Nutritional facts on food

OnalimOjag

Are the nutritional favts of a certain meat based on raw meat or cooked meat? Because whenever I weigh something I cook, it weigh less than when I weighed it raw. So which weight do i follow?

psychod787

OnalimOjag wrote: »

Are the nutritional favts of a certain meat based on raw meat or cooked meat? Because whenever I weigh something I cook, it weigh less than when I weighed it raw. So which weight do i follow?

I log raw. Much more accurate to me.

kimny72

Unless it specifically states otherwise, the nutrition listed is for raw/as is.

When you cook meat (and a lot of other things ) it looses moisture so it weighs less.

I agree that raw is more accurate, but regardless you need to use the correct entry in the database. There are usda entries for example for both raw and cooked.

andreaen

This is a bit hypocritical of me as I do log everything raw, but it can actually be more accurate tracking cooked as more nutrients become available when a food is cooked. The most important thing however is to be consistent. It doesn't matter if your log is off by 100 calories if its the same 100 calories every day

This chart has some great information:

psychod787

"The most important thing however is to be consistent." exactly! Find a entry and stick to it!

lynn_glenmont

andreaen wrote: »

This is a bit hypocritical of me as I do log everything raw, but it can actually be more accurate tracking cooked as more nutrients become available when a food is cooked. The most important thing however is to be consistent. It doesn't matter if your log is off by 100 calories if its the same 100 calories every day

This chart has some great information:

So, the criticisms under number 1 all assume you aren't weighing your food.
The biggest criticism under number 3 seems to be people think that a plain raw potato has the same calories as a baked potato loaded with butter and sour cream??
The criticism under number 5 is essentially the same as the criticism under number 1 -- people estimating aren't accurate, which weighing would solve.

Their conclusion is that counting calories when you don't bother accurately measuring, much less weighing, your food might not be worth it. And their solution, instead of "buy a food scale," is "come to our site which does have some free resources but also has a lot of stuff to sell you."

PAV8888

So the funny part is that everything except the conclusion is absolutely correct.

Statistically speaking a bunch of random errors tend to cancel each other out with the actual total error smaller than the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors.

Think of it as another reason as to why weight loss is not linear!

So, yeah, a lot good information in their graph. But a bit of a biased conclusion.

As to the entry to use.... whichever is available and appropriate as long as it's paired correctly: cooked entry for cooked food, raw entry for uncooked food.

Kst76

IDK.....I cook my meats in a broiler or George foreman grill. So much of the fat that is in my food raw is not there when I eat it. I would not call that accurate.
But I still scan the barcode on the raw food and log it. It's not that big of a deal really. I still lose weight.