How does everyone weigh their raw meat?
Replies
-
Lillymoo01 wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »
I guess I could see that if you weigh your meat after cooking but then pick a raw entry when logging that could be a very inaccurate rule of thumb, but why not just weigh it raw and cut out the uncertainty, if that’s what you meant?
It does make sense, I just don't know how accurate it is. Meat loses moisture when it is cooking. This is saying that 150 grams of raw meat would weigh 100 grams once it is cooked ie 50 grams of water is lost.
To be most accurate though you would need to weigh your piece of meat raw, as how much weight is lost will depend on how long you cook it for. Rare will weigh a fair bit more than well done.
I guess raw could weigh 1.5X more than cooked a very exact and specific way... wherein if you calculated raw calories... then wanted to eat only a portion of cooked and recalculate... you could estimate that the cooked weight is around 75%. However, I really feel this isn't necessary or the most accurate. Weigh raw and then look at the fraction you are eating cooked, or just weigh cooked. This won't be the thing to make or break you as long as you are weighing it and accounting for ADDED fats. No two cows are the same anyways.1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Weighing meat raw only works if the fat is rendered into a dish which is then eaten - like beef stew. However, since certain meats have very little fat to render during cooking, it hardly matters as to those - like chicken breast.
But if you are cooking beef or pork or the fattier parts of chicken, only weighing what you are actually eating matters.
PS: Ignore entries in the MFP database that are not product labels or USDA sourced. They are almost always wrong.
I look at it in the bigger scope. I always know I will have restaurant meals here and there that will require guessing and/or faith in a restaurant website that is allowed to be off as much as 20 percent. I weigh everything raw and unless there are bones involved I accept that I am a little over.
With that said though I almost always lose weight slightly ahead of my desired rate of loss. Not dramatically faster but my best guess is that I log too high by an average of 100 calories per day. This would not be idea for anyone who is at the minimum nutrition lines (1200 for women, 1500 for men) or already struggling with too few calories in a day.0 -
I look at it in the bigger scope. I always know I will have restaurant meals here and there that will require guessing and/or faith in a restaurant website that is allowed to be off as much as 20 percent. I weigh everything raw and unless there are bones involved I accept that I am a little over.
With that said though I almost always lose weight slightly ahead of my desired rate of loss. Not dramatically faster but my best guess is that I log too high by an average of 100 calories per day. This would not be idea for anyone who is at the minimum nutrition lines (1200 for women, 1500 for men) or already struggling with too few calories in a day.
I'm not seeing that as the "bigger scope." Human nature being what it is, guesstimating will most likely result in the opposite results. And, if we evaluate calorie counting methodology by results you achieved, I'm not sure why we would bother with it. Its a process. it has steps. Follow the steps and you lose the weight.0 -
springlering62 wrote: »@MikePTY Yep. What you said.
I often flat out forget to weigh meat. Or I’ve unwrapped it when I do remember and by then it’s a PITA to weigh.
I do like my meats well done. If I’m cooking a four or five pound piece of meat, as I did this weekend for a dinner party with intentional leftovers, a quick calculation method for cooked meats versus raw works for me and it keeps me inside my calorie allotment.
I always have extra cooked meat in the fridge and freezer for my salads, to help meet my protein macro.
Whether cooked meat is 1.33 or 1.5X raw meat is so little difference it’s just easier to use the rounder number.
If I’m under, I’m probably making up for those few calories I missed somewhere else.
Why not just use a cooked weight.3 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »
I look at it in the bigger scope. I always know I will have restaurant meals here and there that will require guessing and/or faith in a restaurant website that is allowed to be off as much as 20 percent. I weigh everything raw and unless there are bones involved I accept that I am a little over.
With that said though I almost always lose weight slightly ahead of my desired rate of loss. Not dramatically faster but my best guess is that I log too high by an average of 100 calories per day. This would not be idea for anyone who is at the minimum nutrition lines (1200 for women, 1500 for men) or already struggling with too few calories in a day.
I'm not seeing that as the "bigger scope." Human nature being what it is, guesstimating will most likely result in the opposite results. And, if we evaluate calorie counting methodology by results you achieved, I'm not sure why we would bother with it. Its a process. it has steps. Follow the steps and you lose the weight.
