George Foreman

Steveeee
Steveeee Posts: 62
edited September 25 in Food and Nutrition
The sausages I want have 6g fat per sausage, but that is grilled in the oven. Would doing them on a george foreman reduce the amount of fat? If so, by how much?

Replies

  • salad37
    salad37 Posts: 30 Member
    this is a good point, after reading up on this, the best thing to do is to weigh the burger after it is cooked, and work out how much fat per 100g divided into how much it actually weighs, that will give you the best and most accurate count x
  • Victorious_One
    Victorious_One Posts: 174 Member
    Great question! I'm not sure of the answer, but I'd say for as much fat that drains from the GF grill, I'd put it at 40-50% reduction.

    What do other folks think? Anyone know for sure?
  • Victorious_One
    Victorious_One Posts: 174 Member
    There is very roughly about 1 g of fat in 1 g of meat drippings, per MyFitnessPal. I'd say you could reduce the fat grams in the meat you're cooking by the # of grams of fat drippings you get from the grill. You'd have to measure it, which of course is gross, but it would work.
  • Steveeee
    Steveeee Posts: 62
    There is very roughly about 1 g of fat in 1 g of meat drippings, per MyFitnessPal. I'd say you could reduce the fat grams in the meat you're cooking by the # of grams of fat drippings you get from the grill. You'd have to measure it, which of course is gross, but it would work.

    This is what I thought! but after reading some things I found on google, apparently water in the food also gets drained. So I honestly have no clue. Only thing I can think it wait for it to solidify, then weigh it. :grumble:
  • salad37
    salad37 Posts: 30 Member
    There is very roughly about 1 g of fat in 1 g of meat drippings, per MyFitnessPal. I'd say you could reduce the fat grams in the meat you're cooking by the # of grams of fat drippings you get from the grill. You'd have to measure it, which of course is gross, but it would work.



    have to remember that there is not only fat that comes out of the foods, water does too, so weiging the excess drained wont give you a near enough idea, , the only other way is to slightly over account, cant go wrong there lol xx
  • salad37
    salad37 Posts: 30 Member
    /
  • marianne_s
    marianne_s Posts: 983 Member
    I personally would err on the side of the greater amount of fat/calorie amount, rather than reducing it.

    Because you already know that the sausage has X amount 9 of calories & fat - trying to guesstimate what the amounts are after grilling isn't going to helpyou manage calorie count for the day.

    So, I say stick with the larger amount and reduce your calories for your other meals today.


    Oh btw - the co-op supermarket (in UK) do reduced fat sausages (which taste alright!) that are 180 calories for 2
  • valleyrose99
    valleyrose99 Posts: 15 Member
    Easy fix - don't eat sausage.
  • Steveeee
    Steveeee Posts: 62
    Easy fix - don't eat sausage.

    What's to fix? I wasn't saying "Oh I really want to eat these sausages but they are just too calorific, or too much fat"

    I simply wanted to know how much effect a george foreman actually has, I somehow doubt not eating sausage is going to fix that. Sausage was just given as an example.
  • Mayor_West
    Mayor_West Posts: 246 Member
    Keep in mind that there is no difference in fat loss whether something is grilled on a Foreman or on a conventional grill. On the Foreman, the grill is angled so the food is not cooking in its grease like it would in a skillet. But on a conventional grill, there are clearly openings in the grill for the same grease to fall through. So the appeal of the Foreman is that people can grill foods without having to grill, and not have their food sit in a puddle of grease while it cooks.
  • spikess
    spikess Posts: 113 Member
    i've wondered this too, but i just stick with weighing my food after it's cooked an going by the packaging.

    i'm really craving sausages now! lol
This discussion has been closed.

Categories