Calories in meat
jodidari
Posts: 95 Member
Recently i was about to add calorie for 4oz of chicken breasts to my diary . If you search this on MFP you get 320 calories as the first option. It really hit me this sounded high, even though i clicked this times before and the description sounds normal. So i decided to look into the calories in raw meat, seasoning and how much oil does meat absorb. Turns out chicken doesn't absorb that much and seasoning has little calories. Doing further search told me that same 4oz is listed as 166-206 calories on other websites. Fried Chicken leg may have as low as 124 calories yet on mfp the average is 150-200. So why are most mfp options way over other popular sites and what do you believe?
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
0
Replies
-
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if MFP is worth it since so many things are wrong, and everyone also says that it overestimates calorie burn. So basically it seems like a crapshoot to me. When I first started using it, I assumed it was accurate. Now, not so much.0
-
The vast majority of MFP's database is crowdsourced (created by MFP users), so they're prone to errors. As long as you can verify what is listed on the entry with either the nutrition label of the item or what is on USDA or restaurant websites, you should be good.1
-
I scan barcodes as much as I can. I like the weight watchers natural boneless chicken breasts 140 cal each. For things like steak or ground beef I use a scale.2
-
I do an Internet search for calories In "'..........."" when ever I have new foods in the house. If it's no a pkged food.We eat6 the same foods over and over so it's like once every 2-3 weeks I have to do it.0
-
Recently i was about to add calorie for 4oz of chicken breasts to my diary . If you search this on MFP you get 320 calories as the first option. It really hit me this sounded high, even though i clicked this times before and the description sounds normal. So i decided to look into the calories in raw meat, seasoning and how much oil does meat absorb. Turns out chicken doesn't absorb that much and seasoning has little calories. Doing further search told me that same 4oz is listed as 166-206 calories on other websites. Fried Chicken leg may have as low as 124 calories yet on mfp the average is 150-200. So why are most mfp options way over other popular sites and what do you believe?
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
What comes up for me varies, but the first time I did it I got Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw, which for 1 piece is 326 calorie, but notice that is piece not a weight. If I select 100 grams as the portion, it comes out at 120 calories which is basically the same as other sites I checked. The first 4 in fact were all basically the same for 100 grams ranging from 110 to 120 calories, not a big enough difference to be considered incorrect as there will be natural variations due to the differences in meats. In short the first four that came up for me were correct as long as a person is using a scale and measuring the weight, ideally in grams.2 -
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if MFP is worth it since so many things are wrong, and everyone also says that it overestimates calorie burn. So basically it seems like a crapshoot to me. When I first started using it, I assumed it was accurate. Now, not so much.
I agree. If i have to be adding my own foods and I have to be buying pricey tools for accuracy i could keep track of all this myself0 -
[/quote]
What comes up for me varies, but the first time I did it I got Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw, which for 1 piece is 326 calorie, but notice that is piece not a weight. If I select 100 grams as the portion, it comes out at 120 calories which is basically the same as other sites I checked. The first 4 in fact were all basically the same for 100 grams ranging from 110 to 120 calories, not a big enough difference to be considered incorrect as there will be natural variations due to the differences in meats. In short the first four that came up for me were correct as long as a person is using a scale and measuring the weight, ideally in grams. [/quote]
I typed in 4oz fried chicken breasts and got 320+ calories for most which is high compared to other sites, the raw chicken seems accurate as you said.
0 -
What comes up for me varies, but the first time I did it I got Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw, which for 1 piece is 326 calorie, but notice that is piece not a weight. If I select 100 grams as the portion, it comes out at 120 calories which is basically the same as other sites I checked. The first 4 in fact were all basically the same for 100 grams ranging from 110 to 120 calories, not a big enough difference to be considered incorrect as there will be natural variations due to the differences in meats. In short the first four that came up for me were correct as long as a person is using a scale and measuring the weight, ideally in grams. [/quote]
I typed in 4oz fried chicken breasts and got 320+ calories for most which is high compared to other sites, the raw chicken seems accurate as you said.
