How to Properly Weigh Meats

Options
StevefromMichigan
StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
When weighing meats on a food scale, should the meat be weighed before or after cooking?

I have always weighed them after cooking, but I am wondering if this is proper. How do you do it?
«1

Replies

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    Before cooking is best, but make sure the entry you use is appropriate (for raw or cooked/baked/etc).
  • shadow2soul
    shadow2soul Posts: 7,692 Member
    Options
    I weigh raw and find the USDA entry for the raw meat.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,752 Member
    Options
    Another raw weigher.... It's more accurate, as the final weight will depend on the cooking technique/time etc (rare steak vs well done for example)
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    Thanks. It seems that by weighing after cooking, I haven't been logging correctly, and I have actually been consuming more calories than I have been recording. I'll need to fix that.

    On the plus side, I have been consuming more protein than I thought :)
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    Options
    I did it wrong for a month or two after I started, too. I still lost weight and course corrected once I realized my mistake. It's just part of the learning curve.
  • jfan175
    jfan175 Posts: 812 Member
    Options
    livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
    Another raw weigher.... It's more accurate, as the final weight will depend on the cooking technique/time etc (rare steak vs well done for example)

    Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    Options
    jfan175 wrote: »
    Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.
    There are far more variables in cooking than there with raw meat. How much moisture was actually left, what were you cooking it in, etc. If I'm making something like chicken curry, it's more logical for me to use the raw meat entry for whatever type of chicken I'm using when plugging it into the recipe builder than the cooked.
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    aokoye wrote: »
    jfan175 wrote: »
    Now I'm confused. Wouldn't that make the final weight after cooking more accurate? You can add grilled, baked, broiled, etc. to the search.
    There are far more variables in cooking than there with raw meat. How much moisture was actually left, what were you cooking it in, etc. If I'm making something like chicken curry, it's more logical for me to use the raw meat entry for whatever type of chicken I'm using when plugging it into the recipe builder than the cooked.

    Plus, I believe that the nutritional content on the package lists calories and nutrients based on uncooked weight.
  • rachelpauline93
    rachelpauline93 Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Oh, I've been doing it wrong as well! Good to know :smile:
  • pogiguy05
    pogiguy05 Posts: 1,583 Member
    Options
    One note to make is I think and correct me if i am wrong, but when they send out portions to find out the caloric break downs, it is sent RAW and not cooked. So I would say that the raw would match the nutrition label more. I have noticed there is a difference if it is frozen or thawed and thawed is less due to liquid loss.

    Just my thoughts
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,637 Member
    Options
    It would depend on the entry used (there exist USDA entries for cooked products) but I would expect that inherently raw would be more accurate. The only exception would be something like bacon, for example, where a significant amount of fat would be rendered away and I would suspect the "as cooked" entry would be closer to reality.
  • MelanieCN77
    MelanieCN77 Posts: 4,047 Member
    Options
    I compared raw weight of chicken in the database to cooked for a piece I prepared last week and I think for a whole breast the difference was less than 40 cals.
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    edited February 2018
    Options
    Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

    Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.
  • donjtomasco
    donjtomasco Posts: 789 Member
    Options
    I guess this is why I like to round up across the board on calories consumed and be conservative (if there is a question) on calories burned, like lifting weights, which is really hard to get accurate since there are so many variables.
  • jfan175
    jfan175 Posts: 812 Member
    Options
    kazgorat1 wrote: »
    Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

    Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

    Ok. Now on a lean cut like chicken breast, I would assume most of that extra weight before cooking is water. Water has zero calories. How can you be under by 160 calories if all you did was cook out water?

  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    jfan175 wrote: »
    kazgorat1 wrote: »
    Actually, I did a test this evening, where I weighed 6 raw chicken breasts, cooked them, and weighed again. On average, the raw chicken breasts weighed 1.3 to 1.5 times more than after it was cooked. For the particular one I ate, I would have under-logged by almost 80 calories if I had applied the raw caloric content to the cooked chicken breast weight.

    Sometimes I will eat two in a day, one for lunch and one for dinner. My logging would be under by 160 calories on that day if I applied the raw meat numbers to the cooked weight.

    Ok. Now on a lean cut like chicken breast, I would assume most of that extra weight before cooking is water. Water has zero calories. How can you be under by 160 calories if all you did was cook out water?

    Because the chicken breast weighed 6.75 ounces raw and 4.82 ounces cooked. If I used to cooked weight and applied it to the calories listed on the package for raw meat, it comes to 205 calories. If I correctly use the raw weight, and apply to the calories listed for raw meat, it comes to 287 calories, or 82 calories higher at the correct calculation.

    In the previous post, I mentioned that I sometimes eat 2 chicken breasts in a day, so, if I am off on two of them due to using cooked weight instead of raw, 82*2=164.
  • StevefromMichigan
    StevefromMichigan Posts: 462 Member
    Options
    Unless I am missing something?
  • jfan175
    jfan175 Posts: 812 Member
    Options
    I see your rationale now. Thanks.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    In instances where you can't weigh raw or forget to weigh until after cooked, just make sure you choose a cooked entry in the database. The usda does provide stats for both raw and cooked, and I find both in the database. As others have said, I believe raw is more accurate (as meat can come out more moist or more dry depending on how long you cook it which will affect weight) but cooked entries are your next best option.

Categories