Log protein portions before or after cooking?
tiptoppy
Posts: 9 Member
When logging oz of chicken, salmon, beef, etc, is it more accurate to weigh it when it’s raw or after cooking? Sometimes a 5 oz raw chicken breast is half the size after cooking!
1
Replies
-
I weigh it raw.0
-
If you really want to be accurate, weigh raw.
BUT
What's more important is that you use the database entry that MATCHES how you weighed it. There are separate database entries for raw and cooked meat. If you weigh raw but use a cooked entry, you'll overlog calories and protein. If you weigh cooked but enter a raw entry, you'll UNDERlog calories and protein.
The only reason raw is more accurate is that different people will cook more or less moisture out of the meat depending on their preference. The database entries are average but ... average isn't accurate for most people.3 -
-
-
AFTER you cook it. You are weighing what you are consuming not the addititional additives. Many meat producers add liquids to meat to charge nigher prices as a result federal regulations had to be put in place to limit the practice. If you weigh b4 cooking you will not have accurate measurements2
-
Before! I only realised this while tired, I weighed out some squash then put it in the oven, forgot how much I had portioned and had to weigh again, it was so different that I had to just guess. Oops!0
-
If I'm adding it to a recipe I weight it raw.
If I'm eating basically as is (hamburgers, baked chicken breast) I weigh it cooked.0 -
Chicken has a lot of liquid that comes out while cooking which contains fat and water.
Seems more logical to weigh it after cooking and then weigh the bones after eating. Record the difference as the weight of the meat.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
This. If you buy fattier cuts and tend to strain/drain the juices, cooked is probably more accurate. Leaner cuts, or using the fat/other juices with the protein, I prefer to weigh and log raw.0 -
how is cooked more accurate?0
-
Detritus_1965 wrote: »
no not that.
If you weigh it cooked log it cooked...the way it was cooked. Double check with USDA.
If you weigh it raw log it raw
I can't weigh raw...I don't cook for 1.1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »how is cooked more accurate?
it's not...it's all in how you log it.0 -
When logging oz of chicken, salmon, beef, etc, is it more accurate to weigh it when it’s raw or after cooking? Sometimes a 5 oz raw chicken breast is half the size after cooking!
If you weight it raw, select a raw entry from the database. If you weigh it cooked, select a cooked entry from the database. They're both fairly accurate so long as you're selecting the right entry from the database.
So like 4 oz of raw chicken breast contains about 120 calories...you cook it, and it's going to weigh less because it loses water...but it doesn't lose calories...your now 3 oz of cooked chicken breast still has 120 calories.
I tend to feel that raw weight is more accurate simply for the fact that the nutritional label assumes raw weight...but I've often had to weigh cooked and just used a cooked entry from the database and never had issue.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions