Calories in Cooked Vs Raw

AMRROL

I normally weigh my foods raw to determine calories based on the USDA database. Shouldn't it come out to be roughly the same amount of calories after cooking based again on the USDA database? To test, I weighed a farm raised salmon filet, raw at 103 grams and 214 calories based on USDA 15236, Fish, salmon, Atlantic, farmed, raw

Then I cooked the filet using dry heat (microwave) with no additional oils or seasonings. The cooked weight was 90 grams and 185 calories based on USDA 15237, Fish, salmon, Atlantic, farmed, cooked, dry heat.

That is a 29 calorie difference. Not really too significant in the overall scheme of things, but it could rapidly add up with larger portion sizes. So the question is "raw weight versus cooked weight"

Anyone care to weigh in on the subject (pun intended)

shadowfax_c11

I prefer to use raw weights over cooked weights whenever possible. Cooking does render off some fat which could accocunt for small differences in calorie counts but depending on how long it is cooked, (Well done vs rare, medium, burnt to a crisp, etc) could change those numbers. If you start with the raw weight you are more likely to wind up eating fewer calories than you logged rather than more.

As you noted the difference is pretty small so this would be a bigger concern for people working with a smaller deficit, closer to their goal.

Michael190lbs

This is a great topic even if in this particular case the calories aren't a big difference. Take store bought Rotisserie chicken thats pumped with so much crap and the calories go through the roof vs home made. The water added to ground beef is a Macro killer if your counting close. Tricks to make more money by our neighborhood stores make it difficult to get an accurate Macro and calorie count sometimes.

The good news is most of us that are in the best of shape still can't utilize the amount of protein we consume and more than likely can't or don't eat enough on a regular basis to really impact are goals. My 2 cents

badnoodle

Most of the mass lost during cooking is from driving off water. How much water is driven off can vary substantially from cook to cook. Think about a steak - we'll done and rare are both cooked meats, but the former has lost much more liquid.

Raw measuring is probably the best way to consistently estimate calorie count, especially since food producers are required to provide information on water/salt added to foods like meats. Once I realized that the store brand chicken was up to 15% saline broth by weight, but the name brand was not, I was willing to pay a bit more for it.
That being said, I tend to weigh cooked meat, since I'll cook a whole chicken, but only eat a small amount of meat at a time, or only half a breast. So I often use the USA meat yield guidelines to log raw. For chicken, yield is 75-80%, for beef it is 80-85%.

ultimately, it's all an estimate anyway.