Weighing food

Options
2»

Replies

  • VeronicaA76
    VeronicaA76 Posts: 1,116 Member
    Options
    omakase619 wrote: »
    What's the calorie difference between food that's been cooked vs raw? (Assuming weight is the same?)

    A lot!!! Especially meats. Raw meat has a lot of water that gets cooked out so it will weigh a lot less when cooked than in it's raw form, yet it will still have the same calories.

    Vegetables tend to absorb water (from steaming or other cooking methods involving liquids), so they will be heavier when cooked. But, as vegetables are very low in calories as a whole, this makes less of a difference than meats to one's nutrition

    Weigh all your food raw.
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    Reality check time. Be totally honest with yourself. If you say the objection to a scale is that you don't want to carry it with you, measing cups are better because ... you are carrying measuring cups with you? No, I'm guessing? So, regardless of saying that you don't eyeball and you measure consistently, you are using a desire to be able to skip measuring altogether as a reason not to weigh.

    I won't deny that some people train themselves and get reasonably good at it estimating portion sizes using their eyeballs. More people THINK they are good at it but, surprise, aren't. Don't lock yourself into a process assuming that you are in the minority of unicorns who have this superpower.

    Presuming that you actually do keep measuring for real and the fact that you don't want to weigh food outside the house isn't a cop-out: In the long term, my opinion is that the difference between a scale and volume measurements is not going to kill you. Yes, volume measurements are less precise and more subject to error, as the videos above show. But if you're managing for food intake over the long term consistency is more important than accuracy.

    Here's why: the "actual" calorie count of your food is ultimately a bit guessy anyway, even if you measure or weigh super precisely. There's a ton of variables there. But if you measure consistently, you'll get consistent averages. Over time you'll see results based on those consistent measurements and will be able to calibrate your targets appropriately.

    Also, per the discussion of cooked versus raw. Some foods, cooking makes them heavier (e.g. rice) because water gets added. So if they "weigh the same" that means the cooked portion is actually a much smaller amount of food; lower in calories. Other foods, cooking makes them lighter (e.g. meat) because water leaves the food during the cooking process. So if they "weigh the same" the cooked portion actually started out as a much LARGER amount of food, and is higher in calories. The important thing is to just match your log entry to when you measured. If you measured raw, use a raw entry, and if you measured cooked, use a cooked entry. But in general I'd also say that raw entries are better since two people's cooking processes are not the same: I might boil my pasta longer than you so it absorbs more water; I might squeeze all the moisture out of my meat on the grill so it loses more water. So database entries for cooked things are guesstimates based on the "average" cook. I don't love that so I weigh raw when I can. It's not always convenient (if I'm preparing multiple portions at once and sharing the food with other people, for example) so sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.