[/quote]
The issue is your search parameter then. You don't search for a size, you search for a food. Add to that you are searching for something like "fried chicken breasts" which will be all over the map because they are all prepared differently. That 320+ calories for a fried chicken breast is very likely correct.
So do not search for 4oz fried chicken breasts as you are better off weighing your food uncooked.
Instead search for Chicken, breast meat raw and whatever other ingredients you use to fry them up. The frying oil is a little difficult to determine because is how much that is absorbed will vary, but 25% is a good guess, or some have weighed the fry pan/pot with the oil before use, then after cooking when it has cooled, weigh it again and the difference between the numbers is how much oil has been absorbed.
If you are eating pre-prepared fried chicken that you have purchased, you need to search for that brand, and if it is not in the database, add it assuming you can get nutritional information.
To sum up:
The issue does not seem to be incorrect values as much as how you are searching.
You search for, weigh, and log individual ingredients raw.
If you must log cooked, if it has a brand stick with that, if not go with the higher calories to be safe.
2 -
tag whatever you're searching for with "USDA"...i.e. Chicken Breast USDA. And yeah...4 ounces of chicken breast is going to be pretty low calorie.
If you're doing something with the breast like breading or frying, etc...log that separately.0 -
The ones that are confirmed by mfp have a green check mark, if I'm not mistaken the o
What comes up for me varies, but the first time I did it I got Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw, which for 1 piece is 326 calorie, but notice that is piece not a weight. If I select 100 grams as the portion, it comes out at 120 calories which is basically the same as other sites I checked. The first 4 in fact were all basically the same for 100 grams ranging from 110 to 120 calories, not a big enough difference to be considered incorrect as there will be natural variations due to the differences in meats. In short the first four that came up for me were correct as long as a person is using a scale and measuring the weight, ideally in grams. [/quote]
I typed in 4oz fried chicken breasts and got 320+ calories for most which is high compared to other sites, the raw chicken seems accurate as you said.
[/quote]
I know what you mean but its specifically with chicken breasts because so many have been added. I've had the same problem with chicken breasts, everything else is fine.0 -
If you are doubting the accuracy of mfp on fried chicken leg pieces, please accept that there are a wide range of food products that can be in the batter, flour, egg, pepper, sugar, milk, and the fry oil can be of several different sources, peanut, corn, canola, and others, as well as that the chicken legs can be of a range of sizes and even that the eating of it can include more or less of the batter, meat, and tendons. Demanding that MFP give you one accurate number is irrational. If you can get nutrition information from the restaurants web-site, trust it, and if necessary, create a food database listing of your particular restaurant's published data.1
-
You should weigh and log everything possible raw. Using a cooked entry that someone else created leaves too many undefined variables: what did they cook it in? how long was it cooked? did they weigh it lightly cooked and moist? did they overcook it and then drain it on paper towels before weighing it?
You avoid all of that by using a USDA raw entry, and then separately logging whatever oil or butter you used in cooking.
The correct entries are almost always in there somewhere, and once you find them and use them they are in your recent list.1 -
I gave up when it comes to figuring out raw -> cooked calories. I assume if it is naturally lean like chicken breast or pork loin, grilled or baked or broiled with limited oil, this is a good choice and I eat basically whatever I want of it (usually 4-8oz). If it is fried, I assume a flat 300 to start and limit my portion to one or two pieces. Because I don't eat fried meat more than maybe once every two months, it honestly doesn't make a huge difference one way or another.
I guess my process works because I still lost weight despite having no real way of 100% accurately knowing. YMMV.
0 -
Google the a brand name (such as Perdue or Tyson) equivalent and go to their website and use that. Simple.0
-
Verify with an outside source, or several sources.
For instance, here's the first hit when I Google "nutrition for raw chicken breast"
calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-chicken-chicken-breast-without-skin-raw_f-ZmlkPTY4Mjc1.html
Then, find the entry in MFP that matches this, or make your own if you can't find it.0 -
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if MFP is worth it since so many things are wrong, and everyone also says that it overestimates calorie burn. So basically it seems like a crapshoot to me. When I first started using it, I assumed it was accurate. Now, not so much.
