How to work out calories of chicken breast
amrwills
Posts: 13 Member
Hi everyone. How do I work out the calories of chicken breast? I have a 300g pack and the nutrition label says '100g as sold, 106cal.' I intend to cook it in a pan on the hob in a little bit of oil. Is it still 106cal per 100g once it's cooked (plus the cals from the oil?)
Thanks!
Thanks!
0
Replies
-
cooking doesn't really change the calories...the cooked weight will be less than the raw weight because it will lose some water...3
-
Weight it before cooking, log that weight since the calories are uncooked. The reason for this is that cooking will remove water and change the weight a great deal.3
-
look for an MFP entry that is something like USDA, chicken, breast meat, raw - weigh and log3
-
Always go by the raw weight0
-
I would measure the amount of oil you put in the pan and then add the 300g of chicken and cook it all together. Put it in the recipe builder in MFP. Then divide that recipe into servings. That's the total amount of calories which will include your oil. So, If you put 1tbs of oil in the pan (120calories) and 300g of raw boneless skinless chicken breast (360 calories) = 480 calories. Then divide that by 2 or 3 or whatever you want for your meal. If you eat half of what you make, you're eating 240 calories.1
-
Always go by the raw weight
You don't always have to go by the raw weight. There are entries for cooked weight in MFP. Sometimes, I cook frozen chicken so the raw weight doesn't apply. I just put in "boneless, skinless chicken breast Cooked"into mfp when I'm searching to get the right numbers.2 -
need2belean wrote: »Always go by the raw weight
You don't always have to go by the raw weight. There are entries for cooked weight in MFP. Sometimes, I cook frozen chicken so the raw weight doesn't apply. I just put in "boneless, skinless chicken breast Cooked"into mfp when I'm searching to get the right numbers.
I buy it raw, weigh it, wrap it, write the weight on the freezer paper and go by the raw weight in grams. Why would raw weight not apply? Are you worried about it having ice crystals on it?0 -
I don't ever go by the raw weight because I hate handling raw food any more than possible. But I consistently weigh it cooked and measure out 120 grams with no bones or skin.3
-
When building recipes I always use the raw weight of the ingredient (I don't have an indepth, scientific reasoning to it, that's just the amount I record) and make sure I'm using a reference that's including the raw weight to double check that the output is reasonable or else I search and find a number more in line what I'm finding. It doesn't come up often, but occasionally I realize that the first option that comes up isn't truly what I'm looking for. After cooking, I then divide the cooked portion into whatever split I'm using for that recipe. It may seem like a lot of fiddling or weighing, but for me I feel more accurate logging the raw weights then doing my meal prep based on cooked weights so that I'm not excessively (because it's hard to be 100% accurate even with accurate databases) changing the estimated counts involved. For instance, if you measured your cooked chicken breast based on a raw chicken breast weight you wouldn't be accurately representing your intake. You could (probably) weigh only after cooking but I always wonder if things were cooked in the same way I cooked them when I look at user submitted numbers. Yeah, I usually end up using extra prep bowls when I'm dealing with meat but I feel like it's overall more accurate but I could be 100% misguided on this.1
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »need2belean wrote: »Always go by the raw weight
You don't always have to go by the raw weight. There are entries for cooked weight in MFP. Sometimes, I cook frozen chicken so the raw weight doesn't apply. I just put in "boneless, skinless chicken breast Cooked"into mfp when I'm searching to get the right numbers.
I buy it raw, weigh it, wrap it, write the weight on the freezer paper and go by the raw weight in grams. Why would raw weight not apply? Are you worried about it having ice crystals on it?
Because 4oz of frozen chicken is going to be less calories than 4oz of raw chicken because frozen chicken weighs more.
Raw weight doesn't apply in that instance because I didn't thaw it before cooking it. 4oz of frozen chicken is actually probably only 3oz of raw chicken after it's thawed (I estimated that btw). PLUS, I batch cook my chicken. So, I cook a whole 3pounds of chicken at once. Then once it's cooked, I toss all the chicken in a tupperware container. I pull out chicken when I need it and weigh the chicken then as a "cooked chicken" entry.
Check this out: http://www.ontheregimen.com/2013/08/28/how-to-weigh-meat-cooked-or-raw/
The author suggests "When weighing (cooked) well-done meat, multiply the weight by 1.5 and use the meat’s raw nutrition facts".1 -
need2belean wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »need2belean wrote: »Always go by the raw weight
You don't always have to go by the raw weight. There are entries for cooked weight in MFP. Sometimes, I cook frozen chicken so the raw weight doesn't apply. I just put in "boneless, skinless chicken breast Cooked"into mfp when I'm searching to get the right numbers.
I buy it raw, weigh it, wrap it, write the weight on the freezer paper and go by the raw weight in grams. Why would raw weight not apply? Are you worried about it having ice crystals on it?
Because 4oz of frozen chicken is going to be less calories than 4oz of raw chicken because frozen chicken weighs more.
Raw weight doesn't apply in that instance because I didn't thaw it before cooking it. 4oz of frozen chicken is actually probably only 3oz of raw chicken after it's thawed (I estimated that btw). PLUS, I batch cook my chicken. So, I cook a whole 3pounds of chicken at once. Then once it's cooked, I toss all the chicken in a tupperware container. I pull out chicken when I need it and weigh the chicken then as a "cooked chicken" entry.
Check this out: http://www.ontheregimen.com/2013/08/28/how-to-weigh-meat-cooked-or-raw/
The author suggests "When weighing (cooked) well-done meat, multiply the weight by 1.5 and use the meat’s raw nutrition facts".
I don't really get why you think freezing something increases its weight. Also, if something weighs less because water came out of it, that will not affect how many calories it is because water does not have any calories.2 -
Whatever you do log it with the right entry..if i weigh it raw i use the usda entry for raw if i weigh it cooked i log it with the usda entry that matches..ie. grilled,roasted or broiled. As long as you use the right entry it wont matter much in the long run.4
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I don't really get why you think freezing something increases its weight. Also, if something weighs less because water came out of it, that will not affect how many calories it is because water does not have any calories.
Because if you measure it without the water content, it will "look" like a smaller raw piece. In other words, if you have a 300g raw chicken that has (for the sake of argument) 480 calories, then cooked it - if you measure after cooking, it's going to be less. Let's say you lose 100 g in water while cooking. You would then weigh it at 200g and deduce that that same piece of chicken had 320 calories. In reality, it would still have the 480 it always had, but you would be logging an inaccurate lower number.**
[ETA} I agree with the post above, but the illustration is only meant to augment what others have said...just in case it wasn't clear (I have a knack for that...)
**Note - the numbers used were illustrative - just to show the math.2 -
Silentpadna wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I don't really get why you think freezing something increases its weight. Also, if something weighs less because water came out of it, that will not affect how many calories it is because water does not have any calories.
Because if you measure it without the water content, it will "look" like a smaller raw piece. In other words, if you have a 300g raw chicken that has (for the sake of argument) 480 calories, then cooked it - if you measure after cooking, it's going to be less. Let's say you lose 100 g in water while cooking. You would then weigh it at 200g and deduce that that same piece of chicken had 320 calories. In reality, it would still have the 480 it always had, but you would be logging an inaccurate lower number.**
**Note - the numbers used were illustrative - just to show the math.
Which just makes it a method of recording fewer calories than actually consumed, doesn't it, which makes the games of wringing water out of it before weighing and logging counter to actually losing or maintaining weight.0 -
Basicaly a piece of raw chicken at 4 oz. Will have the same calories as the same piece cooked that now weighs 3oz..barring oil and stuff of course.2
-
I never weigh my chicken until after cooking. (This is for just plain grilled chicken breast, no oil.) I cook 2 or 3 breasts for the week, and stick them in a container in the fridge. I cut off what I want (around 4oz) each morning when I make my lunch. That's when I weigh it. Works fine for me.4
-
Whatever you do log it with the right entry..if i weigh it raw i use the usda entry for raw if i weigh it cooked i log it with the usda entry that matches..ie. grilled,roasted or broiled. As long as you use the right entry it wont matter much in the long run.
This is all I'm trying to say. I'm just saying it wrong. I do realize water has no calories. However, 4oz of frozen chicken is not the same as 4oz of raw chicken. 4oz of frozen chicken, thawed is only like 3oz or whatever of raw chicken so therefore, 3oz of chicken is less than 4oz of chicken. That's all I'm getting at. Just log it with the correct entry.2 -
Silentpadna wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »
I don't really get why you think freezing something increases its weight. Also, if something weighs less because water came out of it, that will not affect how many calories it is because water does not have any calories.
Because if you measure it without the water content, it will "look" like a smaller raw piece. In other words, if you have a 300g raw chicken that has (for the sake of argument) 480 calories, then cooked it - if you measure after cooking, it's going to be less. Let's say you lose 100 g in water while cooking. You would then weigh it at 200g and deduce that that same piece of chicken had 320 calories. In reality, it would still have the 480 it always had, but you would be logging an inaccurate lower number.**
[ETA} I agree with the post above, but the illustration is only meant to augment what others have said...just in case it wasn't clear (I have a knack for that...)
**Note - the numbers used were illustrative - just to show the math.
Thank you for explaining this better than I!0 -
Basicaly a piece of raw chicken at 4 oz. Will have the same calories as the same piece cooked that now weighs 3oz..barring oil and stuff of course.
But what about that would invalidate the raw weight if it is raw and frozen?need2belean wrote: »4oz of frozen chicken, thawed is only like 3oz or whatever of raw chicken so
What about freezing something materially changes how much mass there actually is?
Raw frozen chicken should weigh the same amount as raw thawed chicken.2 -
Yeah the calories are the same it doesn't change after cooking it0
-
LaauraLoses wrote: »Yeah the calories are the same it doesn't change after cooking it
I know the weight goes down after cooking, due to water loss.
I am asking why people think that a raw piece of chicken has a different mass when frozen versus not frozen since someone in this thread said that the raw values are not applicable if the item is frozen.1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »
Thanks for posting this.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »LaauraLoses wrote: »Yeah the calories are the same it doesn't change after cooking it
I know the weight goes down after cooking, due to water loss.
I am asking why people think that a raw piece of chicken has a different mass when frozen versus not frozen since someone in this thread said that the raw values are not applicable if the item is frozen.
Ok. I am sorry. I am an engineer and not a scientist so my knowledge on water molecules and mass of the atoms slowing down during the freezing state is not up to par. All I was trying to get at is you don't have to weigh it raw which is what I was replaying to in the first place. I more or less meant that 4oz of cooked chicken is going to be more caloric than 4oz of raw chicken so you should input into the database how you are measuring it (raw or cooked). I'm sorry for causing a bigger issue by throwing in that I cook my frozen chicken. BUT, I can't cut up my frozen chicken into the weights that I want so I have to cook it or thaw it to do that. I always cook it before cutting the chicken to the 4oz or whatever I need.1 -
need2belean wrote: »
Could you point out the chart for the frozen raw chicken breast?0 -
LaauraLoses wrote: »Yeah the calories are the same it doesn't change after cooking it
Of course the calories don't change, but the weight does, which in turn affects the calories if you're using the package's calorie count, which is based on raw meat. For example, I have a 5 oz piece of raw chicken breast, which after cooking, now weighs 3.2 oz. If I log 3.2 oz raw chicken, that's incorrect and I'm entering less calories than I consumed. I should be logging 5 oz of raw meat.
As long as you're using cooked entries, this isn't a problem, but plenty of people are using the raw nutrition facts for their cooked meat and this can result in an inaccurate count.2 -
LaauraLoses wrote: »Yeah the calories are the same it doesn't change after cooking it
Of course the calories don't change, but the weight does, which in turn affects the calories if you're using the package's calorie count, which is based on raw meat. For example, I have a 5 oz piece of raw chicken breast, which after cooking, now weighs 3.2 oz. If I log 3.2 oz raw chicken, that's incorrect and I'm entering less calories than I consumed. I should be logging 5 oz of raw meat.
As long as you're using cooked entries, this isn't a problem, but plenty of people are using the raw nutrition facts for their cooked meat and this can result in an inaccurate count.
Exactly. The point of all this should be - if you weigh it raw, then log it as raw weight. If you weigh it cooked, then log the cooked weight.
Sheesh.
6 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »need2belean wrote: »
Could you point out the chart for the frozen raw chicken breast?
https://www.reference.com/food/frozen-meat-weigh-thawed-meat-847e7d20d52a7c730 -
I find the argument above about raw vs frozen and the approximate weight interesting and at first glance a chicken that is raw and then frozen won't have any changes (actually the likelihood would be to lose water in the freezing process and thus have more calories for a given weight)
However this ignores that most chicken we buy, especially pre-frozen, is NOT "pristine" chicken meat, and it has been dipped in solution (to preserve the quality of the meat of course, nothing to do with tenderizing substandard product or plumping up the weight as chicken processors will hasten to assure us). This substantially change the weight and calories of the frozen product.
So... good luck in figuring out an absolutely correct value.
The USDA thoughtfully provides the following entries which I think are as close as we can expect to get...
05062, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw
05314, as above "with added solution"
05746 and 47 = 05062 above cooked braised and cooked grilled
and
05747 and 48 = 05314 above cooked braised and cooked grilled.1 -
I've probably been doing it wrong, but I just go by the weight on the package. I know that it's not *exact*, but as long as the butcher scale isn't too far off (which it shouldn't be!), I'm not that worried about it. I divide the portions and then make sure that they all add up. For example, if the package weight is a pound of chicken that I'm going to be using over two days, I just make sure that all of my entries for that chicken over those two days add back up to a pound of chicken. If one is off slightly, it will be made up for in another entry as long as it's all accounted for at the end. This is the same method I use for things like wine. I know that I'm not going to measure exactly how much I pour into each glass, but as long as all of the entries over the course of the week all up to the 750ml in the bottle, I'm okay with a day to day estimate. Admittedly, this method only works for me because I'm the only one at my house consuming the items. If anything, I consume less than I actually long, once my dogs get a bite or two at the end of every meal
2
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions