burger on the grill - calories

TamLam99
TamLam99 Posts: 247 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I made my own burger with 90% lean ground beef.
I weighed it raw and cooked.
Raw was 7.75 ounces, 49 calories per oz = 380 calories
Cooked was 4.8 ounces, 58 calories per oz = 278 calories

That's a pretty big variance, which is more accurate ? I don't want to cheat myself either way.

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Raw is always more accurate. How you cook, how long, temperature, etc can effect how much water and fat is lost so a cooked estimate will be less accurate.

    Go with the raw value. At least if it is incorrect you are erring on the safe side.
  • TamLam99
    TamLam99 Posts: 247 Member
    that makes sense, thanks.
  • Sirius_12
    Sirius_12 Posts: 54 Member
    edited July 2015
    90% beef is not going to release any fat. The shrinkage was due to the water evaporation during cooking. I would log the cooked weight, and average the raw/cooked calories, say 53-54 p/o. (former restaurant line cook)
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Sirius_12 wrote: »
    90% beef is not going to release any fat. The shrinkage was due to the water evaporation during cooking. I would log the cooked weight, and average the raw/cooked calories, say 53-54 p/o. (former restaurant line cook)

    I'm confused then. If it didn't lose much fat, why is it 100 calories less? Wouldn't the raw weight be more accurate then since it would include all the fat?
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    TamLam99 wrote: »
    I made my own burger with 90% lean ground beef.
    I weighed it raw and cooked.
    Raw was 7.75 ounces, 49 calories per oz = 380 calories
    Cooked was 4.8 ounces, 58 calories per oz = 278 calories

    That's a pretty big variance, which is more accurate ? I don't want to cheat myself either way.

    Always weigh your meat raw. It is more accurate, especially the leaner meats.

  • Sirius_12
    Sirius_12 Posts: 54 Member
    edited July 2015
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    I'm confused then. If it didn't lose much fat, why is it 100 calories less? Wouldn't the raw weight be more accurate then since it would include all the fat?
    I don't know where your calorie data came from, the wrapper? But meat that has a large caloric difference between cooked/uncooked is due to the release of fatty juices. But 90% hamburger is pretty equivalent to eye of round in fat content, very low, and has around 55 calories per ounce, cooked. (chicken breast meat is about 98% lean, btw and most databases show it at 40 calories per ounce, cooked.) But everyone says to weigh it before you cook it, so go with that if you like.

  • TamLam99
    TamLam99 Posts: 247 Member
    Sirius_12 wrote: »
    3dogsrunning wrote: »
    I'm confused then. If it didn't lose much fat, why is it 100 calories less? Wouldn't the raw weight be more accurate then since it would include all the fat?
    I don't know where your calorie data came from, the wrapper? But meat that has a large caloric difference between cooked/uncooked is due to the release of fatty juices. But 90% hamburger is pretty equivalent to eye of round in fat content, very low, and has around 55 calories per ounce, cooked. (chicken breast meat is about 98% lean, btw and most databases show it at 40 calories per ounce, cooked.) But everyone says to weigh it before you cook it, so go with that if you like.

    I got the calories per ounce from MFP food database. Made my own burger and weighed it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories