burgers on george foreman- how do u figure the calories?

ShampooIsBetter
ShampooIsBetter Posts: 114
edited October 5 in Food and Nutrition
I just ate 2 1/4 burgers fixed on a GF grill. They were originally 80/20. should i have weighed the meat before i ate it? how do y'all figure the calories?
«1

Replies

  • RedHotRunner
    RedHotRunner Posts: 850 Member
    There's a listing for 20% ground beef cooked in the database. 230 calories per 3 ounces. I grill mine out the bbq and use that listing. I'd think the foreman grill would be the same.
  • Yup, weigh the meat raw and that is what you add into your diary
  • Ely82010
    Ely82010 Posts: 1,998 Member
    Yeap, weight before cooking and also record all the ingredients that you used for flavor.
  • SetecAstronomy
    SetecAstronomy Posts: 470 Member
    I just ate 2 1/4 burgers fixed on a GF grill. They were originally 80/20. should i have weighed the meat before i ate it? how do y'all figure the calories?
    I personally figure the calories based on how it is consumed, much like McDonald's calculates nutritional information for their patrons on their website. Were the patties pre-packaged? Perhaps you can get information from there? If you made them yourself, well, unless there is posted information for 80/20 ground (meat? beef? chuck?) out there -- and I'm sure there is -- then it just becomes a matter of estimating the weight.
  • Crystal_Pistol
    Crystal_Pistol Posts: 750 Member
    I probably overestimate, but I use precook measures. I made burgers on the GFG tonight using 93/7 and took the original nutritional data from 4oz as my 1/4lb burger data. There may be a much better way, but this is what I have always done.
  • aa1440
    aa1440 Posts: 956 Member
    Yes. How do you know how much you ate without weighing it? And start using the better meat if you are going to eat hamburger. I use 97/3 if I can find it. Cost a little more but it is much better for you. Also, try to start mixing ground turkey with your hamburger. Even better for your body.

    Normal serving is about 4 ounces per burger, depending on how big your patties were.

    Good luck.
  • I can give you a gauge to guesstimate the size-

    a 4 ounce patty (cooked) is about 3" in diameter and about 3/4" thick

    Look up ground beef 80/20 grilled in the database- it'll give you a rough idea.

    But, in the future, you might want to save the package- if it gives you nutritional info

    and for greater accuracy, spend $5 and buy an inexpensive kitchen scale. I weigh BEFORE cooking.


    And, I agree about buying leaner ground beef ( ground sirloin)....I *just* compared labels and realized
    I'm saving a ton of calories/fat grams

    Compare:
    Giant Eagle: Ground Beef (4 oz) 270 calories, 21 fat grams
    Ground Sirloin(4 oz) 160 calories, 8 fat grams........

    and who doesn't like a nice steak anyhow????????
  • JWeaser
    JWeaser Posts: 302
    I think the OPs question is regarding the fat content. The grill claims there is less fat in your food because of the way it is cooked. I have ran into the same problem with my Nu-Wave oven. You consume less of the fat but really, there is no way to tell.
  • Crystal_Pistol
    Crystal_Pistol Posts: 750 Member
    OP, I keep the original nutrition data no matter what George says his grill does LOL.
  • it is simply impossible that the grill doesnt change the fat/calorie content somewhat. the package says 240 calories per patty, and that is the number I would use if I let it thaw and made a meatloaf or something out of it (ie something where I wouldnt drain any fat). but there's a ton of white gluey fat in tray. that's fat that would be in my body and on my list had i eaten those patties in a meatloaf. but because i didnt, i have to augment the numbers somewhat.

    if you buy a patty that says it has 240 calories in it and you record the same nutritional info regardless of how you prepare it (esp if we're talking about grilling versus frying), then you shouldnt have any faith in your numbers.
  • JWeaser
    JWeaser Posts: 302
    I hear you, trust me I do. Bacon for example, a serving size is two pan fried slices. When I cook it in my Nu-Wave oven, it is baked and all the fat drips to the pan, it isn't stewing in it. I am not arguing with you regarding the fat content, I am just saying there is no way to calculate what the loss is. It's frustrating for sure.
  • i suppose my only option if i want to keep accurate books is to lick the drip tray clean after each burger
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    i suppose my only option if i want to keep accurate books is to lick the drip tray clean after each burger
    or use that grease to saute some onions and mushrooms to top your burger ;)
  • Agito
    Agito Posts: 45 Member
    it is simply impossible that the grill doesnt change the fat/calorie content somewhat. the package says 240 calories per patty, and that is the number I would use if I let it thaw and made a meatloaf or something out of it (ie something where I wouldnt drain any fat). but there's a ton of white gluey fat in tray. that's fat that would be in my body and on my list had i eaten those patties in a meatloaf. but because i didnt, i have to augment the numbers somewhat.

    if you buy a patty that says it has 240 calories in it and you record the same nutritional info regardless of how you prepare it (esp if we're talking about grilling versus frying), then you shouldnt have any faith in your numbers.

    You can't count on packages to be 100% accurate either. They are allowed to be off by a certain percentage (I think 20 or so) and things are allowed to be marked as "0 calories" if they contain less than 5 calories per serving. Leaving in the fat that is removed from your burger probably evens out whatever calories my be sneaking by you every day.

    Edit to add: if it really bothers you, measure how many tbsp of fat are removed. 1 tbsp of butter or oil comes in at about 100 - 120 calories so you could estimate based on that?
  • You can't count on packages to be 100% accurate either. They are allowed to be off by a certain percentage (I think 20 or so) and things are allowed to be marked as "0 calories" if they contain less than 5 calories per serving. Leaving in the fat that is removed from your burger probably evens out whatever calories my be sneaking by you every day.

    This is an attitude I could simply never have. If I could be happy with my stats by saying "whatever fat came out in the grilling process only evens out what sneaks in throughout the day", then my numbers for all days when I dont grill would then have to be adjusted.

    If I eat the exact same thing for two days in a row, except on day 1 I make my hamburger patty on a GFG and a day 2, i pan fry it and let it absorb all the fat, then I must be able to see that difference in how I record that. By your comments on here, some of you make me think you would record the same total calories for those days. I just dont know what to say to that.
  • jgic2009
    jgic2009 Posts: 531 Member
    You'll have to do some math if you're that gung-ho about accounting for the calories you've saved by grilling. I would think you could get a fair estimate with a little weighing and the knowledge that 1 g of fat is about 9 cal.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,222 Member
    You can't count on packages to be 100% accurate either. They are allowed to be off by a certain percentage (I think 20 or so) and things are allowed to be marked as "0 calories" if they contain less than 5 calories per serving. Leaving in the fat that is removed from your burger probably evens out whatever calories my be sneaking by you every day.

    This is an attitude I could simply never have. If I could be happy with my stats by saying "whatever fat came out in the grilling process only evens out what sneaks in throughout the day", then my numbers for all days when I dont grill would then have to be adjusted.

    If I eat the exact same thing for two days in a row, except on day 1 I make my hamburger patty on a GFG and a day 2, i pan fry it and let it absorb all the fat, then I must be able to see that difference in how I record that. By your comments on here, some of you make me think you would record the same total calories for those days. I just dont know what to say to that.
    Fat in the frying pan doesn't get reabsorbed..........and most of that liquid/fat in the frying pan or the GF is water, which also contains the flavor. People are over think this.........the savings in calories is in the purchase of leaner meat, if it's the fat you think is causing your problems.
  • Fat in the frying pan doesn't get reabsorbed..........and most of that liquid/fat in the frying pan or the GF is water, which also contains the flavor.

    When I make hamburgers in the pan, the pan is dry at the end. That fat has to be somewhere (ie in my stomach). When I make it on the GFG, there is a huge, disgusting layer of fat on the grill and in the tray. If you dont see a difference in calories consumed in those two methods, then I dont know what to tell you.
    the savings in calories is in the purchase of leaner meat, if it's the fat you think is causing your problems.

    That's not what I think. I just want my stats to be as accurate as possible, because I have the most success when I set a calorie bar for the day and try to hit it. When I have gone for that number (usually 1400-1500), I often had horribly unhealthy foods throughout the day. I just made sure to log them all.
  • threads like this are so frustrating and found all over the wide, wide world of the interweb.

    Question - How do I calculate the reduction in calories when I prepare my food X way?

    Answer - I am going to totally ignore what you are asking and instead tell you something else.
  • therealangd
    therealangd Posts: 1,861 Member
    You'll have to do some math if you're that gung-ho about accounting for the calories you've saved by grilling. I would think you could get a fair estimate with a little weighing and the knowledge that 1 g of fat is about 9 cal.

    This is what I was going to suggest too. If the OP really NEEDS to know. Personally, I'd just use the nutrition information on the package.
  • You'll have to do some math if you're that gung-ho about accounting for the calories you've saved by grilling. I would think you could get a fair estimate with a little weighing and the knowledge that 1 g of fat is about 9 cal.

    This is what I was going to suggest too. If the OP really NEEDS to know. Personally, I'd just use the nutrition information on the package.

    If you ate a twinkie five days in a row and recorded it as such in your journal and then you ate a twinkie on the sixth day after you first removed all the delicious filling from the middle, would you still record it in your journal the same way as you did the previous days? Would you totally ignore that you removed a huge portion of the calories from it before eating it?
  • skylark94
    skylark94 Posts: 2,036 Member
    I think you're putting too much thought and worry into this.

    Yes, you're cooking off some fat, but wouldn't you rather include that fat in your log by recording the uncooked weigh instead of possibly overestimating the amount of fat lost? Realistically, it's probably a pretty small number, as you are also losing come meat solids and moisture into the drain pan. If you go off of uncooked weight, then you can easily log the meat regardless of how it is cooked.

    If you want to get obsessive, separate the fat and weigh it on a digital kitchen scale. I believe fat is 9 calories per gram.
  • wouldn't you rather include that fat in your log by recording the uncooked weigh instead of possibly overestimating the amount of fat lost?

    Those are the only two options? How about a third option:

    Try to get it right.
  • ninkdole
    ninkdole Posts: 243 Member
    wouldn't you rather include that fat in your log by recording the uncooked weigh instead of possibly overestimating the amount of fat lost?

    Those are the only two options? How about a third option:

    Try to get it right.

    You asked a question and people are trying to help. No need to be so snarky about it. Good grief.
  • nopeekiepeekie
    nopeekiepeekie Posts: 338 Member
    For trying to get help with an issue you are having, you sure are quite rude to people.

    You have gotten multiple solutions from multiple people trying to help you out, yet you poopooed every single one of them.

    If you're worried about the slight amount of calories you could save from the fat, you'll have to weigh a raw burger, cook it, then weigh the fat that you have left over and subtract the amount of calories from the weight of that fat from the caloric weight of the raw burger. And you'll have to do it for each individual burger, because even though you cook it on the same grill and make them the same weight/size, they could still give you differing fat release. Did you season the burger? Because you'll have to count those calories also.

    As for your twinkie comment, yep, I'd log it the same way, cream or no cream. Because if I exercise, even with a heart rate monitor the calorie burn can still be off.
  • "Try to get it right."

    I do get where you're coming from, honest. Error control in any experiment or procedure is an important thing to think about.

    The thing is, no matter what you do there will be some error. You can carefully weigh the burger and then *assume* that the % fat measurements are accurate. This is as far as most of us will go. There is some error that creeps in here, no doubt.

    Ala skylark94, you could make a sample burger, weighed very carefully, then collect everything that cooks out of the burger, maybe strain it to get out any meat pieces that come out too. Then heat the fluid again past boiling to get rid of all the water. Then you assume (probably reasonable) that most of the remaining fluid is fat. Use a conversion from weight to calories to determine how many calories you saved. To reduce the error further, subtract the calories represented by the little bits you strained out of the liquid.

    Armed with this info, you could assume that the next burger you make will be similar. Or, you could say, no, there is error there and keep performing the same actions (as outlined above) every time you make a burger.

    But you will still have error, guaranteed. There are errors on the package about % fat, burger packed a little differently so it holds more or less fat in, variations in moisture content of the burger, variations in nutritional and caloric content of the meat. The heart of this question is, what % error are you willing to tolerate and how does that jibe with the fact that you probably don't have time to do a full scientific analysis of everything you eat at every meal.

    What most of the respondents are saying, in essence, is that the error you are eliminating probably isn't really worth worrying about. But if precise accuracy is your goal, power to you, but even with the steps I've outlined above, you will not be 100% accurate no matter how hard you "try to get it right."

    So, you have error here despite your best efforts, though no doubt you could decrease it. But even then, how do you decide how many calories you really burned in a day? How much of your old food is sitting in your colon today as opposed to yesterday, affecting not only your weight but energy expended moving around? How about salt and water retention effects? Error here, error there, error everywhere!

    Here's how I "try to get it right": I prefer to think that errors end up cutting both ways and figure it all is a wash over time. Now, if 90% of your calories come off of the GFG, I'd say you still have bigger problems than the (presumably) over-reporting of calories, but your mileage may vary. If you think it makes sense to do some of the steps above to get an extra half-carrot after dinner because you used the GFC, power to you.

    Ultimately, it looks like you've dropped 52 pounds (and I'm guessing have also had a significant %body fat reduction)! Isn't that the ultimate measuring stick?

    Then again, if you quit worrying about all this (what I would say is) little stuff, you might burn less calories. ;-)
  • For trying to get help with an issue you are having, you sure are quite rude to people.

    I also find it rude when someone asks a specific question and people feel the need to ignore it and hyjack the conversation into something different. If I am getting ready to go outside and ask if it is raining, I don't want someone to avoid the question and tell me that if I am concerned about rain, I should move to Vegas.
    You have gotten multiple solutions from multiple people trying to help you out, yet you poopooed every single one of them.

    I have not poopooed anyone who actually tried to answer the question I asked, rather than trying to tell me I shouldnt be viewing the subject the way I do.

    As for your twinkie comment, yep, I'd log it the same way, cream or no cream. Because if I exercise, even with a heart rate monitor the calorie burn can still be off.

    Your logic here baffles me. Your heart rate monitor could be off on the days when you eat the entire thing as well.

    Yes, I do add calories when I season things. Yes, I do add calories for things like ketchup. I feel very confident that my numbers are accurate, or at least consistent, which is more important to me. If I am getting good results for what I record as 1400 but is actually 1600, then I want to repeat that day after day. You cant do that if you record something the same two different times when it clearly is not the same.

    This whole thing reminds me of a co-worker who used to go to subway, order "double the meat" on a sub and then record it in her journal with the calories subway listed for a regular sub, as if the doubled meat didnt add any calories to the sandwich.

    Like many of you, she preferred to accept what was easy and go by the label, even though her actions clearly altered the advertised amount.

  • Ala skylark94, you could make a sample burger, weighed very carefully, then collect everything that cooks out of the burger, maybe strain it to get out any meat pieces that come out too. Then heat the fluid again past boiling to get rid of all the water. Then you assume (probably reasonable) that most of the remaining fluid is fat. Use a conversion from weight to calories to determine how many calories you saved. To reduce the error further, subtract the calories represented by the little bits you strained out of the liquid.

    I'm actually going to try something like this. I am going to weigh the burger before and after. I will assume that a lot of what comes out is water and not credit myself with reducing all the weight in fat. Let's say the patty goes from .25 lbs to .20 lbs. If I begin with .25 of 80/20 meat, I will record it as .20 of 85/15 meat and see where that comes out.

    I will then collect all the gooey fat, weigh it, apply the 9 calories per gram formula and see how close the two numbers are. If they are close, I will go with that number from now on.
  • nopeekiepeekie
    nopeekiepeekie Posts: 338 Member

    As for your twinkie comment, yep, I'd log it the same way, cream or no cream. Because if I exercise, even with a heart rate monitor the calorie burn can still be off.

    Your logic here baffles me. Your heart rate monitor could be off on the days when you eat the entire thing as well.

    Why, in your opinion, would it be wrong to log the non cream filled twinkie as a regular twinkie? Putting in 20 extra (or so) calories on the high side than try to get down to the exact number and then find out all along you were probably wrong? Seems foolish if you ask me.

    Consuming & burning calories is NOT an exact science. Never has been, never will be. All you can do is "get close" and do your best.

    As for my HRM statement, I never said it would be accurate on the day I ate the whole twinkie vs part of it, because again, not an exact science.

    I also don't put a piece of sugar free chewing gum in my journal because you burn off the 5 calories just chewing it. Are you going to frown on people for that too?

    As for your co-worker, that's a completely different thing all together, do not assume that all of us are like that because we don't want to log right down to the last fat gram or stick of gum.

  • As for your twinkie comment, yep, I'd log it the same way, cream or no cream. Because if I exercise, even with a heart rate monitor the calorie burn can still be off.

    Your logic here baffles me. Your heart rate monitor could be off on the days when you eat the entire thing as well.

    Why, in your opinion, would it be wrong to log the non cream filled twinkie as a regular twinkie? Putting in 20 extra (or so) calories on the high side than try to get down to the exact number and then find out all along you were probably wrong? Seems foolish if you ask me.

    Yes, it is foolish to omit food that you dont actually eat. What was I thinking
This discussion has been closed.