Nutrition information inconsistencies for meats!

wrbaker503
wrbaker503 Posts: 3
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I'm not sure if anyone else is running into this, but I am, frankly, fed up with how wildly inconsistent the nutrition information is on here for meats. I'm also tired of no one noting whether these are COOKED or UNCOOKED values. I'm also finding a lot of entries that will say "roasted/grilled" etc., but when you look up the nutrition information online, it is actually for an uncooked portion.

Since many meats can shrink by 25-30% in weight when cooked, if you're using all of these uncooked values to measure your portions, you're overestimating your meat servings by as much as 30%. Since I weigh all of my food cooked for portion control, I find that I have to do a lot of custom entries for cooked meat values.

I've had to just do custom entries for all of the meats I use most regularly. I weigh them before and after cooking, and do the appropriate math to adjust my custom food entries.

Replies

  • maremare312
    maremare312 Posts: 1,143 Member
    Yeah people enter all sorts of crap. I try to pick the ones originally entered by MFP. Those ones do not have an asterix before them when you do a search. I would LOVE if it was an option to omit user entered content when you do a search if you want to, like on another popular site.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    if you're using all of these uncooked values to measure your portions, you're overestimating your meat servings by as much as 30%
    We may be overestimating weight, but unless you've had the cooked food analysed you can't just apply the uncooked calorie value to the cooked weight - that would be insane.

    If the weight reduction of 30% is all water then there's no effect on calories. Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets for example are about 70% water as bought.
  • wrbaker503
    wrbaker503 Posts: 3
    [/quote] We may be overestimating weight, but unless you've had the cooked food analysed you can't just apply the uncooked calorie value to the cooked weight - that would be insane.

    If the weight reduction of 30% is all water then there's no effect on calories. Skinless Chicken Breast Fillets for example are about 70% water as bought.
    [/quote]

    Um, okay -- I think you just contradicted yourself. You said you can't apply the uncooked calorie value to the cooked weight, but then in the next sentence said that there is no effect on calories by cooking. So, essentially, I'm right -- you DO need to account for the reduction in weight by the removal of water. That's all I'm saying.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories