ground beef cooked or raw weight?
Leka1000
Posts: 160 Member
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.
0
Replies
-
It's almost half a pound. 580 sounds pretty accurate when you look at the USDA info.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/beef/show0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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? ??0 -
Anyone? Can i use cooked weight for my bbqed superstore regular ground beef burger?0
-
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).0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I’d try to find an entry in the database that says cooked beef, and use the cooked weight.0
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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??0 -
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 goal0
-
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.0 -
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
0 -
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
0 -
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 accurately0 -
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.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
0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
CalorieKing.com
All your questions answered0 -
Raw is more accurate, so use the raw entry and move on.0
-
Every ones answers pretty much differ...i need a food scientist!
Gonna check out calorie king too. Thx0 -
Lol calorie king is really lame....wont even find raw ground beef..0
-
It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.0
-
It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
Of course they are - everyone's 200g of raw meat is going to make different weights of cooked meat, depending on how you cook them. That's why it's best to log it as raw meat.
If it was 80/20, search: ground beef, 80/20, raw - and log it.0 -
It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
You do understand that when it's raw there is water in it that comes out when it cooks? And the chemical make up of the meat itself changes, affecting the density of the meat? The fat also cooks, some cooking into the meat and some cooking out of the meat. All of these things affect the weight and the calorie count.0 -
It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
you can be incredulous all you want, but those are the facts
Log it raw, log it cooked, the choice is yours but just make sure that you use the correct entry.
0 -
well that said then neither the raw or cooked logging is accurate. ...or does the system take these things into consideration? ??It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
You do understand that when it's raw there is water in it that comes out when it cooks? And the chemical make up of the meat itself changes, affecting the density of the meat? The fat also cooks, some cooking into the meat and some cooking out of the meat. All of these things affect the weight and the calorie count.
0 -
It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
you can be incredulous all you want, but those are the facts
Log it raw, log it cooked, the choice is yours but just make sure that you use the correct entry.
but don't forget the calories are also different for different fat contents.... 95/5, 93/7, 85/15, 80/20, 73/27...
0 -
well that said then neither the raw or cooked logging is accurate. ...or does the system take these things into consideration? ??It's plain ridiculous the difference in calories for the same piece of food cooked or raw. Weights are different and cals are different.
You do understand that when it's raw there is water in it that comes out when it cooks? And the chemical make up of the meat itself changes, affecting the density of the meat? The fat also cooks, some cooking into the meat and some cooking out of the meat. All of these things affect the weight and the calorie count.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions