Food scale: weigh before or after cooking

Options
I've been weighing prior to cooking, but I bought some chicken breasts from Costco (not impressed!) that must have been pumped with water.
Before cooking, one breast weighed 9.3oz
After cooking: 6.4oz

Which weight should I be tracking?
«1

Replies

  • BeYouTiful94
    BeYouTiful94 Posts: 289 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    Raw meat is weighed raw, mainly because there's a million ways to cook it. The pinker you like your meat, the heavier it will be. The more crispy you like you meat, the lighter it'll weigh. That goes for chicken, ground beef, steak, etc.
  • Cynsonya
    Cynsonya Posts: 668 Member
    Options
    Raw weight. Water has no calories.
  • Seffell
    Seffell Posts: 2,222 Member
    Options
    Depends how the calories on the package are given. Most often here (UK) the calories are given for 100grams of oven baked, not raw. If the calories are given for raw then the water would have already been accounted for.
  • SULLINEWF
    SULLINEWF Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    I always weigh and track my cooked meat.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,981 Member
    Options
    Have you ever weighed your chicken before and after cooking before? Because that seems pretty spot-on for what I would expect. Poultry and meat will lose liquid when they're cooked, whether they're "pumped with water" or not.

    Per the USDA nutrient data based, 9.3 oz raw chicken breast, meat only, is 316 calories
    And 6.4 oz roasted chicken breast, meat only, is 296 calories.
    So not a lot to choose there.

    In the U.S., if water was added to your chicken after slaughtering, I'm pretty sure it would have to say so on the packaging.

    Whenever possible, I weigh my food raw, because more or less water will cook out depending on how done you like your food, so my raw food should vary less from USDA values than my cooked weight might. Whichever you do, make sure you use an entry that corresponds to whether the weight you measured was for raw or cooked.
  • Mapalicious
    Mapalicious Posts: 412 Member
    Options
    General rule: raw. You're often only adding or losing H20, which has no calories. Bacon & sausage are tougher, because you're losing so much grease, of course. With pasta & rice you almost have to do it raw to get it accurate.

    But make sure it matches to whatever you're entering.
  • cityruss
    cityruss Posts: 2,493 Member
    Options
    Either.

    Just pick the correct database entry and/or package data.

    Although raw is regarded as more accurate.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,426 Member
    Options
    Choose the database entry that matches what state you weighed it in.
    The info on the package is for raw. There are entries in the database for raw chicken and cooked chicken breast.
    I looked up a 9.3 oz raw skinless chicken breast and got 290 calories and for a 6.4 oz roasted skinless chicken breast it was 299 calories. It doesn't seem like it is going to make a big difference.
  • moto450
    moto450 Posts: 334 Member
    Options
    Before cooking for me anyway.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    Raw when possible. Cooked when not. All that matters really is that you use the correct entry.
  • maidengirl_
    maidengirl_ Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    I used to weigh before cooking but my food would be off 2, sometimes 3 ounces weigh after cooking because the water cooks off. I can get the true weight of my meal after cooking and won't be "under eating".
  • juliebowman4
    juliebowman4 Posts: 784 Member
    Options
    In the data base, 6oz of chicken breast is 266. 9 oz is 399.
    If I weigh raw at 9oz and log 399.,....I'm not really eating 399cal of chicken, since when I cook it and the water cooks off, I'm only eating 266cal worth of chicken.
  • Runningforafew
    Runningforafew Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    Before-
  • TheBigFb
    TheBigFb Posts: 649 Member
    Options
    water has no calories. Steak is 80% water
  • clarelara24
    clarelara24 Posts: 27 Member
    edited April 2016
    Options
    With the logic that water has no calories (which is obviously fact) then surely it would be best to weigh after cooking as this will mean the calories you are calculating do not include water weight which has no calories. If you take the weight before then you end up counting extra calories whereas after you are taking away the water weight so can just judge calories for the after weight.

    However with things like pasta it is slightly different as pasta absorbs water when cooked so I weigh both before and after e.g. 50g dry pasta becomes nearer 100g when cooked.

    Hope that makes sense! I have had no trouble losing weight so this system seems to work for me.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    TheBigFb wrote: »
    water has no calories. Steak is 80% water

    what??? the reason meat weighs less after cooking is the fat content...steak is not 80% water...jeez.

    OP I don't have the option to weigh raw as I cook for more than just me...as others have said doesn't matter just ensure you choose the correct entry.

    If you roasted it log roasted, fried etc.
  • clarelara24
    clarelara24 Posts: 27 Member
    Options
    http://www.ontheregimen.com/2013/08/28/how-to-weigh-meat-cooked-or-raw/

    This post suggests raw but as Sezxy Steff says there are options to log it the way you've cooked it which is what I generally do.
  • gcaracciolo2
    gcaracciolo2 Posts: 130 Member
    Options
    Both options are better than not weighing at all.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    In the data base, 6oz of chicken breast is 266. 9 oz is 399.
    If I weigh raw at 9oz and log 399.,....I'm not really eating 399cal of chicken, since when I cook it and the water cooks off, I'm only eating 266cal worth of chicken.

    Chicken breast how... raw or cooked? This is why people say they can't use weight... you have to use an appropriate entry.

    The weight you're losing cooking the meat is water though. Water has no calories. Sorry to be break it to you, but you didn't lose 133 calories worth in 3oz of water. But either way, it's a moot point as long as you use the correct raw or cooked entry.
  • sexygatubela77
    sexygatubela77 Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    Cynsonya wrote: »
    Raw weight. Water has no calories.

    Water doesn't have calories, but it does have weight. I measure after cooking.