ground beef cooked or raw weight?

Options
Leka1000
Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Do i go by cooked or raw weight for ground beef. Cant believe my 200g patty is 580 cals! Can i use the cooked weight? Its exactly half!!! I bbqed it.
«13

Replies

  • emodavis
    emodavis Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    It's almost half a pound. 580 sounds pretty accurate when you look at the USDA info.

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/beef/show
  • triciab79
    triciab79 Posts: 1,713 Member
    Options
    No its best to overestimate rather than under estimate. Use a lower fat % for your burgers and it will fix the calorie count. A 95/5 would have only cost you 340 calories. Burgers can be bad news between the bun, mayo, cheese, and using a higher fat % to get a juicier patty. I gave up traditional burgers while I was trying to lose the weight. I would do a 3 oz 95/5 on a wrap with lots of veggies mustard and ketchup. I eat one every once in a while now that I am on maintenance but they just don't seem worth the effort I would need to put in to cutting or burning calories elsewhere.
  • TheVirgoddess
    TheVirgoddess Posts: 4,535 Member
    Options
    We had burgers tonight, too.

    You can log cooked or raw, just make sure you're using the correct entry. So either hamburger, raw or something like hamburger, grilled.
  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    emodavis wrote: »
    It's almost half a pound. 580 sounds pretty accurate when you look at the USDA info.

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/beef/show

    My cooked burger was 100g. When it was raw it was 200g. Couldn't it just have lost 100g in fat dripping into the bbq? That said, may it be safe to log superstore regular ground beef 100g? ??
  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    Anyone? Can i use cooked weight for my bbqed superstore regular ground beef burger?
  • MKEgal
    MKEgal Posts: 3,250 Member
    Options
    If you search the database for something like:
    USDA ground beef 80% lean raw
    then use the raw weight.

    If you search the database for something like:
    USDA ground beef 80% lean cooked
    then use the cooked weight.

    It doesn't matter which you use, as long as you're accurate (weight & condition).
  • yellowantphil
    yellowantphil Posts: 787 Member
    Options
    I’d try to find an entry in the database that says cooked beef, and use the cooked weight.
  • emodavis
    emodavis Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    Leka1000 wrote: »
    emodavis wrote: »
    It's almost half a pound. 580 sounds pretty accurate when you look at the USDA info.

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/beef/show

    My cooked burger was 100g. When it was raw it was 200g. Couldn't it just have lost 100g in fat dripping into the bbq? That said, may it be safe to log superstore regular ground beef 100g? ??

    There's a drop-down tab on the link that gives options for raw and different types of preparation.
  • Faithful_Chosen
    Faithful_Chosen Posts: 401 Member
    Options
    Honestly, I'd say that you mostly lose water when cooking (as with anything). I use the raw weight with a raw entry. Any fat that *might* leave the bun is a bonus for the day. Meat is calorie dense, that's just the way it is. don't kid yourself into allowing yourself a lower number for a heavy meal.
  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    K so i used this entry
    Hamburger cooked regular ground beef 80/20 and of course used the cooked weight of 100g

    So now im wondering what entry should i use when i have lean ground beef? Is it 90/10??
  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    Also. So many entries...what is really accurate? Sure would be beneficial to know...everyone knows how important accuracy is when weight loss is your goal
  • cocnuts
    cocnuts Posts: 15 Member
    Options
    It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
    To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

    Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

    But better overestimate than the opposite.
  • professionalHobbyist
    professionalHobbyist Posts: 1,316 Member
    Options
    Goggle it and come up with your own entry you feel is correct.

    Other people have tried to do that in the past but it appears to not seem accurate to you

    Google is your friend

    http://www.calorieking.com/calories-in-ground+beef.html

  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    cocnuts wrote: »
    It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
    To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

    Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

    But better overestimate than the opposite.

    No, a 100g cooked patty is quite regular size.... a 50g burger would be puny...

    Im sad i can't find accurate info on my burger....i love burgers
  • jmac4263
    jmac4263 Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    Thats about the size of burger I have when I grill them. I use 93/7 beef so thats what I log. If you notice some entries have a check mark by them I try and use those when I log. If something I go to log doesnt have any confirmations on it I wont use it, I will find another one that has been verified or enter it on my own.

    It should be pretty easy to find and log accurately
  • acheben
    acheben Posts: 476 Member
    Options
    Leka1000 wrote: »
    cocnuts wrote: »
    It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
    To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

    Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

    But better overestimate than the opposite.

    No, a 100g cooked patty is quite regular size.... a 50g burger would be puny...

    Im sad i can't find accurate info on my burger....i love burgers
    I would have logged it as the raw weight using the raw entry. You don't know how much fat or water was lost during the cooking process and you don't know if the database cooked entry lost the same amount of fat and water.


  • Leka1000
    Leka1000 Posts: 160 Member
    Options
    Im gonna weight my frozen patties when home...i can't see 200g raw being 520cals and 100g coked being 250cals... (exact same patty) WAY too much of a difference for my liking.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,626 Member
    Options
    I log things using the cooked entry whenever I can. I like to log what I actually eat. It's not always possible, but where I can, I log cooked. Seems more accurate to me to log what you eat.

    Some people prefer the raw version. Whatever floats your boat.
  • professionalHobbyist
    professionalHobbyist Posts: 1,316 Member
    Options
    CalorieKing.com

    All your questions answered

Categories