Weighing food - cooked or raw
CycleFlow
Posts: 55
Which way is better or should it based on the form you are eating the food in?
The website IIFYM suggests to weigh meats as their raw weight.
I know the database has calories for both raw and cooked meats (although noticing actual caloric values are way off sometime so I cross check with Google frequently) . I am interested simply because I pre-cook a lot of things... is it going to make that big of a difference when it comes to meat?
For veggies I log them as the state I ate them in because I am well aware that cooking veggies often changes the sugar content etc.
Thanks!
The website IIFYM suggests to weigh meats as their raw weight.
I know the database has calories for both raw and cooked meats (although noticing actual caloric values are way off sometime so I cross check with Google frequently) . I am interested simply because I pre-cook a lot of things... is it going to make that big of a difference when it comes to meat?
For veggies I log them as the state I ate them in because I am well aware that cooking veggies often changes the sugar content etc.
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
I try to weigh things raw when possible.0
-
The nutrition label will most likely give you stats for the food before it's cooked. So try to weigh it raw.0
-
Fresh meat doesn't have a nutrition label.... I try to avoid the labels when possible anyways and buy most of my foods at my local market.
@ sidesteel - is that veggies included? or just for meat?
can you elaborate on why its better?
Just want a clear head on what Im doing...0 -
I believe it's more consistent to weigh it raw because the cooked weight will vary depending on method/duration/temperature of cooking and what the meat is/etc.
I'd weigh it thawed and raw.0 -
If you use the raw weight you have a reliable baseline. Depending on how you cook something, it'll weigh different amounts because different cooking techniques and cooking times will lead to more or less loss of various components, notably water and possibly a small amount its fat at high temperatures. e.g. a piece of beef that weighs 300g raw may weigh 250g if barely seared to rare, or 200g well done. The bulk of the difference will be water that's evaporated, though some (a very small amount) of the meats macros will burn off as well if the meat's really well done. In both cases, the nutritional value of the meat will be roughly equivalent to that original 300g lump of raw meat.
With ground meat more fat will separate from the meat during the cooking process, which may be drained off, or may not. Again more variables. I know you said you avoided labels, but for ground meat the nutritional value is often listed with the excess fat that comes out during browning the meat drained off.
On the other hand something starchy like rice will absorb varying amounts of water depending how long you cook it/how you cook it. 60g of dry rice might turn into 150g of cooked rice or 180g of cooked rice depending on how much moisture you let it absorb.0 -
Raw meats and vegetables have USDA nutrition information available:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/
Most of the things you could possibly need are already in the MFP database, so if you search for them as "raw blah blah usda", they come up. You should double check the information and correct as necessary, though, because people enter calories but not macros, or macros but not micronutrients, and so on.
The longer you cook something, the lighter and more calorie dense it usually is, since water evaporates from food. Weigh your foods raw if you want to be more precise in estimating your intake.0 -
Interesting! Great ( educational) answers.
I lost most of my weight simply countig calories. But now looking to be more specific in my losses - hopefully lower BF %
I am being enligtened in to the world of my actual "breakdown" and where he calories are coming from. Fun learning curve.0 -
I believe it's more consistent to weigh it raw because the cooked weight will vary depending on method/duration/temperature of cooking and what the meat is/etc.
I'd weigh it thawed and raw.
^^yep. Plus it's hard to find burnt food in the database. I do need to look into whether charcoal changes the caloric value though!0 -
For veggies I log them as the state I ate them in because I am well aware that cooking veggies often changes the sugar content etc.
Wait...
So I've been weighing my broccoli raw and then steaming it -- am I not logging accurately if I do that? Do the actual macros somehow change when you cook a veggie?0 -
Elaine, you are doing it right! don't stop
0 -
For veggies I log them as the state I ate them in because I am well aware that cooking veggies often changes the sugar content etc.
Wait...
So I've been weighing my broccoli raw and then steaming it -- am I not logging accurately if I do that? Do the actual macros somehow change when you cook a veggie?
I had a quick look into this as this is the first time I heard this (I missed the comment the first time round) and there is some discussion of cooking possibly changing the caloric content of carbs (and I saw some that said it increased it and some that said it reduced it), but in general any changes there are a very small and not worth bothering about due to inherent inaccuracies in the calorie content and macros (for example, carbs are not exactly 4 cals per gram as there is rounding) and the variability of TEF, especially with carbs.
In short, don't worry about it.0 -
If you're cooking a bunch of meat at a time to use throughout the week you could always weigh it raw, then weigh it again cooked so you know what the conversion rate is for that batch. Then just use the multiplier every time you eat a portion of the cooked meat to make it the raw value. For instance, I cooked 12.55 ounces of chicken last night that ended up being 9.35 cooked (boiled). I then know that every time I eat some of that chicken, I weigh it and multiply it by 1.35 to get the raw value. A tiny bit of extra work but pretty easy in the long run if you're concerned about the difference.0
-
For veggies I log them as the state I ate them in because I am well aware that cooking veggies often changes the sugar content etc.
Wait...
So I've been weighing my broccoli raw and then steaming it -- am I not logging accurately if I do that? Do the actual macros somehow change when you cook a veggie?
I had a quick look into this as this is the first time I heard this (I missed the comment the first time round) and there is some discussion of cooking possibly changing the caloric content of carbs (and I saw some that said it increased it and some that said it reduced it), but in general any changes there are a very small and not worth bothering about due to inherent inaccuracies in the calorie content and macros (for example, carbs are not exactly 4 cals per gram as there is rounding) and the variability of TEF, especially with carbs.
In short, don't worry about it.
Interesting - the main one I was always told this about was carrots, then never really looked into it further until now. I always somewhat wondered. Research is the best medicine I guess.0 -
If you're cooking a bunch of meat at a time to use throughout the week you could always weigh it raw, then weigh it again cooked so you know what the conversion rate is for that batch. Then just use the multiplier every time you eat a portion of the cooked meat to make it the raw value. For instance, I cooked 12.55 ounces of chicken last night that ended up being 9.35 cooked (boiled). I then know that every time I eat some of that chicken, I weigh it and multiply it by 1.35 to get the raw value. A tiny bit of extra work but pretty easy in the long run if you're concerned about the difference.
I was thinking this is what I would do, although as supportive as he is my boyfriend may kill me if I spend any more time with my food scale and calculator. LMAO.
All this math better add up to some damn good results!!!0 -
If you're cooking a bunch of meat at a time to use throughout the week you could always weigh it raw, then weigh it again cooked so you know what the conversion rate is for that batch. Then just use the multiplier every time you eat a portion of the cooked meat to make it the raw value. For instance, I cooked 12.55 ounces of chicken last night that ended up being 9.35 cooked (boiled). I then know that every time I eat some of that chicken, I weigh it and multiply it by 1.35 to get the raw value. A tiny bit of extra work but pretty easy in the long run if you're concerned about the difference.
Yep, that is what I do for my batch cooking, works great if you aren't afraid of some math. Although I portion it out right then before I put it away, so when I go to eat it I can just grab it and not worry.I had a quick look into this as this is the first time I heard this (I missed the comment the first time round) and there is some discussion of cooking possibly changing the caloric content of carbs (and I saw some that said it increased it and some that said it reduced it), but in general any changes there are a very small and not worth bothering about due to inherent inaccuracies in the calorie content and macros (for example, carbs are not exactly 4 cals per gram as there is rounding) and the variability of TEF, especially with carbs.
In short, don't worry about it.
Good, 'cause I already feel mildly irritated about weighing veggies in the first place! :laugh:
Edited for frigging typos0 -
I had the same question so I contacted foster farms who sells boneless skinless chicken breasts at costco. The rep who emailed me back stated the norm for nutritional values are based on how the product is sold unless it states otherwise. So if you buy raw chicken you weigh it raw. If you buy cooked meat it is of course is the weight cooked. Hope this helps sorry if you now have to cut the protein intake back a little.0
