb
120 cal

for a total of
37g protein
9.3g fat
0g carb
238 cal

granted... that was a lot of work for a filet. I used a bad example. But if you do the same thing with bacon, ribeye, or some other high-fat meat, the results would be more noticeable.

That is... if you care to go to the trouble. Otherwise, just estimate high and be conservative!

GauchoMark

for the record... I like my bacon burnt!

ProfessorPupil

I had this same problem.. I know they can't possibly estimate it accurately for all possible levels of crispiness.. but the estimation could potentially be REALLY far off. Some people barely cook bacon, and others practically burn it. Bacon is one of those things that always annoys my OCD to log. I really wish they would put the nutrition info for the bacon raw so that at least it would be an over-estimation.

DerangedPixi

How do I count bacon? Kind of like The Count from Seasame Street you know.. ONE ahahah, TWO ahaha.

stoneymatthews

I do weigh nearly everything

Been at MFP for well over 1000 days and if the package says 2 pieces of bacon at such and such calories ... thats how I long it ... and I've lost all my weight.

I simply don't weigh that...

Not sure why, I suppose I never really thought about it.

I weigh all my fruits, veggies, meats etc ... but if a kiwi says 1 kiwi at 35 cals (the "Mighty Kiwi" brand comes in a carton of 6) I just go off that.

Your progress won't be stalled by logging 2 slices of bacon at 60cals.

stoneymatthews

ValerieMartini2Olives wrote: »

Because the nutrition info says "2 pan fried slices 14g", you would weigh this particular product after cooking it in a pan with no added oils/butter, etc.

^^^ and this

altho I still wouldn't weigh it haha

MorganMoreaux

Tobysgirl212 wrote: »

So I'm curious how you log bacon. The Applegate Farms nutrition label says 2 slices, pan fried is 60 calories and weighs 14 g. The raw pieces are together 56g. So, I guess they are counting on you cooking the heck out of it?

My husband and I get the same brand. We usually bake it in the oven until it's a dark brown but not burned. Once we remove it from the oven we soak up any extra grease that may still be on it. The pieces are substantially smaller than their size raw. Hope this helps

alyssagb1

I try not to make it too complicated when it comes to bacon. If it says two pan fried slices, I cook two slices in the pan pat dry and eat it. You don't need to blacken it to get it to 14g exactly. Cook it like you normally would (assuming you don't deep fry it ) and move on.