I agree. If i have to be adding my own foods and I have to be buying pricey tools for accuracy i could keep track of all this myself
Food scales, accurate ones, are fairly inexpensive. If your serious about accuracy, then I would strongly recommend investing in one.
http://www.amazon.com/Ozeri-Digital-Multifunction-Kitchen-Elegant/dp/B004164SRA0 -
Yeah, I just wanted to add, I used to manually keep a food log with a notebook and pen back in the day. Tried to keep a handwritten list of USDA info for common foods.
This time I ordered a $15 food scale and used MFP. It is slow going in the beginning, but after a couple of weeks to get the hang of it and build up a list of "recent" foods, it literally takes me a total of a couple of minutes a day. And I lost 15 lbs and have kept it off by doing this.0 -
TheLittleRedHairedGirl wrote: »Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if MFP is worth it since so many things are wrong, and everyone also says that it overestimates calorie burn. So basically it seems like a crapshoot to me. When I first started using it, I assumed it was accurate. Now, not so much.
I agree. If i have to be adding my own foods and I have to be buying pricey tools for accuracy i could keep track of all this myself
Food scales, accurate ones, are fairly inexpensive. If your serious about accuracy, then I would strongly recommend investing in one.
http://www.amazon.com/Ozeri-Digital-Multifunction-Kitchen-Elegant/dp/B004164SRA
I have this exact scale. Works like a charm, although I wish the plate were removable.0 -
Search "chicken breast USDA". Weigh your piece of chicken.
Looks to be about 44 cals per oz, giving you 176 calories.
Fried chicken is hard to estimate the batter and oil.
0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »If you are doubting the accuracy of mfp on fried chicken leg pieces, please accept that there are a wide range of food products that can be in the batter, flour, egg, pepper, sugar, milk, and the fry oil can be of several different sources, peanut, corn, canola, and others, as well as that the chicken legs can be of a range of sizes and even that the eating of it can include more or less of the batter, meat, and tendons. Demanding that MFP give you one accurate number is irrational. If you can get nutrition information from the restaurants web-site, trust it, and if necessary, create a food database listing of your particular restaurant's published data.
I am not demanding that MFP gives me an accurate number because I acknowledge calorie counting is not accurate and there is variety. It is more my concern that other people may be using this not realizing they may be under-eating because these are over estimating calories. MFP database for many foods are based on recipes that people entered and publicly shared 3+ years ago and ofc we aren't allowed to see the details. I just wish we could give feedback to the accuracy of certain nutrition facts on MFP0 -
You shouldn't use other people's homemade recipes. The best choice is to use the USDA information and make your own recipes.2
-
itsthehumidity wrote: »Verify with an outside source, or several sources.
For instance, here's the first hit when I Google "nutrition for raw chicken breast"
calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-chicken-chicken-breast-without-skin-raw_f-ZmlkPTY4Mjc1.html
Then, find the entry in MFP that matches this, or make your own if you can't find it.
I've used that for 2 years. Hasn't failed me yet. CalorieKing is king of accuracy. I've not found any food missing there. I enter all my own foods & recipes/ingredients by the gram, weigh it raw before cooking, and enter the serving as 1 gram. If my potato weighs 220 grams, I enter 220, if I bake it, calories are same but potato is dehydrated and may weigh only 195 grams.
Weighing raw is accurate, due to dehydration or added moisture depending on cooking method used -- boiled, steamed, baked. Add all added condiment calories too. That works. Seems like a lot of work, but what works just, works.0 -
Recently i was about to add calorie for 4oz of chicken breasts to my diary . If you search this on MFP you get 320 calories as the first option. It really hit me this sounded high, even though i clicked this times before and the description sounds normal. So i decided to look into the calories in raw meat, seasoning and how much oil does meat absorb. Turns out chicken doesn't absorb that much and seasoning has little calories. Doing further search told me that same 4oz is listed as 166-206 calories on other websites. Fried Chicken leg may have as low as 124 calories yet on mfp the average is 150-200. So why are most mfp options way over other popular sites and what do you believe?
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
According to FDA, calorie count and nutrients can error 25% UP or DOWN from stated on label or menu (last time I looked) and the same is true for fast food and restaurants, however, fast/restaurants tend to error on the +25% UP to keep customers coming back for more because they get full on larger servings.0 -
Recently i was about to add calorie for 4oz of chicken breasts to my diary . If you search this on MFP you get 320 calories as the first option. It really hit me this sounded high, even though i clicked this times before and the description sounds normal. So i decided to look into the calories in raw meat, seasoning and how much oil does meat absorb. Turns out chicken doesn't absorb that much and seasoning has little calories. Doing further search told me that same 4oz is listed as 166-206 calories on other websites. Fried Chicken leg may have as low as 124 calories yet on mfp the average is 150-200. So why are most mfp options way over other popular sites and what do you believe?
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
Your research is mostly accurate. When it comes to public food items, I've realized what's favored is more popular vote than actual fact.
0 -
Recently i was about to add calorie for 4oz of chicken breasts to my diary . If you search this on MFP you get 320 calories as the first option. It really hit me this sounded high, even though i clicked this times before and the description sounds normal. So i decided to look into the calories in raw meat, seasoning and how much oil does meat absorb. Turns out chicken doesn't absorb that much and seasoning has little calories. Doing further search told me that same 4oz is listed as 166-206 calories on other websites. Fried Chicken leg may have as low as 124 calories yet on mfp the average is 150-200. So why are most mfp options way over other popular sites and what do you believe?
Surprisingly or not the same applies to fast food. I decided to check fries from fast food places on mfp against that on actual websites and got different results for so many. I may have been under eating by my own error since i didn't do my research prior to this.
So are you not eating the skin and the subcutaneous layer of fat? Because that's what "meat only" means.
According to USDA:
196 calories for the meat only of a fried leg (which apparently means drumstick plus thigh, since there are separate entries for both).
284 calories for meat and skin of a fried leg (floured, not battered)
431 calories for meat and skin of a fried leg (battered)
Of course there's a lot of variation given the many options for how you cook it and what parts you eat.
And as Rileysowner said, don't search for an amount of food (4 oz chicken breast). That guarantees you're going to get a user-created entry of doubtful accuracy, and even if it is accurate, you have absolutely no idea what the user who created it meant by "4 oz. chicken breast" -- at 320 calories, I would guess fried, floured, meat and skin both, but who knows?
Here's the link for the USDA nutrient database for checking entries for whole foods, many convenience foods, and even some brand name foods.
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search0 -
Yeah, I'm really starting to wonder if MFP is worth it since so many things are wrong, and everyone also says that it overestimates calorie burn. So basically it seems like a crapshoot to me. When I first started using it, I assumed it was accurate. Now, not so much.
Well, I've lost 99 lbs to date with logging my food on MFP. So if it's a clapshoot, I don't know what isn't.
I have, however always referred to the brand/restaurants calorie listing before choosing which one I pick from MFP. The barcode option is amazing, too.
Sometimes I will, if it's something homemade (and I didn't make it) e.g. my mother in laws baked Ziti - pick one from MFP but I don't pick the one with the lowest calories, either. I know it's not going to be accurate but it's closer than picking a number out of thin air. And I want to live my life. I want to eat that baked Ziti sometimes. (She's Italian for crying out loud) . Or at a cookout, I'll catch a glimpse of the brand or grocery store that package of chicken legs came from and I'll choose the MFP option accordingly for increased accuracy. The truth is, if you stick to these things, then being off on your counts occasionally is not going to be detrimental to your efforts. & only eat back half of the exercise calories to reduce error there. (Or don't eat them back at all, and change your activity level from sedentary to lightly active)0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions