Measuring Salmon
Panini911
Posts: 2,325 Member
Possibly a silly question...
So from what I have read, it is better to weigh raw. However, the salmon has skin on it. I rather cook with the skin VS try to get it off. But then I am stuck weighing the salmon cooked. or trying to guess what the skin weight? Or does salmon skin not weigh much?
Ideas? Tips?
So from what I have read, it is better to weigh raw. However, the salmon has skin on it. I rather cook with the skin VS try to get it off. But then I am stuck weighing the salmon cooked. or trying to guess what the skin weight? Or does salmon skin not weigh much?
Ideas? Tips?
1
Replies
-
I usually weigh raw, cook, peel skin, weigh skin, subtract skin from raw weight. I know that won't be perfect, but It's close enough.6
-
I weigh it raw, throw away the skin after I eat it and don't worry about it. It's not like I have salmon all that often. I get more concerned about total accuracy in things I have a lot. Plus counting it as a few too many calories is not that much of a problem.12
-
I also weigh raw and don't worry about it. The number of calories wasted isn't going to be in the hundreds anyway I'm ok with a little a bit of inaccuracy for simplicities sake, especially when its not going to put me over in any way.1
-
Why not just eat the skin it's lovely! A typical fillet that I eat is approx.230.11
-
I weigh raw. I figure there's not enough stuff in the skin to make a noticeable difference, so I just consider it a buffer.3
-
Weighing raw is recommended, but I don't and have maintained my weight for years. I think it doesn't change calories enough to matter. I just had salmon tonight and weighed it cooked after removing skin.2
-
Maybe i just never really realized how high calorie salmon is. i prefer keeping my protein at dinner to 150cals or so but salmon ends up being too small a portion at that range. I was hoping the skin weighed more :P
so I just took the calorie "expenditure" and made three (large) portion out of my 550gram (uncooked) piece VS four too small pieces. It sorta works out to 3.5 portions but i know a .5 portion of salmon will just end up going in the garbage which is a waste of good fish. No snacks tonight
ETA: ok I know what I need to do, figure out the gram i want and then buy the portion that best fits that so I don't end up with random "half a meal" or "too small portions"!1 -
Maybe i just never really realized how high calorie salmon is. i prefer keeping my protein at dinner to 150cals or so but salmon ends up being too small a portion at that range. I was hoping the skin weighed more :P
so I just took the calorie "expenditure" and made three (large) portion out of my 550gram (uncooked) piece VS four too small pieces. It sorta works out to 3.5 portions but i know a .5 portion of salmon will just end up going in the garbage which is a waste of good fish. No snacks tonight
ETA: ok I know what I need to do, figure out the gram i want and then buy the portion that best fits that so I don't end up with random "half a meal" or "too small portions"!
When I have leftover meat in too small a quantity for a meal I'll add it to eggs or salad or make a sandwich out of it.
I don't consider salmon high calorie - what entry are you using?2 -
Why are you not eating the skin? Crisping it up in the pan is delicious!10
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Why are you not eating the skin? Crisping it up in the pan is delicious!
Exactly, the skin in my favourite part. Eat the skin!6 -
I just weight it raw, cook it and eat it - if I don't eat the skin I'm quids in - if I do (depends on how crispy it is) I'm no worse off.
1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Maybe i just never really realized how high calorie salmon is. i prefer keeping my protein at dinner to 150cals or so but salmon ends up being too small a portion at that range. I was hoping the skin weighed more :P
so I just took the calorie "expenditure" and made three (large) portion out of my 550gram (uncooked) piece VS four too small pieces. It sorta works out to 3.5 portions but i know a .5 portion of salmon will just end up going in the garbage which is a waste of good fish. No snacks tonight
ETA: ok I know what I need to do, figure out the gram i want and then buy the portion that best fits that so I don't end up with random "half a meal" or "too small portions"!
When I have leftover meat in too small a quantity for a meal I'll add it to eggs or salad or make a sandwich out of it.
I don't consider salmon high calorie - what entry are you using?
I think it's a portion issue. i find a 4 oz portion to be pretty small. So I need to not use my eyes when portioning out salmon 0 -
Why so concerned about the minimal weight of salmon skin? Some things are not worth fussing over. Are you concerned about the accuracy of your scale?2
-
I weigh my stuff cooked, allot of crazy tactics above to me. Don't over complicate stuff, choose a method and just stick with it and you'll be fine. To me the cooked weight is the weight that I am consuming, all the water is out of it and the nutrient level would be that weight, not it's raw weight. (to me)
Best of luck in your journey.0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »I weigh my stuff cooked, allot of crazy tactics above to me. Don't over complicate stuff, choose a method and just stick with it and you'll be fine. To me the cooked weight is the weight that I am consuming, all the water is out of it and the nutrient level would be that weight, not it's raw weight. (to me)
Best of luck in your journey.
The issue with weighing raw versus cooked is that if a lot of water is cooked out, then the cooked meat weighs less but has the same number of calories. So 4 oz of cooked meat has more calories than 4 oz raw, because you might need 5 oz raw to make 4 oz cooked (example; not sure what water content is usually lost). I would worry about that inaccuracy a whole lot more than the issue with skin.
Having said that, I do often weigh chicken cooked using entries for that. Water content in raw varies tremendously. In salmon, not so much.4 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »I weigh my stuff cooked, allot of crazy tactics above to me. Don't over complicate stuff, choose a method and just stick with it and you'll be fine. To me the cooked weight is the weight that I am consuming, all the water is out of it and the nutrient level would be that weight, not it's raw weight. (to me)
Best of luck in your journey.
The issue with weighing raw versus cooked is that if a lot of water is cooked out, then the cooked meat weighs less but has the same number of calories. So 4 oz of cooked meat has more calories than 4 oz raw, because you might need 5 oz raw to make 4 oz cooked (example; not sure what water content is usually lost). I would worry about that inaccuracy a whole lot more than the issue with skin.
Having said that, I do often weigh chicken cooked using entries for that. Water content in raw varies tremendously. In salmon, not so much.
If you're cooking out water, how many calories are in the water again? Just saying is all.... you're losing out on the water and some of the fat content , so that is why I would weigh it cooked.
If you want to weigh it raw, just stick with that, just choose 1 method is all and stick with it. Don't worry about reweighing it without the skin and over analyze it is all I'm getting at. Both methods would work if s/he stuck to one of them and didn't over think it.1 -
Thanks guys.
I think part of the issue is I have been under-logging protein. So my idea of what a "portion" is was greatly exaggerated. I've had a similar realization with chicken. Because I was exercising a ton and not eating exercise calories it didn't impact my weight loss (the one bonus of not eating back exercise calories - it makes logging errors very forgivable!). But with learning to eat appropriately (appropriate portions are my biggest issue) I want to start logging accurately (and will likely be able to "add" more daily calories as I do if I was consistently underlogging).0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »I weigh it raw, throw away the skin after I eat it and don't worry about it. It's not like I have salmon all that often. I get more concerned about total accuracy in things I have a lot. Plus counting it as a few too many calories is not that much of a problem.
im a lazy counter. thats how i do it too lol
its just not enough to make a difference.1 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »If you're cooking out water, how many calories are in the water again? Just saying is all.... you're losing out on the water and some of the fat content , so that is why I would weigh it cooked.
If you want to weigh it raw, just stick with that, just choose 1 method is all and stick with it. Don't worry about reweighing it without the skin and over analyze it is all I'm getting at. Both methods would work if s/he stuck to one of them and didn't over think it.
You don't know how much water you have cooked out which increases your margin of error. Water has weight so as you cook something the water is released making the item lighter and lighter while the calories remain the same. How much this matters depends on how much of a calorie deficit you have to work with, how accurate you are with other things, and how satisfied you are with your daily calories. I am pretty satisfied I so err on the high side by inflating any numbers (especially from restaurants) that I don't trust. Depending on her TOM my wife can be a bit hangry and errs on the bargaining side of trying to fit more calories in her day (she also weighs cooked usually). She also doesn't lose at the rate she chose either.
4 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »I weigh my stuff cooked, allot of crazy tactics above to me. Don't over complicate stuff, choose a method and just stick with it and you'll be fine. To me the cooked weight is the weight that I am consuming, all the water is out of it and the nutrient level would be that weight, not it's raw weight. (to me)
Best of luck in your journey.
The issue with weighing raw versus cooked is that if a lot of water is cooked out, then the cooked meat weighs less but has the same number of calories. So 4 oz of cooked meat has more calories than 4 oz raw, because you might need 5 oz raw to make 4 oz cooked (example; not sure what water content is usually lost). I would worry about that inaccuracy a whole lot more than the issue with skin.
Having said that, I do often weigh chicken cooked using entries for that. Water content in raw varies tremendously. In salmon, not so much.
If you're cooking out water, how many calories are in the water again? Just saying is all.... you're losing out on the water and some of the fat content , so that is why I would weigh it cooked.
If you want to weigh it raw, just stick with that, just choose 1 method is all and stick with it. Don't worry about reweighing it without the skin and over analyze it is all I'm getting at. Both methods would work if s/he stuck to one of them and didn't over think it.
By cooking out the water, you are changing what you are weighing. 100g of raw salmon =/= 100g of cooked salmon. In fact, 100g of cooked salmon has more calories/protein/fat than 100g of raw salmon. I wouldn't trust the "cooked" entries in the diary here. Personally, my "cooked" salmon is only cooked to a medium to medium-rare so will still contain a lot more water than someone who cooked theirs well-done. Raw weight is always best when possible.5 -
crabbybrianna wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Why are you not eating the skin? Crisping it up in the pan is delicious!
Exactly, the skin in my favourite part. Eat the skin!
I hate the skn. I don't like fat on meat either.1 -
How have I got 2 woo's for saying eat the skin lol 🤣😂1
-
Meat is always an estimate. I often slice up chicken breasts before cooking to pretty similar sized pieces, cook them all together and when they are done there is a much wider variance of sizes. Moisture content and fat content vary from one piece to the next. Fish generally is more consistent than other meats, but weighing is far from perfect with fish also. Poultry is the hardest, especially frozen. It is often injected with water to help prevent freeze drying. A frozen piece will weigh more than a thawed piece and when cooked will lose more weight than a never frozen piece would.
But if you are gaining noticeably when you think you should be maintaining, or not losing when you think you are in deficit, the problem is bigger than the skin on a piece of salmon.1 -
Thanks guys.
I think part of the issue is I have been under-logging protein. So my idea of what a "portion" is was greatly exaggerated. I've had a similar realization with chicken. Because I was exercising a ton and not eating exercise calories it didn't impact my weight loss (the one bonus of not eating back exercise calories - it makes logging errors very forgivable!). But with learning to eat appropriately (appropriate portions are my biggest issue) I want to start logging accurately (and will likely be able to "add" more daily calories as I do if I was consistently underlogging).
Don't feel bad about trying to be exact! Everyone has a different patience threshold for the details. I happen to be very detail-oriented, and am perfectly comfortable weighing the smallest detail (when I'm home) that someone else would feel was overboard. As long as you aren't driving yourself nuts, or causing yourself anxiety, be as exact as you want to be
I can never get the skin crispy enough to eat it, so I would weigh it raw, then the first time at least, weigh the skin after you've eaten. If it's only a couple of grams, you know you don't have to worry about it going forward.4 -
There are many different kinds of salmon with different fat levels. And many methods of cooking salmon.
This severely influences the calories retained by the finished product.
Think about what happens when you plonk a piece of farmed=fatty Atlantic Salmon on a BBQ grill till most of the fat melts away...
All this makes salmon a fairly difficult item when it comes to accurate logging and, in my example above, raw food calories would significantly over-estimate the calories eaten.
If you go to: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/, click on "Start your search here.", then, from the drop down list, choose to Filter on Database "Standard Reference" and Enter one or more keywords=Salmon... you will find a whole slew of salmon entries both raw and cooked.
I would pick the one that is closest to the way I cooked my fish and guesstimate based on the weight of food that I ate.2 -
I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!3
-
On the bbq no oils or sauce. I use spices. It was atlantic salmon. I do think the issue is i "want" bigger portuons than i should (more than a lousy 4 onces).
I am tightening up my logging to help as i transition into slower weight loss and planning maintenance. It has not been an issue during the loss stage as i tend to save up a ton of exercise cals that i do not eat. This coves any bad logging. But i need to slow down the weight loss and ensure i fuel my running0 -
so you know...wild salmon has 2/3 the calories if farmed salmon (and costs twice as much)1
-
I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!
I've seen many first time posts that ARE woo-worthy. This one looks like a fairly straightforward question to me... so not sure why it was deemed woo-worthy by a couple of people!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions