Food scale: weigh before or after cooking

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.

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.

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.

Either.

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

Although raw is regarded as more accurate.

Before cooking for me anyway.

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".

Before-

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.

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.

juliebowman4 wrote: »

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.

I weigh things as I eat them, so I weigh cooked chicken, beef, etc as I dont eat it raw! The only exception that I have found so far is pasta - I weigh that before cooking so that I dont end up making too much, which I will then try to justify so I can eat it all. But in the data base there are both raw and cooked weights and measures, so just be sure to pick the one thats applicable to your situation, whichever you choose.

juliebowman4 wrote: »

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?

Uncooked as that is the weight that the calories are based on. It really doesn't matter how much is shrinks during cooking as that does not change the total calories as most of it is water, all it does is increase the calorie density. That means there would be a lot of variability in cooked calories per gram depending on how long it was cooked.