Weighing your meat...
kellykiana
Posts: 26 Member
Hey all, should I be weighing my meat raw? And if I cant weigh it raw... how should I log it?
I eat mostly chicken and I know it weighs a lot less after you cook it.
I eat mostly chicken and I know it weighs a lot less after you cook it.
0
Replies
-
Weighing it raw will always be the most accurate (especially if you use accurate USDA entries). Different cooking methods will extract different levels of moisture from the meat. Using a slow cooker on a "set and forget" mindset will can substantially overcook the chicken and drop its weight even further.
If you cannot weigh it raw you need to find the entry that best matches the cooking method and use the cooked weight. The margin of error will be higher but I have never found that the times I have had to use cooked weights to have any noticeable impact on my food diary. For me they are a minority though and I do work with a large calorie deficit.3 -
Weighing cooked meat will always be the most accurate unless you put everything left in the pan down your throat. If a lot is left in the pan, but you incorporate that into the dish, it should be weighed. If not, then no.
Bacon cooked crispy leaves almost half its calorie count in the pan which you may have noticed when cleaning a skillet. Hamburger, a whole lot. Chicken breast - not so much.8 -
Weighing it raw will always be the most accurate (especially if you use accurate USDA entries). Different cooking methods will extract different levels of moisture from the meat. Using a slow cooker on a "set and forget" mindset will can substantially overcook the chicken and drop its weight even further.
If you cannot weigh it raw you need to find the entry that best matches the cooking method and use the cooked weight. The margin of error will be higher but I have never found that the times I have had to use cooked weights to have any noticeable impact on my food diary. For me they are a minority though and I do work with a large calorie deficit.
^this, especially if you want to double-check your entry against the nutrition label on the meat since the nutrition label is for the raw weight I'm unless it specifies otherwise. Bacon tends to be one of the notable exceptions.3 -
Weigh raw, log raw. Weigh cooked, log cooked. Raw > cooked3
-
Definitely always weigh raw.0
-
Another who always weighs raw. When you cook meat, you are cooking out both fat and water (skinless chicken is mostly going to be water, 80/20 ground beef is going to be mostly fat) and there is no way to know how much of either is cooking out. The only thing that is going to be affected is that you may be slightly overestimating the calories but logging isn't 100% precise so I look at it as banking a handful of calories for something else I may slightly underestimate.
To address the second part of your question, if you can't weigh it raw, use your best guess as to what the cooking method was. If I can't see evidence of something like grilling, I usually use a "roasted" entry.
When eating out and you can't weigh at all, ask the server to give you the weight of the meat. Most restaurants use vendors who provide meat already butchered to certain size portions and that info is easily found out. Often it is right in the description on the menu. These weights are always raw so your logging will be a raw entry.2 -
Really? Weigh raw? I never thought of that. I grill all my meats and figured the best was to weigh after cooked. After all, I don't eat raw meat.0
-
HAHAHAHA! That's actually kind of a funny statement!! Anywho, yes you should weigh it raw! I normally take what's right on the package (unless you buy in bulk and freeze, split or share).2
-
weight raw if at all possible; cooked is highly variable - depending on length of cooking time; cooking heat etc0
-
Really? Weigh raw? I never thought of that. I grill all my meats and figured the best was to weigh after cooked. After all, I don't eat raw meat.
I think if you are losing weight at the rate you want you don't need to change anything. If you slow down or stop you may need to consider where you can tighten up your logging.
2 -
Really? Weigh raw? I never thought of that. I grill all my meats and figured the best was to weigh after cooked. After all, I don't eat raw meat.
If you weigh it cooked, you should use a "cooked" entry...otherwise nutritional information is typically raw or dry weight unless otherwise stated. If you weigh it after cooking it is going to weigh less than raw because you will lose water from the meat, but you don't lose calories. So something weighed cooked at 4 oz is actually more like 6 oz raw so you would be under reporting the calories.2 -
When I grill I usually grill for 2-3 meals. So I'll just have to stick to weighing cooked.0
-
-
When I grill I usually grill for 2-3 meals. So I'll just have to stick to weighing cooked.
Not sure why that makes a difference. You can weigh it raw to get the exact number of calories and then weigh it cooked to determine portions and calories per portion.
Not trying to talk you out of your current system though. Just mentioning it for anyone else reading.
3 -
Really? Weigh raw? I never thought of that. I grill all my meats and figured the best was to weigh after cooked. After all, I don't eat raw meat.
The reason why raw is ideal is because depending on how you cook your meats, how long, the method, etc - you have various level of water loss. So 4 ounces of raw chicken may have a different cooked weight each time you cook it. That's why most people prefer to use raw.
However weighing cooked is not the end of the world and will overall be pretty accurate. But raw is general preferred because of the various change in weight that accompanies cooking.0 -
I find this confusing too. There are also various entries for cooked boneless skinless chicken breasts.
For instance I just ate 1 oz Kirkland boneless chicken breast (the individually wrapped ones). I weighed it cooked, exactly 4 oz. Numerous entries showing 2 oz is 60 calories while one says 165 cals for 4 oz cooked. Google indicates 31 calories an ounce. Which entry is correct? Should I go with the 165 cals to be safe? It was a good size breast hard to believe it was only 120 calories so I guess I will go with the 165 cals0 -
I ate 4 oz I meant1
-
When I grill I usually grill for 2-3 meals. So I'll just have to stick to weighing cooked.
or do what i do - which is make a recipe that is bulk chicken (or pick your protein) - then update it with raw weight and cooked product - then you can eat as much as you want (i.e. if i make 16oz of raw chicken and it ends up being 12oz cooked - i make my serving size 12 = 1oz each) - then i just weigh oout however much i want cooked3 -
I find this confusing too. There are also various entries for cooked boneless skinless chicken breasts.
For instance I just ate 1 oz Kirkland boneless chicken breast (the individually wrapped ones). I weighed it cooked, exactly 4 oz. Numerous entries showing 2 oz is 60 calories while one says 165 cals for 4 oz cooked. Google indicates 31 calories an ounce. Which entry is correct? Should I go with the 165 cals to be safe? It was a good size breast hard to believe it was only 120 calories so I guess I will go with the 165 cals
recommend searching USDA chicken breast raw boneless - for the best entries0 -
The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?2
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?
There is less margin for error in using values for raw meat.0 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?
There is less margin for error in using values for raw meat.
How would you know that ther eis less margin for error in the raw meat estimate. Isn't it all based on trimming the fat?
I assume that you are also weighing what from the meat is left in the pan and deducting it? Or, just getting it wrong on the high side for conservatism??0 -
I find this confusing too. There are also various entries for cooked boneless skinless chicken breasts.
For instance I just ate 1 oz Kirkland boneless chicken breast (the individually wrapped ones). I weighed it cooked, exactly 4 oz. Numerous entries showing 2 oz is 60 calories while one says 165 cals for 4 oz cooked. Google indicates 31 calories an ounce. Which entry is correct? Should I go with the 165 cals to be safe? It was a good size breast hard to believe it was only 120 calories so I guess I will go with the 165 cals
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 cooked chicken breast, use "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted". 4 oz = 187 calories.
For packaged foods, I verify the label against what I find in MFP. (Alas, you cannot just scan and assume what you get is correct.)0 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?
So are the cooked calories based on me cooking my steak medium or very well? Because those two cooking styles will change weight4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?
So are the cooked calories based on me cooking my steak medium or very well? Because those two cooking styles will change weight
Very well done steak is an abomination, so...
0 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The ratings for cooked meat take into account the reduction in fat and moisture from cooking. Weighing raw does not. I can't imagine why someone would use a raw weight on cooked meat. Have you folks not seen the USDA database which offers calorie data on various types of cooked meat?
There is less margin for error in using values for raw meat.
How would you know that ther eis less margin for error in the raw meat estimate. Isn't it all based on trimming the fat?
I assume that you are also weighing what from the meat is left in the pan and deducting it? Or, just getting it wrong on the high side for conservatism??
Because there is no way to know how much water or fat cooks out of the meat unless you save all drippings, skim off the fat, and weigh it. Nobody has time for that. You can take the same 112 grams of 93/7 ground beef and pan fry it to medium with the exact same number of grams of oil coating the pan and each burger will be different after cooking. Weighing raw means consistency.3 -
nvm0
-
Well, steak gives up very little fat in cooking. Ground beef, a lot. Bacon, half its calories. So a little common sense will tell you when it might matter if the weight is raw or cooked. And, the USDA offers brown to crumple, pan fried, baked loaf, broiled and grilled for all mixes of ground beef for example. On a 400 calories raw burger, 100 to 150 calories remains in the pan. You can sop it up and enjoy it and the raw weight will be more accurate.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions