Chicken - Weird?!

paleojamie

Basically I put 100g of chicken in the microwave (small strips), reccommended for microwave cooking

When I took it out, it was only 55g.

I put 100g in cause I needed 137 more calories.

Does that mean then that I only had 55g worth of chicken, therefore 68.5 cals

I hope not.

Can someone enlighten me.

I'm sure the weight lost was the water, surely it would not lose calories.

crystal8208

Curious also.


I'd say the 55g because you had water evaporate? Guessing?

beccala18

It depends on how you entered it. You had 100g raw chicken, and 55g cooked chicken. It should be about the same calories (in theory at least).

UponThisRock

nutrition facts are typically raw weight, unless otherwise specified.

cohophysh

if it was frozen when you weight it, then most likely it lost water weight from the microwave, so I would use your after microwave numbers.

SOOZIE429

3 ounces of chicken raw is usually about 2 oz of chicken when cooked. In other words, it shrinks after you cook it as you figured out. It's still the same amount of chicken.

So, yes you had 55g of COOKED chicken, but 100g of raw chicken. Make sure you look up the correct weight for either raw or cooked.

wolfchild59

You had your 137 calories of chicken. Cooking meat only makes it lose liquid (water/juices), not calories. That's why difference between weighing raw and cooked food is an important one.

But you're good to go on getting the calories you needed from 100g of raw chicken.

paleojamie

You had your 137 calories of chicken. Cooking meat only makes it lose liquid (water/juices), not calories. That's why difference between weighing raw and cooked food is an important one.

But you're good to go on getting the calories you needed from 100g of raw chicken.

I really hope this is true I'm trying to gain 0.5lbs a week and obviously being under by 65 cals a day .. means not quite 0.5lbs a week essentially.

ElizabethRoad

It's definitely true. I'm guessing you are new to cooking?

paleojamie

I asked this to my housemates and they all say it is the cooked weight that counts, so I did not have 100g .. I only had 55g . so frustrating!!!

wolfchild59

Your house mates are wrong. Having worked in a professional kitchen I tell you, with utmost confidence, that you record all meats as their raw weights for the correct nutritional info.

The reason why, in basic terms, is what I explained above. To illustrate this, take that same 100g of chicken - microwave it for less than you did and it will weigh more, microwave it for longer than you did and it will weigh less. The less you cook a piece of meat the more natural juices it retains, the longer it cooks, the more you remove. But you are not chemically altering the proteins themselves, so your caloric value stays the same no matter how long you cook it.

It's the opposite effect of cooking rice, pasta, or other grains. Those are weighed dry and then increase in weight and volume as they absorb the liquid they are cooked in. Cook them less, they absorb less and will weigh less than if you cook them longer, since they will absorb more.

It's also why you should try to never use the entries for "cooked" food in the database. You can cook a 100g serving of chicken and have it weigh 70g one night and 60g the next. If you use the cooked entry, you would be entering two different caloric amounts for those servings, when both are identical, the 60g one will just be drier than the 70g one because you've cooked out 10g more of the meat's natural juices.

This is also why restaurants will notate things like quarter pound burgers or 12oz steaks as pre-cooked weights in the fine print. Because they weigh everything raw and then cook to order. And one customer's rare steak will weigh more then the next customer's medium steak.

RAFValentina

It's raw eight, as with anything... Half the chicken didn't disappear... it was water that did. Calculations are done this way because you may add it to suace so it would be hard to weigh and cooking it in different ways will adjust the water content differently. Also bear in mind all nutritional info is legally allowed to be 20% out.

paleojamie

Your house mates are wrong. Having worked in a professional kitchen I tell you, with utmost confidence, that you record all meats as their raw weights for the correct nutritional info.

The reason why, in basic terms, is what I explained above. To illustrate this, take that same 100g of chicken - microwave it for less than you did and it will weigh more, microwave it for longer than you did and it will weigh less. The less you cook a piece of meat the more natural juices it retains, the longer it cooks, the more you remove. But you are not chemically altering the proteins themselves, so your caloric value stays the same no matter how long you cook it.

It's the opposite effect of cooking rice, pasta, or other grains. Those are weighed dry and then increase in weight and volume as they absorb the liquid they are cooked in. Cook them less, they absorb less and will weigh less than if you cook them longer, since they will absorb more.

It's also why you should try to never use the entries for "cooked" food in the database. You can cook a 100g serving of chicken and have it weigh 70g one night and 60g the next. If you use the cooked entry, you would be entering two different caloric amounts for those servings, when both are identical, the 60g one will just be drier than the 70g one because you've cooked out 10g more of the meat's natural juices.

This is also why restaurants will notate things like quarter pound burgers or 12oz steaks as pre-cooked weights in the fine print. Because they weigh everything raw and then cook to order. And one customer's rare steak will weigh more then the next customer's medium steak.

That is very interesting Thanks

Sandigesha

I have no opportunity to weight my raw chicken, and nutritional info was given for raw product. Is there any formula to calculate the calories in my cooked chicken? Water evaporates, but fat is melting out (i dont eat it of course,) cause i oven it. Lets say my 250 of cooked chicken are 440 calories, what would be caloric value of 250g of cooked meat? (i hope this is clear enough)