WEIGHING FOOD PROPERLY!!!

Options
simply_bubbz
simply_bubbz Posts: 245 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Do you guys weigh your food b4 or after you cook it? Since meat holds a lot of water before you cook it, it's going to weigh more than when cooked so do we go off the calorie count for that weight when it's heavy with water or after it's cooked? I been weighing it before I cook it but I noticed when I weighed it after it was a big difference which made a big difference in my calorie count. I don't want to cheat myself and account all these calories b/c of all the access water! All advice is welcome!!

Replies

  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    Options
    Depends on what you're using for calculating the calories. The USDA Nutritional Database gives calories for raw and cooked versions of many things like meat.
  • brb_2013
    brb_2013 Posts: 1,197 Member
    Options
    You're "supposed" to do it raw, but I never remember. Just find an accurate cooked entry you verify and trust, and I think it's okay. They also say to weigh things like rice and pasta before you cook it, to me that seems more important than weighing raw meat so I do weigh rice and pasta before cooking and use my own tiny pan for my serving.
  • mkakids
    mkakids Posts: 1,913 Member
    Options
    Raw is most accurate.

    Either way, use a cooked entry if you weigh it cooked and a raw entry if you weigh raw.
  • simply_bubbz
    simply_bubbz Posts: 245 Member
    edited March 2016
    Options
    I guess I mean by the nutrition facts on the packaging. Like tilapia just says 4 oz 110 cals or something like that on the package, so is it 4 oz cooked or raw? b/c most meat packaging doesn't give you the count for raw or cooked...
  • wizzybeth
    wizzybeth Posts: 3,578 Member
    Options
    I would go by raw in that case. Unless the nutrition label says "X oz cooked" I would assume it means raw.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    simply_bubbz wrote: »
    I guess I mean by the nutrition facts on the packaging. Like tilapia just says 4 oz 110 cals or something like that on the package, so is it 4 oz cooked or raw? b/c most meat packaging doesn't give you the count for raw or cooked...

    Unless the label says otherwise, it's usually referring to the raw weight.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Raw whenever possible - and be sure to use the correct entry whichever you use (cooked or raw)
  • behnybaby
    behnybaby Posts: 106 Member
    Options
    That would be a raw figure on the tilapia since they have no idea what the finished product would be.
  • chrislee1628
    chrislee1628 Posts: 305 Member
    Options
    If the packaging says 500 cal for a chicken breast for example, surely it doesn't matter if cooked or raw

    Or any food for that matter, if it says x amount of calories for a certain item of food, then surely if you consume that item of food, then you have consumed that amount of calories?
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    simply_bubbz wrote: »
    I guess I mean by the nutrition facts on the packaging. Like tilapia just says 4 oz 110 cals or something like that on the package, so is it 4 oz cooked or raw? b/c most meat packaging doesn't give you the count for raw or cooked...

    That's the raw value. I just double checked the USDA site and 116 g raw tilapia is 111 calories. 116 g is approximately 4.09 oz according to a conversion calculator I found.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    wytey wrote: »
    If the packaging says 500 cal for a chicken breast for example, surely it doesn't matter if cooked or raw

    Or any food for that matter, if it says x amount of calories for a certain item of food, then surely if you consume that item of food, then you have consumed that amount of calories?

    It makes a big difference. As you cook a food the amount of water in it changes, affecting the weight of the portion. Take pasta for example. Most noodles double in weight once they're cooked (a little more or less depending on how long they're cooked). If you measured out two ounces of pasta after cooking and used the raw nutrition information from the box to log two ounces, you'd be shorting yourself about 100 calories.

    Meat goes the other direction and loses water while cooking. Depending on the cooking method, a 4 ounce portion tends to become about 3 ounces once cooked. If you weighed it after cooking but logged based on the raw weight, you'd be underlogging your meats by about 25%.

    There are entries in the database for most items that specify either cooked or raw. It's important to be sure you're using one that matches the form your food was in when you weighed it.
  • misskarne
    misskarne Posts: 1,765 Member
    Options
    Raw.

    Regarding meat: I weigh it as I portion it out for freezing. Drap plastic wrap over scale, tare scale, plop meat onto it, wrap meat in plastic, use marker to write number on plastic, put in freezer. That way when I pull it out of the freezer, all I have to do is make note of the number on the plastic.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,218 Member
    Options
    simply_bubbz wrote: »
    Do you guys weigh your food b4 or after you cook it? Since meat holds a lot of water before you cook it, it's going to weigh more than when cooked so do we go off the calorie count for that weight when it's heavy with water or after it's cooked? I been weighing it before I cook it but I noticed when I weighed it after it was a big difference which made a big difference in my calorie count. I don't want to cheat myself and account all these calories b/c of all the access water! All advice is welcome!!

    Before. . . raw.
  • Merkavar
    Merkavar Posts: 3,082 Member
    Options
    Raw makes the most sense to me.

    If you weigh it cooked you just add in another variable.

    Are the cooked calories based on rare, medium rare, well done, burnt to a crisp?

    But raw is raw.
  • simply_bubbz
    simply_bubbz Posts: 245 Member
    Options
    but the amount of water holds a big variable in it as well. Raw contains a lot of water...
  • lauralee328
    lauralee328 Posts: 21 Member
    Options
    Raw is most accurate, IMO. But I almost always weigh meat after it's cooked because most of our meat we cook "bone in". I just make sure my calorie value is for whichever way I weighed it.
  • mangrothian
    mangrothian Posts: 1,351 Member
    Options
    simply_bubbz wrote: »
    but the amount of water holds a big variable in it as well. Raw contains a lot of water...

    It does, but the USDA/AUSNUT/whatever the nutrition group of your country is gives you raw nutrition information. Cooked food moisture loss can vary by how long you've cooked it and what method.

    Take a steak. Raw is raw. For the most part, two different porterhouse steaks that each weigh 250g will have the same calories. But if one is cooked rare and the other is cooked well done, then the cooked weight will be different, giving you a variance in calories if you use an entry for cooked meat.
  • Mini_Medic
    Mini_Medic Posts: 343 Member
    Options
    Meat is calculated raw unless specified cooked. The butcher weighs it out for pricing and so it's 8 oz of raw that the sticker says. Yes there is still room for inaccuracies because that piece may be 8oz total but it might be 6oz of meat and 2oz of fat, whereas the next steak that is also 8oz may be 7oz or meat and 1oz of fat so the calories may be slightly off. But measure raw weight and the inaccuracy will likely be negligible unless you have a tiny deficit to work with. That is where over estimating calories and underestimating exercise burns work well to give a little wiggle room.

Categories