Cooked vs Raw Calorie Count

tanyamum
tanyamum Posts: 39 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Hi guys and gals. Just wondering if anyone could tell me if the calorie amounts listed are for raw or cooked please?

Replies

  • RelCanonical
    RelCanonical Posts: 3,882 Member
    Use entries that specify one or the other. Generally, weighing raw is going to be more accurate.
  • LushFix
    LushFix Posts: 303 Member
    edited March 2019
    I weigh raw whenever possible unless other wise specified.

    cooking can dramatically change weight once cooked.

    If it’s a packaged food at it says let’s say 5 pieces for x amount of calories, I weigh out 5 peices (raw) and log by weight in grams if possible.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    If your entry doesn't list raw or cooked, it is a user-created entry rather than an entry that MFP pulled from the USDA Database, which always lists raw or cooked when that would be a thing.

    Unfortunately, the "verified" green check marks in the MFP database are used for both user-created entries and admin-created entries that MFP pulled from the USDA database. To find admin entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.

    For packaged foods, I verify the label against what I find in MFP.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    tanyamum wrote: »
    Hi guys and gals. Just wondering if anyone could tell me if the calorie amounts listed are for raw or cooked please?

    Some foods will have both in the database. It is more accurate to use raw or dried entries because cooking methods can make a big deference, especially with things like rice, beans, pasta, etc.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    Sometimes you weigh it raw, sometimes cooked.

    Bacon can leave half its calories in the skillet. Same for a hamburger. Weight them cookked and go to USDA for the "cooked" calorie count.

    Rice can be cooked weighing much more due to more or less water depending on the way you prefer it.

    All of these make raw weight highly inaccurate.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Sometimes you weigh it raw, sometimes cooked.

    Bacon can leave half its calories in the skillet. Same for a hamburger. Weight them cookked and go to USDA for the "cooked" calorie count.

    Rice can be cooked weighing much more due to more or less water depending on the way you prefer it.

    All of these make raw weight highly inaccurate.

    If you cook fat out, "cooked" may or may not be accurate.

    If you cook water in, "raw" or dried" is the only possible way to be accurate.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    earlnabby wrote: »
    wilson10102018 wrote: »
    Sometimes you weigh it raw, sometimes cooked.

    Bacon can leave half its calories in the skillet. Same for a hamburger. Weight them cookked and go to USDA for the "cooked" calorie count.

    Rice can be cooked weighing much more due to more or less water depending on the way you prefer it.

    All of these make raw weight highly inaccurate.

    If you cook fat out, "cooked" may or may not be accurate.

    If you cook water in, "raw" or dried" is the only possible way to be accurate.

    Yes, I inserted the sentence before I added the rice. Rice must be weighed raw.


    But, anything with rendered fat should be weighed cooked. If you "cook fat out" that is rendered fat and unless you put the fat in your recipe, cooked weight is accurate and the only way. I like bacon crisp and have weighed and rated it before and after and for me it loses about one-half the calories to the skillet.

    For my part, I ignore rendered fish oil and weigh the fish raw even though there is often quite a bit of rendered fat from salmon.

Categories