I can’t believe I did not know this!!!
jenniferanderson3888
Posts: 53 Member
So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
22
Replies
-
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
Embrace the knowledge and move on.
Many of us have been there!
10 -
Yeah, getting your heart broken by knowing actual calories in what we're eating is part of the process. We've all been there!5
-
You will be heartbroken when you weigh a serving of peanut butter and see how small it is23
-
Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!4
-
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
I did not know this. So you should only really have 3 ounces after you cook it? Does this apply to all meat?
4 -
The nutrition info on meat is always for raw, yes. This is because they have no real way of knowing what it'll weigh after you've cooked it; are you adding water by stewing? Adding oil by frying? Removing moisture by grilling? Cooking it into old boots or just enough to brown the outside?
So weigh and log it raw, and don't worry about how much it shrinks in cooking.10 -
ladybug4233 wrote: »jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
I did not know this. So you should only really have 3 ounces after you cook it? Does this apply to all meat?
Some meats will lose more water than others, but generally, all meats face some shrinkage from evaporating water during the cooking process, and the longer it's cooked, the more water you lose. Because of the variable of cooking time, weighing raw is generally the most accurate.7 -
If it's a roast or something I can't know how much of the raw meat will be in my cooked portion, I do it in the recipe builder. Weigh and log the whole roast raw as I make the recipe, then weigh the whole roast finished making one gram equal one serving. Then weigh my portion.6
-
ladybug4233 wrote: »jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
I did not know this. So you should only really have 3 ounces after you cook it? Does this apply to all meat?
You can eat as much as you want, you just need to account for the calories correctly.
Unless the nutrition info on the package specifically says something like "as prepared" or "cooked" it's always for raw/dry. If you weigh it cooked, just look for a database entry that specifies cooked. The USDA entries that are floating around in the database for non-branded foods will list the state of the item - raw, grilled, roasted, baked, cooked, etc.
Meat will weigh less once it's cooked because it loses moisture as it cooks (remember, if you overcook meat, it gets dry). But grains like rice that you cook in a liquid will get heavier when they are cooked, because they absorb the cooking liquid.9 -
lthames0810 wrote: »If it's a roast or something I can't know how much of the raw meat will be in my cooked portion, I do it in the recipe builder. Weigh and log the whole roast raw as I make the recipe, then weigh the whole roast finished making one gram equal one serving. Then weigh my portion.
weigh the raw roast. Cook it. Weigh the cooked roast. Cut what you are eating, weigh it. Work out what percentage of the cooked meat you are having (hopefully something nice and easy like a quarter
), then log the percentage of the raw roast. Job done. Just another way of achieving the same thing. 4 -
39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked11 -
deannalfisher wrote: »39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked
I've seen cooked weight listings for pasta and rice oh too many times. At least once I have had to do some significant arithmetic to get from the nutritional information for their '80g cooked' to what it must be for 100g of uncooked; because by the time I've cooked it, if it's the wrong amount IT'S TOO FLIPPIN' LATE.3 -
i've only seen cooked entries in this data - or if its like a ready made type product (i.e. I just have to heat it up) - especially since the variable in cooking rice/pasta can vary so hugely2
-
If it's cooked weight it will state that clearly. If it's not stated (at least in the US), it's as it is when you buy it.2
-
Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")3
-
jenniferanderson3888 wrote: »So I just realized that the nutrition info on meat packages are for raw meat. My beef is 170 for 4 ounces of RAW mean which means I only get to eat 3 ounces of cooked meat for 170 calories. Ugh
You can have as much as you want...you just have to account for the calories. The serving suggestion is just so you can do the math. I've never eaten 3 oz of cooked meat in my life...well maybe when I was a little kid.4 -
Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")
if it doesn't say as prepared, then its for the raw weight - so you can a) weigh out 4oz raw or roughly 3oz cooked (is 4oz raw)4 -
Well, *kitten*.
5 -
Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")
The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.
If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.
3 -
4oz cooked is going to be about 5oz raw - its going to change your overall calories by less than 50cal
here is a pretty decent table to reference for cooked/raw weights - their calories are based off a 3.5oz serving
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/chicken-the-preferred-protein-for-your-health-and-budget/the-nutritional-value-of-chicken/3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")
The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.
If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.
In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")
The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.
If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.
In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.
On a nutrition label, the calories and weight are always raw or dry unless otherwise specified, like "as prepared" or "cooked". With meat, I've never seen "cooked" or "as prepared" except for bacon.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")
The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.
If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.
In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.
On a nutrition label, the calories and weight are always raw or dry unless otherwise specified, like "as prepared" or "cooked". With meat, I've never seen "cooked" or "as prepared" except for bacon.
TY!0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked
Exactly! That's why I was surprised when I realised it was cooked weight! It definitely had an impact on my weight loss for those few weeks. Didn't even list the dry weight calories per 100g, just cooked. Tesco shoppers beware!2 -
39flavours wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked
Exactly! That's why I was surprised when I realised it was cooked weight! It definitely had an impact on my weight loss for those few weeks. Didn't even list the dry weight calories per 100g, just cooked. Tesco shoppers beware!
looking at the calories they list i'm not surprised - since 2oz raw (46g) is 200cal - it makes sense that 100g cooked would be 185cal - but that is knowledge gained from many years of tracking food1 -
i would probably also contact Tesco and say hey - you might want to consider adding cooked to the label for calories; and then point out that the majority of other brands use uncooked and provide some reference points1
-
39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.2 -
ExistingFish wrote: »39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.
Yeah, that's what was so weird about the Tesco thread. The nutritional information was for cooked with no mention of dry weight.
They really should be contacted about it.3 -
ExistingFish wrote: »39flavours wrote: »Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!
My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.
Yeah, that's what was so weird about the Tesco thread. The nutritional information was for cooked with no mention of dry weight.
They really should be contacted about it.
i said the same thing above...the only reason i could look and notice a difference was because i eat pasta quite regularly and so know what an uncooked 2oz portion looks like calorie wise2 -
How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions