Raw vs cooked weight of meat

nicsflyingcircus

This is why I try to always use raw, for accuracy:

The 490g of raw 80/20 ground beef I dropped in the pan is 1229 calories.

The 383g of cooked, crumbled hamburger meat I dumped in a big bowl, including all the fat? Claims 1042 calories.

187 calories, gone like magic. I think not.

If you are logging these things, use raw weight whenever possible for "accuracy".

sammyliftsandeats

I agree!

And I would rather overestimate than underestimate.

cedarsidefarm

It's not just meat that loses weight after cooking. Many vegetables lose a lot of water when fried or roasted and weigh a whole lot less after being cooked. I suspect that you are losing fat and water from the meat to make it weigh less. But if you're not eating it why count it? It does seem strange that it would change the calorie count. But I don't count calories so I don't notice.

nicsflyingcircus

cedarsidefarm wrote: »

It's not just meat that loses weight after cooking. Many vegetables lose a lot of water when fried or roasted and weigh a whole lot less after being cooked. I suspect that you are losing fat and water from the meat to make it weigh less. But if you're not eating it why count it? It does seem strange that it would change the calorie count. But I don't count calories so I don't notice.

It may have lost water, but there was plenty of fat in the pan, which I dumped into the bowl. This is why I use the raw weight. Erring on the side of caution never hurts.