Log Raw weight over Cooked weight (whenever possible)
Derf_Smeggle
Posts: 610 Member
Starting Premise: Whenever possible it is more accurate, for calories, to log raw food weights over the cooked food counterparts. This naturally applies to foods that are prepared in house because we obviously cannot know the starting weights of food prepared by other people/industries/restaurants/etc.
Reasoning: Caloric values per serving for cooked foods are derived in strict laboratory settings with guidelines applied to how the food is prepared, at what specific temperature it is cooked, the method of cooking, and a strict time.(1) Researchers cook batches of a specific product and test the results. They take the summed average of those results and the USDA then publishes those results in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR). The problem is that when we deviate from those very specific cooking guidelines we change the amount of water weight that is lost from the food.
Further, is the problem of what is actually reported in the USDA database and other databases. Often times the cooked item has additional refuse, such as skin on vegetables, removed and discarded.
Example: Sweet potatoes. A conversation came up here recently regarding sweet potatoes where the person baked their own sweet potato chips with skin, sans oil. They started out with 411 grams of raw weight.
USDA 11507, Sweet potato, raw, unprepared at 411 grams = 353 calories (2)
They end up with 131 grams of cooked sweet potatoes, which should equal close to, or exactly, 353 calories.
USDA 11508, Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh at 131 grams = 118 calories (3)
Obviously, the values are no where close to one another. Why the discrepancy? Note in the cooked description it says "baked in skin, flesh". The skin was removed and discarded as refuse, which is reported as 22% of the weight. (3). That's problem number 1. Problem number 2 is that the cooked weight when we make chips is going to be a lot less than the values derived from cooking in the laboratory setting.
Calculating Raw weight values from Cooked weight Portions: The math here is actually a lot less scary than one would think. We need 4 values: Full Raw Weight (rW), Full Cooked Weight (cW), Conversion Multiplier (M), and Cooked Portion Weight (pW). We get the weights with our food scale.
By dividing the Full Raw Weight by the Full Cooked Weight we get our Conversion Multiplier. Using the Sweet potato example above:
rW / cW = M
411g / 131g = 3.137
Then we take our Cooked Portion Weight multiplied by our Conversion Multiplier to convert the cooked weight back to a raw weight. Let's say we served up 82 grams of the cooked sweet potatoes:
pW x M = Raw Weight Portion
82g x 3.137 = 257g (rounded)
We would then log 257g of Sweet Potato, raw, unprepared into MFP. This should equal 221 calories if we use the correct MFP entry for this item.
By comparison, if we used the cooked item calories we would have only reported 84 calories. That's a huge variance and error when reporting.
1 - USDA Cooking Yields Meat and Poultry 2012
2- USDA 11507, Sweet potato, raw, unprepared
3- USDA 11508, Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
Reasoning: Caloric values per serving for cooked foods are derived in strict laboratory settings with guidelines applied to how the food is prepared, at what specific temperature it is cooked, the method of cooking, and a strict time.(1) Researchers cook batches of a specific product and test the results. They take the summed average of those results and the USDA then publishes those results in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR). The problem is that when we deviate from those very specific cooking guidelines we change the amount of water weight that is lost from the food.
Further, is the problem of what is actually reported in the USDA database and other databases. Often times the cooked item has additional refuse, such as skin on vegetables, removed and discarded.
Example: Sweet potatoes. A conversation came up here recently regarding sweet potatoes where the person baked their own sweet potato chips with skin, sans oil. They started out with 411 grams of raw weight.
USDA 11507, Sweet potato, raw, unprepared at 411 grams = 353 calories (2)
They end up with 131 grams of cooked sweet potatoes, which should equal close to, or exactly, 353 calories.
USDA 11508, Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh at 131 grams = 118 calories (3)
Obviously, the values are no where close to one another. Why the discrepancy? Note in the cooked description it says "baked in skin, flesh". The skin was removed and discarded as refuse, which is reported as 22% of the weight. (3). That's problem number 1. Problem number 2 is that the cooked weight when we make chips is going to be a lot less than the values derived from cooking in the laboratory setting.
Calculating Raw weight values from Cooked weight Portions: The math here is actually a lot less scary than one would think. We need 4 values: Full Raw Weight (rW), Full Cooked Weight (cW), Conversion Multiplier (M), and Cooked Portion Weight (pW). We get the weights with our food scale.
By dividing the Full Raw Weight by the Full Cooked Weight we get our Conversion Multiplier. Using the Sweet potato example above:
rW / cW = M
411g / 131g = 3.137
Then we take our Cooked Portion Weight multiplied by our Conversion Multiplier to convert the cooked weight back to a raw weight. Let's say we served up 82 grams of the cooked sweet potatoes:
pW x M = Raw Weight Portion
82g x 3.137 = 257g (rounded)
We would then log 257g of Sweet Potato, raw, unprepared into MFP. This should equal 221 calories if we use the correct MFP entry for this item.
By comparison, if we used the cooked item calories we would have only reported 84 calories. That's a huge variance and error when reporting.
1 - USDA Cooking Yields Meat and Poultry 2012
2- USDA 11507, Sweet potato, raw, unprepared
3- USDA 11508, Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, flesh, without salt
0
Replies
-
My dietitian disagrees with you and suggests using cooked entries when possible. It often isn't possible, because things get mixed together, but that's what she suggests: Log what you eat.0
-
Kalikel, I suspect your dietician's recommendation comes more out of a place of compliance. Simply put, the math and available data does not support it.
Regarding multiple ingredients, MFP's recipe builder works great and does the math for you. Enter in your raw ingredient weights into the recipe. Then weigh the finished cooked recipe in grams, and enter the batch weight as your number of servings. Then 1 serving=1 gram and you simply log the number of grams dished up as the number of servings.
That said, follow her recommendations if they are working for you.
0 -
My dietitian disagrees with you and suggests using cooked entries when possible. It often isn't possible, because things get mixed together, but that's what she suggests: Log what you eat.
Sorry to say so but she is wrong
you can not see in a database how much something is cooked
So when you have raw meat it will be not 100% accurate but close
Now cook it....how long do you cook it? how much grease/ water do you get out? How rare/red do you cook your meat...the database dont say that or calculate that
We like our carrots not soft boiled. We like them a bit crunchy ... but the database entry can be soft cooked or hard..or mushy whatever you dont know.
So from the (not) 100% accurate raw entry you now going to take the entry that is even less accurate.
Now we are talking in vegetable cases and fruit most of the time of a couple of calories difference but for meat...Well it can be lots and lots
So the most accurate option is Raw. What ever your nutritionist says.
0 -
Love this! "Showing your work" and all that!0
-
I am not sure I understand. I am trying to follow the dash diet. It recommends that I have 6-8 ounces of meat throughout the day. When do I measure my chicken? Before I cook it or after I cook it? Also when I log my chicken and it says 4 ounces that means before I cook it? I am confused.0
-
It's worked so far. 98 pounds down.Derf_Smeggle wrote: »Kalikel, I suspect your dietician's recommendation comes more out of a place of compliance. Simply put, the math and available data does not support it.
Regarding multiple ingredients, MFP's recipe builder works great and does the math for you. Enter in your raw ingredient weights into the recipe. Then weigh the finished cooked recipe in grams, and enter the batch weight as your number of servings. Then 1 serving=1 gram and you simply log the number of grams dished up as the number of servings.
That said, follow her recommendations if they are working for you.
0 -
It's worked so far. 98 pounds down.Derf_Smeggle wrote: »Kalikel, I suspect your dietician's recommendation comes more out of a place of compliance. Simply put, the math and available data does not support it.
Regarding multiple ingredients, MFP's recipe builder works great and does the math for you. Enter in your raw ingredient weights into the recipe. Then weigh the finished cooked recipe in grams, and enter the batch weight as your number of servings. Then 1 serving=1 gram and you simply log the number of grams dished up as the number of servings.
That said, follow her recommendations if they are working for you.
Nobody is saying its not working
your deficit is big enough to catch the inaccuracy like by most people.
And that is what it is all about your deficit
But her saying that cooked entry's are better needs explanation for sure. 0 -
BurnWithBarn2015 wrote: »
It's worked so far. 98 pounds down.Derf_Smeggle wrote: »Kalikel, I suspect your dietician's recommendation comes more out of a place of compliance. Simply put, the math and available data does not support it.
Regarding multiple ingredients, MFP's recipe builder works great and does the math for you. Enter in your raw ingredient weights into the recipe. Then weigh the finished cooked recipe in grams, and enter the batch weight as your number of servings. Then 1 serving=1 gram and you simply log the number of grams dished up as the number of servings.
That said, follow her recommendations if they are working for you.
Nobody is saying its not working
your deficit is big enough to catch the inaccuracy like by most people.
And that is what it is all about your deficit
But her saying that cooked entry's are better needs explanation for sure.
She isn't the only one. Other people have posted that their dietitian gave them the same advice.
It's very rare that I can actually do it, because I almost never make anything that has one single ingredient cooked all on it's own. Everything gets mixed up with other stuff.
But that's what some dietitians advise: Log what you eat.0 -
dee_thurman wrote: »I am not sure I understand. I am trying to follow the dash diet. It recommends that I have 6-8 ounces of meat throughout the day. When do I measure my chicken? Before I cook it or after I cook it? Also when I log my chicken and it says 4 ounces that means before I cook it? I am confused.
Eat as much meat as you want. Though I suspect this may be a question that is better directed as the creator or supporters of that diet
The original post here is suggesting you weigh raw for the most accuracy in logging. The other school of thought is don't complicate it, and if you prefer to weigh cooked, just use the cooked entry in the database. Do you already have a preference?
0 -
I think another good example of wisdom of weighing raw vs being fooled by cooked weight.
Rice, pasta, and other things like that where water is either taken in or cooked off. Of course I'm sure those that have sworn off those types of carbs have no issues.
Some of those things are just plain given nutrition labels for pre-cooked weight - they have no idea how much water your cooking style will allow absorbing.
Or how much water you will burn off.
How does one even attempt to weigh cooked total with a stew with stuff thrown in - that doesn't even sound possible if accuracy is the least bit desired.
I'd be curious too if dietitian's recommendations were also surrounded by an eating method where water weight wasn't of concern, so it wasn't so much a recommendation of weighing cooked, but rather all foods would be raw.
Just doesn't make a lick of sense. Now, where's the scale to measure the spoon with peanut butter on it about to get licked off.
And logging pre-cooked weight with math done on serving sizes is still logging what you eat.
Water escaping or being drawn in doesn't matter to calories.0 -
And remember that cooking and ripeness can add +10% calories (or more) for certain things. It isn't perfect, keep it in mind.0
-
This was very helpful, thank you. I mostly weigh raw, but sometimes I weigh cooked (for steak particularly, which is not mixed with anything while cooking) as I thought it did not matter. I see it does.
Got to love the science and care!0 -
How can cooking add 10%?
If I have a raw ingredient, say, potatoes, and I weigh them raw and then cook them in boiling water, where does the extra 10% come from?
If course, if you cook in oil or suchlike, the oil would add to the total but you could add that in separately, it's not the actual potato gaining 10% of calories.0 -
So I get that it's best to weigh food raw, but is it best to weigh frozen raw foods in a thawed or frozen state? That has always confused me.0
-
So I get that it's best to weigh food raw, but is it best to weigh frozen raw foods in a thawed or frozen state? That has always confused me.
Wow, I wonder! So now I'm curious what's the weight and therefore potential calorie difference between weighing thawed and frozen. I usually weigh frozen except in the rare instances where I've just come back from grocery shopping and I'm cooking right away. Reason in my case mostly being convenience.