But "guesstimating" is exactly what you are doing, whichever way you choose. When you have finished cooking a piece of meat, you don't know exactly how much fat, or water, might be left in what you are going to eat. You are then probably using the USDA measured value for calories and macros of cooked meat. But the USDA had to use an assumption or average of how much of the fat and moisture will "typically" cook off a chicken thigh or ribeye, and an assumption as to how long the average person would cook the meat. Those are essentially guesstimates.
If we both buy a ribeye, but yours is just slightly fattier and you cook it to rare, mine was a little less fatty and I cook it to just over medium, we might both end up with 5 oz and log the same calories, but they weren't actually the same calories. Or we could both log a 6 oz raw ribeye, you cook it less, I cook it more. We will both probably be a little off on the actual calories too.
There is obviously room to disagree over which is more accurate, but both are estimates. I tend to choose leaner meats and will often cook other elements of the meal in the pan with the meat drippings or make a sauce with it, so logging raw makes more sense to me as I am likely eating most (if not all) of the fat it started with. If you tend to buy fattier cuts but cook off a lot of the fat and then discard it, then maybe weighing cooked would be more logical for you to use.4 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »
I look at it in the bigger scope. I always know I will have restaurant meals here and there that will require guessing and/or faith in a restaurant website that is allowed to be off as much as 20 percent. I weigh everything raw and unless there are bones involved I accept that I am a little over.
With that said though I almost always lose weight slightly ahead of my desired rate of loss. Not dramatically faster but my best guess is that I log too high by an average of 100 calories per day. This would not be idea for anyone who is at the minimum nutrition lines (1200 for women, 1500 for men) or already struggling with too few calories in a day.
I'm not seeing that as the "bigger scope." Human nature being what it is, guesstimating will most likely result in the opposite results. And, if we evaluate calorie counting methodology by results you achieved, I'm not sure why we would bother with it. Its a process. it has steps. Follow the steps and you lose the weight.
Obviously different people will have different results. Since everything is an average not a precise calculation though I tend to err on the side of generous logging. I don't worry about how I cheat myself here and there because my end result is that I am not really cheated unless you count the 100 calories a day. 100 calories would sometimes be explained in part or full by non exercise activity not food. Unless someone is in a coma activity is also a number that varies day to day but we use averages because there is no way to know precisely.
Logging precision is going to vary from person to person. As I have said I am not here to win an award for most beautiful and accurate log I am here to lose weight. If I stop losing as expected I will tighten up my logging some more.0 -
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »
In my experience, this is often harder to find and the USDA database provides decent information based on raw weight that readily available. I would wager there's also less variance in water content based on nuances in cooking conditions, and end cook temp, not to mention necessary for some methods of cooking where the end product weight may include other ingredients. It really doesn't take that much effort to weigh proteins raw, I've never understood why this is such a hotly debated topic.1 -
springlering62 wrote: »@MikePTY Yep. What you said.
I often flat out forget to weigh meat. Or I’ve unwrapped it when I do remember and by then it’s a PITA to weigh.
I do like my meats well done. If I’m cooking a four or five pound piece of meat, as I did this weekend for a dinner party with intentional leftovers, a quick calculation method for cooked meats versus raw works for me and it keeps me inside my calorie allotment.
I always have extra cooked meat in the fridge and freezer for my salads, to help meet my protein macro.
Whether cooked meat is 1.33 or 1.5X raw meat is so little difference it’s just easier to use the rounder number.
If I’m under, I’m probably making up for those few calories I missed somewhere else.
Why not just use a cooked weight.
Yep. Everyone (I assume) forgets to weigh their meat before cooking on occasion. I see no reason to get the calculator involved when a cooked entry will suffice.1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »
In my experience, this is often harder to find and the USDA database provides decent information based on raw weight that readily available. I would wager there's also less variance in water content based on nuances in cooking conditions, and end cook temp, not to mention necessary for some methods of cooking where the end product weight may include other ingredients. It really doesn't take that much effort to weigh proteins raw, I've never understood why this is such a hotly debated topic.
I think having a log that is effectively helping you with whatever goal you are trying to achieve makes it a pretty personal thing. Mine is now 511 days old so it is like an old friend. I am reluctant to change my habits until they stop working and I imagine most other people are the same. When a new person hasn't formed a system yet it kind of brings out the debate a little because everyone is right for themselves but may not be right for others or the new person logging. However seeing the different ideas might help someone form an opinion about how to proceed.
1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »
In my experience, this is often harder to find and the USDA database provides decent information based on raw weight that readily available. I would wager there's also less variance in water content based on nuances in cooking conditions, and end cook temp, not to mention necessary for some methods of cooking where the end product weight may include other ingredients. It really doesn't take that much effort to weigh proteins raw, I've never understood why this is such a hotly debated topic.
The person I was replying to said that he or she weighed the meat cooked and used a multipler.
Using an actual cooked weight seems more accurate (although given that the poster apparently cooks to well done, maybe add a bit extra to account for that.)
The USDA database also provides decent, easy to find information based on cooked weight, and specifies cooking method.
I recommend these when it is difficult to weigh proteins raw, such as when they are bone-in or when your portion is not easy to distinguish from someone else's portion or when, like the poster I was replying to, you simply forget to weigh raw. If I roast a chicken, there's no way to accurately to base it on raw weight, better to weigh the cooked portions you eat and specify breast or leg or whatnot, "cooked, roasted."
That's good enough and a lot more accurate than just applying some generic 1.5X or whatever.1 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »
In my experience, this is often harder to find and the USDA database provides decent information based on raw weight that readily available. I would wager there's also less variance in water content based on nuances in cooking conditions, and end cook temp, not to mention necessary for some methods of cooking where the end product weight may include other ingredients. It really doesn't take that much effort to weigh proteins raw, I've never understood why this is such a hotly debated topic.
What's harder to find? Cooked weights? Not if you get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.
I do weigh proteins raw under these circumstances:- I am not sharing them
- There are no bones or skin involved
This actually doesn't happen a lot, so most of the time I do use cooked entries.2 -
The entry wt is the amount you eat. Not the amount raw that you don’t eat. Cook it and weigh your portion. Then eat it and log it. I believe this is Correct.3
-
just_Tomek wrote: »
Too easy. People look for ways to over complicate their life.
I look for ways to ensure my data is as accurate as possible. It's a necessary detail to me.1 -
The entry wt is the amount you eat. Not the amount raw that you don’t eat. Cook it and weigh your portion. Then eat it and log it. I believe this is Correct.
It is BOTH correct to weigh raw and use an entry for raw meat, or to weigh cooked and use an entry for cooked meat (specifying how the meat was cooked). Both types of entries are easily available from the USDA for most meats. Neither is wrong.
What is wrong is to use an entry for RAW meat and weigh cooked. If the entry doesn't say, it's probably for raw, including package information. This is important since meat shrinks when you cook it, so if you use a raw entry for cooked meat it will have lower cals than the reality.
Not saying you are doing this, but an important point to note.3 -
The entry wt is the amount you eat. Not the amount raw that you don’t eat. Cook it and weigh your portion. Then eat it and log it. I believe this is Correct.
It is BOTH correct to weigh raw and use an entry for raw meat, or to weigh cooked and use an entry for cooked meat (specifying how the meat was cooked). Both types of entries are easily available from the USDA for most meats. Neither is wrong.
What is wrong is to use an entry for RAW meat and weigh cooked. If the entry doesn't say, it's probably for raw, including package information. This is important since meat shrinks when you cook it, so if you use a raw entry for cooked meat it will have lower cals than the reality.
Not saying you are doing this, but an important point to note.
Additionally, if the entry doesn't say raw or cooked, it was a user-entered entry, rather than one MFP pulled from the USDA database, as all the USDA entries for meat include raw or cooked.2 -
Chelseataylor83 wrote: »I heard that this app inputs most meats (chicken, beef, etc) as raw and that I should be multiplying by 1.5 for the true amount. What should I be multiplying by 1.5? Or should I be multiplying at all.
I’m doing keto and counting my macros and trying to see how much protein I’m at.
Thank you
For a lot of meats, 4 oz cooks down to about 3ish oz cooked (loss of water).
This database has entries for both raw and cooked, so just make sure you specify which when logging (and log the actual amount).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions