How to Properly Weigh Meats

StevefromMichigan

When weighing meats on a food scale, should the meat be weighed before or after cooking?

I have always weighed them after cooking, but I am wondering if this is proper. How do you do it?

kommodevaran

Before cooking is best, but make sure the entry you use is appropriate (for raw or cooked/baked/etc).

shadow2soul

I weigh raw and find the USDA entry for the raw meat.

livingleanlivingclean

Another raw weigher.... It's more accurate, as the final weight will depend on the cooking technique/time etc (rare steak vs well done for example)

StevefromMichigan

Thanks. It seems that by weighing after cooking, I haven't been logging correctly, and I have actually been consuming more calories than I have been recording. I'll need to fix that.

On the plus side, I have been consuming more protein than I thought

fitoverfortymom

I did it wrong for a month or two after I started, too. I still lost weight and course corrected once I realized my mistake. It's just part of the learning curve.

jfan175

livingleanlivingclean wrote: »

Another raw weigher.... It's more accurate, as the final weight will depend on the cooking technique/time etc (rare steak vs well done for example)

Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.

aokoye

jfan175 wrote: »

Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.

There are far more variables in cooking than there with raw meat. How much moisture was actually left, what were you cooking it in, etc. If I'm making something like chicken curry, it's more logical for me to use the raw meat entry for whatever type of chicken I'm using when plugging it into the recipe builder than the cooked.

StevefromMichigan

aokoye wrote: »

jfan175 wrote: »

Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.

There are far more variables in cooking than there with raw meat. How much moisture was actually left, what were you cooking it in, etc. If I'm making something like chicken curry, it's more logical for me to use the raw meat entry for whatever type of chicken I'm using when plugging it into the recipe builder than the cooked.

Plus, I believe that the nutritional content on the package lists calories and nutrients based on uncooked weight.

rachelpauline93

Oh, I've been doing it wrong as well! Good to know

sosteach

The most accurate is after but I found that to a bit of a pain sometimes so I read that meat tends to be 25 % less after cooking. So I will log a 3 ounce portion of cooked chicken as 4 ounces.

pogiguy05

One note to make is I think and correct me if i am wrong, but when they send out portions to find out the caloric break downs, it is sent RAW and not cooked. So I would say that the raw would match the nutrition label more. I have noticed there is a difference if it is frozen or thawed and thawed is less due to liquid loss.

Just my thoughts

PAV8888

It would depend on the entry used (there exist USDA entries for cooked products) but I would expect that inherently raw would be more accurate. The only exception would be something like bacon, for example, where a significant amount of fat would be rendered away and I would suspect the "as cooked" entry would be closer to reality.

MelanieCN77

I compared raw weight of chicken in the database to cooked for a piece I prepared last week and I think for a whole breast the difference was less than 40 cals.

StevefromMichigan

Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

donjtomasco

I guess this is why I like to round up across the board on calories consumed and be conservative (if there is a question) on calories burned, like lifting weights, which is really hard to get accurate since there are so many variables.

jfan175

kazgorat1 wrote: »

Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

Ok. Now on a lean cut like chicken breast, I would assume most of that extra weight before cooking is water. Water has zero calories. How can you be under by 160 calories if all you did was cook out water?

StevefromMichigan

jfan175 wrote: »

kazgorat1 wrote: »

Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

Ok. Now on a lean cut like chicken breast, I would assume most of that extra weight before cooking is water. Water has zero calories. How can you be under by 160 calories if all you did was cook out water?

Because the chicken breast weighed 6.75 ounces raw and 4.82 ounces cooked. If I used to cooked weight and applied it to the calories listed on the package for raw meat, it comes to 205 calories. If I correctly use the raw weight, and apply to the calories listed for raw meat, it comes to 287 calories, or 82 calories higher at the correct calculation.

In the previous post, I mentioned that I sometimes eat 2 chicken breasts in a day, so, if I am off on two of them due to using cooked weight instead of raw, 82*2=164.

StevefromMichigan

Unless I am missing something?

jfan175

I see your rationale now. Thanks.

kimny72

In instances where you can't weigh raw or forget to weigh until after cooked, just make sure you choose a cooked entry in the database. The usda does provide stats for both raw and cooked, and I find both in the database. As others have said, I believe raw is more accurate (as meat can come out more moist or more dry depending on how long you cook it which will affect weight) but cooked entries are your next best option.

MrsPinterest34

I weigh all meats after cooking and I continue to lose weight. I have been doing this since last year. I think I burn enough calories from walking to help with any minor calculation errors.

PAV8888

StevefromMichigan wrote: »

Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

Be careful for chicken breasts as there is a big difference between frozen boneless chicken breasts with added solution and, for example air chilled skin on chicken.

There are actually separate entries in the USDA database and the amount of post cooked reduction in weight is substantially larger for the chicken that has been frozen after sucking in a good amount of solution to plump up, I mean preserve the quality of, the meat.

StevefromMichigan

PAV8888 wrote: »

StevefromMichigan wrote: »

Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

Be careful for chicken breasts as there is a big difference between frozen boneless chicken breasts with added solution and, for example air chilled skin on chicken.

There are actually separate entries in the USDA database and the amount of post cooked reduction in weight is substantially larger for the chicken that has been frozen after sucking in a good amount of solution to plump up, I mean preserve the quality of, the meat.

Good to know. I usually try to buy the fresh ones for just that reason. When I would buy the frozen ones, it seemed like they would shrink to half the size after cooking

Nikion901

sosteach wrote: »

The most accurate is after but I found that to a bit of a pain sometimes so I read that meat tends to be 25 % less after cooking. So I will log a 3 ounce portion of cooked chicken as 4 ounces.

Yes - meat loses moisture and fat melts out during cooking .... case in point ... I roasted 2 chicken leg quarters today: they were bone-in, skin on and were roasted so that the fat drippings were separated from the meat by a layer of root vegetables. The raw chicken weighed 2.26 pounds ... or 36.16 ounces. The cooked chicken weighed 23.30 ounces or just shy of 1.5 pounds. That amounts to a 35.56% loss due to evaporation and fat drippings. ... that's a lot!

In this case, it I was able to find database entries for it both raw and roasted. However, I chose to use the roasted entries and weight without the bone but with the skin on. The bigger roasted thigh weighed 8 ounces with the bone, 6 ounces without the bone. ...