Weighing Meat?

I always weigh it before. It you prefer or need to weigh it after cooking it should be fine as long as you choose an appropriate and accurate entry from the database (ie don't use a boiled entry if you grilled it, etc).

If I am cooking meat I will weigh it before and log the raw weight. If it is going to be multiple servings I will also re-weigh after cooking, and calculate the raw weight to cooked weight ratio. It doesn't take me that long to do so.

For instance I'm cooking a 1483 grams (3.27 lbs) shoulder cut roast tomorrow. After cooking let's say the finished weight is 980 grams (2.16 lbs), then I'll know for each 1 gram cooked it is equal to ~1.51 grams raw. The water content remaining in the meat after cooking greatly impacts the actual serving size. I log the adjusted raw weight.

I am, however, a total dork about this right now and it's working for me...

If it doesn't have bones I weigh it before. If it has bones, I weigh it (the part I eat) after. So long as you choose an appropriate entry (cooked vs. raw) for its state when you weighed it and choose the correct cooking method if weighing cooked it should be fine. Raw would be more accurate on the whole but it's never going to be perfect.

If it's something like a steak or a burger I've always weighed after. I always felt that I'm eating the cooked weight on things like that. The other posters have valid points though.

steuartcj wrote: »

I weigh it after I cook it. Any weight that come out will be moisture, fat or water. If it doesn't go into my mouth it doesn't count. Actually it's most likely not a big difference either way.

I think there are some excellent "cooked" entries in the database. However, I'm going to point out where the difference can add up. Cooking impacts the density of the food as it loses the water.

My example roast above at 1483g raw actually is labeled this time with nutritional data. An 85g (3oz) raw serving has 190 calories. So, 170g (6oz) would be 380 calories, again raw weight.

After cooking it comes out of the oven weighing 980g (estimated based on a roast I did last week). So, I cut a 170g (6oz) serving out of my roast, and eat it. The problem is when I log it, I realize that my 170g (6oz) cooked serving was equal to 256g (9oz) raw. 256g raw = 512 calories, not 380.

Francl27 wrote: »

Derf_Smeggle wrote: »

steuartcj wrote: »

I weigh it after I cook it. Any weight that come out will be moisture, fat or water. If it doesn't go into my mouth it doesn't count. Actually it's most likely not a big difference either way.

I think there are some excellent "cooked" entries in the database. However, I'm going to point out where the difference can add up. Cooking impacts the density of the food as it loses the water.

My example roast above at 1483g raw actually is labeled this time with nutritional data. An 85g (3oz) raw serving has 190 calories. So, 170g (6oz) would be 380 calories, again raw weight.

After cooking it comes out of the oven weighing 980g (estimated based on a roast I did last week). So, I cut a 170g (6oz) serving out of my roast, and eat it. The problem is when I log it, I realize that my 170g (6oz) cooked serving was equal to 256g (9oz) raw. 256g raw = 512 calories, not 380.

Yeah I weighed a piece of chicken raw and cooked once and it was way off too. But again, you can find 10 different calorie values for raw or cooked meat, depending on how much fat is on it, so it won't be accurate anyway.

True, there is inherent margin of error built into the methods available. I'm controlling for the variables I can to reduce further margins of error, such as, weighing and checking what entries I'm using.

Again, I'm a great big old dork about it though. ;~)

Weight it before cooking every time. The cooking process will cook out the water and some fat out of the food, etc.. leaving it smaller in proportion, but it is still for example 4 ounces. You could cut the meat in half and weigh each piece and then cook it together.

Is there a nutritional label on the package you have? You can enter in your item into the database. Otherwise search for item such as USDA raw London Broil, etc.. You can look at the item drop down box and see it that item has grams or ounces depending on how you weight it.

After it is cooked, I would weigh out your next portion and if it comes out the 3.10 ounces add a variable to it.. for example 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and so on for how well done the meat is.. I have a link that I can email you some where on how to do this for chicken and other meats.

64crayons wrote: »

Okay, so I've got an 8 oz raw piece of boneless beef (London Broil). In the database, I found entries for London Broil, but they don't say cooked or raw (some say grilled, but I'm not grilling it). So should I use one of those entries? Or should I weigh it after cooking and adjust the portion size? I really don't know how to proceed.

I'm going to cook the whole thing tonight, eat half and save the rest for another day. Does each day count as 4 oz, or half what it weighs after cooking?

From the tablespoon.com web site: Food enthusiasts will be quick to tell you that London broil is not a cut of beef, but a cooking method. Tough pieces of meat—commonly, flank or top round steak—are left to marinate overnight, are then broiled under high heat and served by thinly slicing the meat “across the grain.”

Wikipedia states: Butchers may label top round steak or roast as London broil.

The USDA website has an entry for 23325, Beef, round, top round steak, boneless, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, raw that lists 100g having 127 calories, or 3oz (85 grams) at 108 calories.

Source: USDA Item 23325

The closest entry on MFP I could find that was near to these values involved searching for: "USDA 23328".

If the cut of meat has a thick layer of fatty tissue you may want to use this USDA entry instead: 13894, Beef, round, top round, steak, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, choice, raw

There is an accurate entry for this item in MFP found by searching "USDA 13894".