nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Should I weigh food raw or cooked?

tiggsnanny

Hi Guys, most of the time I weigh my food when it's cooked, but I just weighed 50g grams of dry spaghetti, I weighed it again when it was cooked and it weighed 112 grams :noway:

I wonder if i'm under weighing my food if it's heavier when cooked lol

Replies

lemurcat12

Depends on the food. Meat is lighter when cooked, pasta and rice (and the like) are heavier.

I prefer weighing when raw--less variability--but what's most important is making sure the MFP entry you use matches up with it (raw or cooked). Most nutrition information on packages is for raw unless it states otherwise.

IcanIwill1

Absolutely weigh your food raw.
when you cook the food, how much water it would have absorbed thereby affecting the weight is unknown.

And this -http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list is the only accurate database to use too.

tiggsnanny

Thankyou Lemur, I was a bit shocked that it's double the weight when cooked, but that can only be water can't it?

tiggsnanny

I will weigh raw then, I tend to dish my dinner up and weigh it as I go, lol might be laziness on my part

Walter__

Weigh everything raw/dry.

abadvat

There are raw and cooked entries with different macros most of times - in my opinion, if you eat raw - track raw, if you eat cooked - track cooked!

tiggsnanny

Thankyou,

tiggsnanny

oh gawd, you're trying to confuse me now aren't you lol, I don't understand the macro thing tbh, I just plod along trying to stay under my calorie goal

martinel2099

I would go with raw, or the "as packaged" nutrition info

unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

Yes, it is just water. Water can be surprisingly heavy, and pasta/rice absorb a LOT. Similarly, if people weigh meat cooked and then use raw entries they tend to way underestimate what they are eating (4 oz raw is a lot smaller than 4 oz cooked).

lemurcat12

Neither. While still living is preferable.

Do you eat a lot of living spaghetti? Interesting.

abadvat

Neither. While still living is preferable.

Do you eat a lot of living spaghetti? Interesting.

Am Italian - Do not mess with spaghetti - capisc!!?

abadvat

oh gawd, you're trying to confuse me now aren't you lol, I don't understand the macro thing tbh, I just plod along trying to stay under my calorie goal

Been tracking for a couple of years - this question always freaks me out!!
Bottom line, if you are tracking continuously and remain consistent it won't affect you that much as body and calories will evolve in time but will still be on the same database!

lemurcat12

There are raw and cooked entries with different macros most of times - in my opinion, if you eat raw - track raw, if you eat cooked - track cooked!

Raw is generally better. Lots of things affect how much water pasta absorbs (how you like it--al dente or overcooked, the altitude, the brand, etc.), and the nutrition information on the package is most commonly for raw even though obviously you are expected to eat it cooked. The water absorbed in cooking doesn't change the calories, just the weight. Much easier and more accurate to weigh raw.

Same with meat unless there are problems with weighing raw such as (a) you picked a brand where lots of water is injected, in which case you should go by the packaged information (which will be for raw), or (b) you are using a bone-in cut, in which case you don't really have a choice and should just make sure the entry you use is for the correct cooking method (since there's a big difference depending).

The best generic entries for things like meat are the non-asterisk USDA entries that look something like "chicken, breast, flesh and skin, raw" or "chicken, breast, flesh and skin, cooked, dry heat, roasted." But if you have some kind of commercial brand that seems to have water injected, the package info is probably more specific.

if you are tracking continuously and remain consistent it won't affect you that much

This is true. The most important thing is to use entries that are raw or cooked based on how you weighed it and to be as consistent as possible, as then you will be able to compare how much you are eating from day to day with past days or weeks and adjust.

tiggsnanny

Thanks for all the replys

I'll weigh raw, I haven't been consistent, it didn't enter my head until I weighed the spaghetti raw and cooked, lol well, now I know :happy:

earlnabby

It really doesn't matter as long as you log it the way you weighed it.

Having said that, I prefer to weigh raw for most things. It is just easier.

alfonsinarosinsky

oh my goodness I've been weighing cooked.. I haven't had pasta but I've been weighing my lamb chops after they're cooked...yikes ....oh wait it says "grilled lamb so I guess/hope I'm okay

alfonsinarosinsky

From what I see now, the meats specify cooked or broiled etc or raw as does the pasta

I am speaking of the calorie counter etc on MFP.

abadvat

There are raw and cooked entries with different macros most of times - in my opinion, if you eat raw - track raw, if you eat cooked - track cooked!

No, raw is generally better. Lots of things affect how much water pasta absorbs (how you like it--al dente or overcooked, the altitude, the brand, etc.), and the nutrition information on the package is most commonly for raw even though obviously you are expected to eat it cooked. The water absorbed in cooking doesn't change the calories, just the weight. Much easier and more accurate to weigh raw.

Same with meat unless there are problems with weighing raw such as (a) you picked a brand where lots of water is injected, in which case you should go by the packaged information (which will be for raw), or (b) you are using a bone-in cut, in which case you don't really have a choice and should just make sure the entry you use is for the correct cooking method (since there's a big difference depending).

The best generic entries for things like meat are the non-asterisk USDA entries that look something like "chicken, breast, flesh and skin, raw" or "chicken, breast, flesh and skin, cooked, dry heat, roasted." But if you have some kind of commercial brand that seems to have water injected, the package info is probably more specific.

if you are tracking continuously and remain consistent it won't affect you that much

This is true. The most important thing is to use entries that are raw or cooked based on how you weighed it and to be as consistent as possible, as then you will be able to compare how much you are eating from day to day with past days or weeks and adjust.

Agreed with the pasta- I track based on package info.
USDA - debatable IMO. There is indeed a raw entry but also a cooked - let's say grilled as an example.
I am eating grilled chicken, not raw chicken. Weight raw will be higher due to meat + liquids (water, left over blood, etc...). When grilling your chicken breast your weight will decrease due to loss in liquids and some of the fat will melt too - hence why I am tracking as cooked as opposed to raw.
Anyhow - endless topic - to each his own I guess - as long as you remain consistent in what you do and your calories are aligned with goals and results everybody is fine!

kathleenkilhefner

bump

tiggsnanny

Thanks, it's nice to see how other people track their food.

lemurcat12

USDA - debatable IMO. There is indeed a raw entry but also a cooked - let's say grilled as an example.
I am eating grilled chicken, not raw chicken. Weight raw will be higher due to meat + liquids (water, left over blood, etc...). When grilling your chicken breast your weight will decrease due to loss in liquids and some of the fat will melt too - hence why I am tracking as cooked as opposed to raw.
Anyhow - endless topic - to each his own I guess - as long as you remain consistent in what you do and your calories are aligned with goals and results everybody is fine!

Yep. I think raw is best where possible for similar reasons to pasta--if you routinely cook meat more it will weigh less than average and thus you will be underestimating your calories. While commercial meat of some sorts can be misleading when raw (injected with water) I don't personally buy those meats, but they also have specific package information that will be for raw usually.

But like I said, sometimes cooked is unavoidable--I eat lots of bone-in cuts, so am quite familiar with the cooked entries. I think we agree that what's important is that you don't use raw entries for cooked weights or vice versa. Otherwise the error should be pretty minor (or at least outweighed by other things, such as that calories for a particular cut are going to vary anyway).

Stopin_da_yoyo

Raw

abadvat

All this raw and cooked got me in the mood folks- beef sashimi it is for tonight!

tiggsnanny

I didn't realise the database had raw and cooked entries :laugh:

wgaue

Food like pasta, rice, grits etc. "doubles" in weight/size when cooked. Foods like, meats and some veggies lose size/weight. Due too losing fat/juice etc.

Stopin_da_yoyo

Raw

tiggsnanny

ok drm raw it is

hbrittingham

I weigh my meats after they are cooked. You can lose one to two ounces when you cook something, even more when it's beef and you cook it well done. When I am eating 7 ounces of chicken breast, I am not going to be happy if I weigh it after cooking and find it only weighs 5 ounces, but I am logging the calories of a 7 ounce chicken breast. I am very selfish about my food! I like it too much to waste any calories.