0 -
I believe that if we are talking about plain fruits and vegetables that they are flash frozen in today's more modern processing. This should mean very little change in weight would occur, but it's an interesting question.So I get that it's best to weigh food raw, but is it best to weigh frozen raw foods in a thawed or frozen state? That has always confused me.0 -
Points for math, but I wouldn't underestimate that "place of compliance" thing. Also known as "screw this, its way too much work." Nor would I go nuts attempting to make an inherently imprecise methodology into a precision tool. But I am once again impressed by your analytic ability.So I get that it's best to weigh food raw, but is it best to weigh frozen raw foods in a thawed or frozen state? That has always confused me.
It would depend somewhat on the item. When vegetables and (to a somewhat lesser extent) meats are frozen, the cell walls of the tissue are damaged, and when they are later thawed, water leaks out that used to be inside of those damaged cells. Water is surprisingly heavy. (That's why frozen veggies are more limp than fresh, too.) There are USDA entries for frozen vegetables, though, if you want to go with those. If the entry says "frozen" and "unprepared," weigh it frozen.0 -
Sheermomentum, I agree with you regarding compliance and adherence. People want the quick, easy solution that requires minimal effort. I will opine that the difficulty of calorie counting/logging is built up more in the psyche than based in actual reality. "Whenever possible" is not going to be "always possible" for the vast range of people, but neither is it actually "never possible" for that same range.
Heck, I buy a full, precooked, rotisserie chicken usually once a week to cover protein in a pinch when I haven't had time to prepared something.
I am more than happy to concede that we are working with estimations and averages when we count calories and calculate energy expenditures. As with a lot of things, we aren't going to achieve 100% in the real world setting, but we can control for a lot of variables to help our accuracy. I was actually surprised by the sweet potato differences when it came up in the forum elsewhere, when I had just made mashed sweet potatoes myself this week.
This is more of a food for thought posting supported with data and facts. Quite honestly, I'm having fun with looking up the information.0 -
Ahhh, but if we weighed the item still in a frozen state, then it should, by this aspect of cell biology and physics, be relatively close to the raw weight because we haven't lost the water yet.sheermomentum wrote: »It would depend somewhat on the item. When vegetables and (to a somewhat lesser extent) meats are frozen, the cell walls of the tissue are damaged, and when they are later thawed, water leaks out that used to be inside of those damaged cells...<snip>
(My idea of fun is truly not normal....)
0 -
So I get that it's best to weigh food raw, but is it best to weigh frozen raw foods in a thawed or frozen state? That has always confused me.
Did it come in a bag?
Most state if the weight is frozen, then they proceed to give a cooked measurement for convenience sake.
Frozen is more accurate - because the amount of water you cook out depends on many factors.
But they presumably are talking weight with the water they included as known.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »How can cooking add 10%?
If I have a raw ingredient, say, potatoes, and I weigh them raw and then cook them in boiling water, where does the extra 10% come from?
If course, if you cook in oil or suchlike, the oil would add to the total but you could add that in separately, it's not the actual potato gaining 10% of calories.
The fact that going by weight, you could lose some non-calorie water weight, so if you keep the weight the same you ate, you are eating more of the product and less water - so more calories.
Opposite of the bad discovery same make when they read the pasta label wrong.
They see say 50 g and weigh that much serving out of cooked pasta, but it's supposed to be pre-cooked.
So they get hardly any pasta since most of the weight is water now. Non-calorie water.
So in reality they are eating probably 50% of the stated calories.
Now go the other direction where water is lost.0 -
That's not what I was doing though - in my example I was weighing a raw potato, logging at, say 100 g raw potato, then cooking it and eating it without weighing again.
The same potato can't have gained an extra 10% of calories in the cooking process using just plain water.0 -
Okay, so I did a quick search regarding this topic and here's what I understand so far.paperpudding wrote: »That's not what I was doing though - in my example I was weighing a raw potato, logging at, say 100 g raw potato, then cooking it and eating it without weighing again.
The same potato can't have gained an extra 10% of calories in the cooking process using just plain water.
There is an argument put forth that certain foods gain calories when cooked, but that's not exactly what the articles are saying about the 1 research study I found.
Instead what they are saying is that cooking alters the starches, which does one of two things according to the writers.
One, it hypothetically increases the energy as part of the chemical reaction in the starch that converts insoluble sugars to a soluble state.
Two, it hypothetically reduces the Diet Induced Thermogenesis, meaning it takes our bodies less energy expenditure to break the calories down to a useable format.
Mind you, that's not the research itself. It's articles written on the research, so take it with a big grain of salt. Also, the 1 research study that I found was done in mice, not people, and it looked at weight gain differences in those mice with cooked food diets versus raw food diets.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »That's not what I was doing though - in my example I was weighing a raw potato, logging at, say 100 g raw potato, then cooking it and eating it without weighing again.
The same potato can't have gained an extra 10% of calories in the cooking process using just plain water.
That is true - 1 potato.
You said potatoes though, and gave a description of exactly how you could be weighing out the same amount of food.
So divide your batch of potatoes say in to 2 equal groups by weight.
Now weigh out 400 g for a serving and call that raw and do the math with nutrition label as to how many calories per 100 g and total calories you'd eat.
Now cook that other batch as described in some water, and then weigh out 400 g when done for your serving.
If you were to still use the raw nutrition label, you would be wrong because it would include water weight dropping. Because you'd actually be eating more potato and less water in the cooked process.
From what I've read, even with plain water moisture is driven out of the potato - it doesn't soak more water up.
You could mash and beat more moisture in though.
So this is only when you go by weight that the 10% extra (if water is driven out) calories would appear. Or whatever it happens to be for the food being talked about.
Going by quantity - like the exact same 1 potato - it does not happen. But the weight of that 1 potato should drop.
Or the same 100 strands of spaghetti that weigh 25 g dry, but 150 g cooked, does not happen. Same 100 strands.
0 -
It doesn't matter whether it was 1potato or potatoes - what I meant was I weigh the raw ingredient and then cook and eat entire quantity. There is no cooking rest later and weighing separately.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »And remember that cooking and ripeness can add +10% calories (or more) for certain things. It isn't perfect, keep it in mind.
@EvgeniZyntx , could you shed a bit more light on this? As you can see, much interest...0 -
My dietitian disagrees with you and suggests using cooked entries when possible. It often isn't possible, because things get mixed together, but that's what she suggests: Log what you eat.
Her recommendations are for what you actually eat, not for what you start out with, and her calorie counts reflect that. When you are not following a specific calorie plan (just trying to get to a certain number of total calories) it is more accurate for logging purposes to log meat as raw because the finished weight varies depending on the cooking method. An 8 oz steak grilled to medium rare will weigh more than the exact same steak grilled to medium well. 4 oz of chicken breast pan fried will weigh less than the same amount incorporated into a stew. Some cooking methods retain the water and fat better than other cooking methods so that is why logging meat already cooked is less accurate.
If it is working for you, great. Keep doing what you are doing. Just understand it is less accurate in general.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »And remember that cooking and ripeness can add +10% calories (or more) for certain things. It isn't perfect, keep it in mind.
@EvgeniZyntx , could you shed a bit more light on this? As you can see, much interest...
For many things, fruit especially, the riper it is, the more the sugars have developed so the more calories it has compared to a less ripe version of the same thing.0 -
Calories, as are all nutrients, are the result of mathematics. The cooking method does indeed affect a nutrient, and all the methods, length of time, and heat applied may result in different nutrient values. This applies to a food item such as an egg, a vegetable, a fruit, as well as processed foods and mixed foods in a recipe. An available USDA publication describes these factors in ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/retn/retn06.pdf0
-
This pdf article does not apply to the topic of caloric changes in Food when cooked. It is speaking about retention of micronutrients only.Calories, as are all nutrients, are the result of mathematics. The cooking method does indeed affect a nutrient, and all the methods, length of time, and heat applied may result in different nutrient values. This applies to a food item such as an egg, a vegetable, a fruit, as well as processed foods and mixed foods in a recipe. An available USDA publication describes these factors in ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/retn/retn06.pdf0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions