Chicken Breast, Raw or Cooked Nutritional Info?

Options
ElvenToad
ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I really hope someone can help me. I bought 3lbs of chicken breast or 48 ounces. I weighed it raw before I cooked it and it was 47.5 ounces so pretty close. I weighed it again after I cooked it and it came to 26.4 ounces, I assume the water and moisture from cooking makes it weigh less. So my question is!

How do I figure out the nutritional information? The package says a serving is 4 oz and 130 calories. But since I only end up with 26.4 ounces of chicken.. instead of 48 I'm really confused.

I want my serving size to be 3 ounces. So...
Do I still weigh out 3 oz and go by the 48 oz calories?

26 oz divided by 8 servings would give me 3.25 ounces at 210 calories per serving.
48 oz divided by 16 servings would give me 3 ounces at 105 calories per serving.


I eat a lot of chicken and I don't want to be calculating it incorrectly and eating more calories than I think I am. Its a pretty big difference! Help!!

Replies

  • elusive_design
    elusive_design Posts: 1,095 Member
    Options
    Unless otherwise specified calories by weight is almost always raw.. let me put it a different way.

    The calories from raw to cooked do NOT change, their density does. So if something has 211 calories raw, it will still have 211 calories cooked (assuming no marinades, etc). You might have a portion that weighs less than it did raw but the total calories remain the same.
  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    Options
    The nutrition info on the package is for raw.

    There's entries for the cooked weight in the database but raw weight is usually better.
  • AbsolutelyAnnie
    AbsolutelyAnnie Posts: 2,695 Member
    Options
    Hi honey. I have noticed that most of the calorie counts at MFP do have cooked counts for chicken. When I am hunting for a count, I will be as specific as I can: "Chicken breast, roasted, boneless, no skin" and it will cough up a few dozen items that are reasonably close to that description. So, it is best to be specific about bone/boneless and skin/no skin, raw, cooked in the description you enter.

    Personally, I prefer to get the cooked counts, as this is actually what I am eating and I can measure more accurately.
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    Ok so I weigh out my 3oz and I get 105 calories even though its almost half the weight after its cooked?
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    I cook the 48 oz of chicken all at the same time, then cut it up and store in the fridge for the week so I can easily grab it when I need it for meals. I use the recipe builder so I can add in my seasonings and olive oil to the total calories.
  • simplydelish2
    simplydelish2 Posts: 726 Member
    Options
    If you purchased a bag of chicken you might see on the package - up to 15% (or some other number) juices added. Those juices disappear during cooking - that is part of why you aren't getting the same weight.

    Every nutritionist I've every spoken with, and all the studying I've done, says weigh and measure your food in the state (raw or cooked) that you are going to eat it. With that, you eat chicken cooked so weigh it cooked. The big exception here is pasta - always measure pasta dry - depending on how long it's in the water depends on how much moisture it absorbs and thus, how much it weighs.
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    Ok the cooked entries for 3oz in the database are about 105 calories so I guess that it doesn't matter if you enter it as raw or cooked and the answer is to count it as 48 oz. Thank you!
  • YesIAm17
    YesIAm17 Posts: 817 Member
    Options
    Oh noes... I fear I have fallen prey to this same confusion.

    No big deal I will find an entry in the database for cooked, or weigh after cooking and do the math.

    But it makes no sense. Nobody eats raw chicken!!! Why would the nutrition info on the package be for raw? ridiculous I say!
  • rainbowxelephant
    rainbowxelephant Posts: 71 Member
    Options
    I agree with the post above, no one eats raw chicken. And by the way.. 3 ounces is still 3 ounces. It will be about the size of your palm if you've average sized hands. A 100 calorie portion of meat protein is generally close to the same size. (Or so I'm told, I don't eat the stuff)
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    haha yeah it is confusing! The calories are the same you just get less density.. but the weight is almost half less.. and the cooked calories are right on so yeah that makes my head spin a bit :)
  • LindaFromNH
    LindaFromNH Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    Foods weigh less after being cooked, and that is exactly what you eat, so I would weigh it when it's cooked then do the calorie count.... The reason they put the raw weight is because that is what you pay for by the pound/ounces when you buy it at the store.
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    You will get the most accurate results by dividing the cooked weight by the number of original servings. So, you started with 12-4 oz servings (48 oz) and ended up with 12 servings still, but now they only weigh about 2.2 oz. Your 2.2 oz servings have the same calories a your original 4 oz servings did. Now, you can either eat more or less than that to fit your calorie goals.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,070 Member
    Options
    Ok the cooked entries for 3oz in the database are about 105 calories so I guess that it doesn't matter if you enter it as raw or cooked and the answer is to count it as 48 oz. Thank you!

    Yes it matters. If you weigh it raw, use a 'raw' entry but if you weigh it after you've cooked it then use a 'cooked' entry.
  • tgmichelleee
    tgmichelleee Posts: 144 Member
    Options
    Unless otherwise specified calories by weight is almost always raw.. let me put it a different way.

    The calories from raw to cooked do NOT change, their density does. So if something has 211 calories raw, it will still have 211 calories cooked (assuming no marinades, etc). You might have a portion that weighs less than it did raw but the total calories remain the same.

    ^ This

    I know it's more complicated than this, but for arguments sake we're going to consider a calorie a form of energy.
    The law of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is simply transformed. In food, calories basically take the form of chemical energy. The question I guess the OP is asking is can heat break the the bonds in food molecules so that you end up losing calories as you cook, and I have to agree with elusive_design and say no.
    Though energy is being applied to cook the food, the energy in the food itself is not being used.
    All it is is a change in form [in this case] due to the denaturing of the protein and loss off water. Also, heat alone isn't able to break those bonds in the food to release energy.
    But this phenomenon happens to a lot of food: when you cook eggs, it changes form but its still the same calories. When you cook rice, although it absorbs water and changes form, it is still the same amount of calories.
    In my opinion, this is why you should weigh food before cooking and not after.
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    I will weigh it cooked and enter it as cooked to avoid the confusion from now on. Thank you all who took the time to respond!!
  • laineybz
    laineybz Posts: 704 Member
    Options
    I had similar confusion the other day. The packaging said 100g oven cooked chicken is 128 cals (for instance). So i guess i'd weigh that after being over cooked!? lol.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    But it makes no sense. Nobody eats raw chicken!!! Why would the nutrition info on the package be for raw? ridiculous I say!

    All the calories are estimates, but going by the raw weight when possible is probably more accurate.

    How much it weighs when cooked varies depending on the cooking method, how done you cook it, etc., since the reason the cooked weighs less than the raw is because of the lost water. So if you cook it really well done the cooked weight understates calories, probably, vs. rare or medium, and if you go by some cooked weight that assumes roasted and you cooked it in liquid, you are probably overstating calories. The easiest way--when possible--is to go by raw weight.

    However, obviously that's not always possible, for example when you have bone-in cuts or a larger piece of meat (like leg of lamb), so like others have said just make sure you use the cooked entry for cooked meat with as much information as possible (i.e., it should specify cooked in dry heat or the like).
  • ElvenToad
    ElvenToad Posts: 644 Member
    Options
    Raw weight says 140 cals per 4 oz on the package, cooked weight in the database says approx 130 cals for 4oz cooked..so its very close. I'm going to error on the high side of 140 cals just to be sure.

Categories