Measuring Salmon

Options
2»

Replies

  • bjess8411
    bjess8411 Posts: 68 Member
    Options
    Why are you not eating the skin? Crisping it up in the pan is delicious!

    Exactly, the skin in my favourite part. Eat the skin!

    I hate the skn. I don't like fat on meat either.
  • RoyBeck
    RoyBeck Posts: 947 Member
    Options
    How have I got 2 woo's for saying eat the skin lol 🤣😂
  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    Options
    Meat is always an estimate. I often slice up chicken breasts before cooking to pretty similar sized pieces, cook them all together and when they are done there is a much wider variance of sizes. Moisture content and fat content vary from one piece to the next. Fish generally is more consistent than other meats, but weighing is far from perfect with fish also. Poultry is the hardest, especially frozen. It is often injected with water to help prevent freeze drying. A frozen piece will weigh more than a thawed piece and when cooked will lose more weight than a never frozen piece would.

    But if you are gaining noticeably when you think you should be maintaining, or not losing when you think you are in deficit, the problem is bigger than the skin on a piece of salmon.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,012 Member
    edited August 2018
    Options
    Panini911 wrote: »
    Thanks guys.

    I think part of the issue is I have been under-logging protein. So my idea of what a "portion" is was greatly exaggerated. I've had a similar realization with chicken. Because I was exercising a ton and not eating exercise calories it didn't impact my weight loss (the one bonus of not eating back exercise calories - it makes logging errors very forgivable!). But with learning to eat appropriately (appropriate portions are my biggest issue) I want to start logging accurately (and will likely be able to "add" more daily calories as I do if I was consistently underlogging).

    Don't feel bad about trying to be exact! Everyone has a different patience threshold for the details. I happen to be very detail-oriented, and am perfectly comfortable weighing the smallest detail (when I'm home) that someone else would feel was overboard. As long as you aren't driving yourself nuts, or causing yourself anxiety, be as exact as you want to be :smile:

    I can never get the skin crispy enough to eat it, so I would weigh it raw, then the first time at least, weigh the skin after you've eaten. If it's only a couple of grams, you know you don't have to worry about it going forward.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,979 Member
    Options
    There are many different kinds of salmon with different fat levels. And many methods of cooking salmon.

    This severely influences the calories retained by the finished product.

    Think about what happens when you plonk a piece of farmed=fatty Atlantic Salmon on a BBQ grill till most of the fat melts away...

    All this makes salmon a fairly difficult item when it comes to accurate logging and, in my example above, raw food calories would significantly over-estimate the calories eaten.

    If you go to: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/, click on "Start your search here.", then, from the drop down list, choose to Filter on Database "Standard Reference" and Enter one or more keywords=Salmon... you will find a whole slew of salmon entries both raw and cooked.

    I would pick the one that is closest to the way I cooked my fish and guesstimate based on the weight of food that I ate.
  • dhalli0
    dhalli0 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!
  • Panini911
    Panini911 Posts: 2,325 Member
    Options
    On the bbq no oils or sauce. I use spices. It was atlantic salmon. I do think the issue is i "want" bigger portuons than i should (more than a lousy 4 onces).

    I am tightening up my logging to help as i transition into slower weight loss and planning maintenance. It has not been an issue during the loss stage as i tend to save up a ton of exercise cals that i do not eat. This coves any bad logging. But i need to slow down the weight loss and ensure i fuel my running
  • hroderick
    hroderick Posts: 756 Member
    Options
    so you know...wild salmon has 2/3 the calories if farmed salmon (and costs twice as much)
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,979 Member
    Options
    dhalli0 wrote: »
    I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!

    The USDA has a moist heat entry.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,979 Member
    Options
    dhalli0 wrote: »
    I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!

    I've seen many first time posts that ARE woo-worthy. This one looks like a fairly straightforward question to me... so not sure why it was deemed woo-worthy by a couple of people!
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,012 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    dhalli0 wrote: »
    I cook salmon wrapped in tin foil with sliced lemons under and over the fish. So, is it grilled, poached or baked? Very big difference in calorie count!

    I've seen many first time posts that ARE woo-worthy. This one looks like a fairly straightforward question to me... so not sure why it was deemed woo-worthy by a couple of people!

    I think there are actually more posters now who think woo is a good thing. I can't figure it out anymore.

    And I would call salmon in a tin foil pouch "steamed", if that's a thing :smile:
  • helaurin
    helaurin Posts: 157 Member
    Options
    I do the same - weigh raw, and calculate from there. I don't eat the skin; I have two dogs and two cats that consider that a wonderful treat whether it is crispy or not, and it's good for their skin and coats, too. I think it is far more accurate to weigh and calculate calories from uncooked foods, including meat, pasta, etc. Someone's version of 100-grams of "al dente" is going to be denser calorie-wise than 100-grams cooked to be very soft. It's the same concept with fish and meats, except in reverse, since many cooking methods of meat removes water from the item.