Cooked vs. uncooked chicken calories

Options
Rodney_Mckay
Rodney_Mckay Posts: 32 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So I have made some pan grilled chicken breast yesterday.

Started with ~950g raw meat, ~114kcal / 100g. Now this cooked down to 600g of grilled material. I say material because it might have overcooked a bit. Oops.

So how can I calculate how many calories are in the cooked stuff ? I know I ate ~200g of it today but have no idea what to put in my diary. :(

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    spiffy90 wrote: »
    So I have made some pan grilled chicken breast yesterday.

    Started with ~950g raw meat, ~114kcal / 100g. Now this cooked down to 600g of grilled material. I say material because it might have overcooked a bit. Oops.

    So how can I calculate how many calories are in the cooked stuff ? I know I ate ~200g of it today but have no idea what to put in my diary. :(

    Find a "cooked" entry.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    i build a recipe - put in raw chicken amount, oils etc...then log the serving size as the final cooked weight in g or oz - then i have it for quick reference - i do this when i make anything in bulk for meal prepping
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    spiffy90 wrote: »
    So I have made some pan grilled chicken breast yesterday.

    Started with ~950g raw meat, ~114kcal / 100g. Now this cooked down to 600g of grilled material. I say material because it might have overcooked a bit. Oops.

    So how can I calculate how many calories are in the cooked stuff ? I know I ate ~200g of it today but have no idea what to put in my diary. :(

    200g/600g = 1/3 total cooked with - so you ate 1/3 of 950g = 317g raw (ish)
  • Teabythesea_
    Teabythesea_ Posts: 559 Member
    Options
    Based on the raw weight, in the cooked product there is 1,083 calories plus whatever you used to cook it (marinade, oils, etc.). So if the final product was 600 grams at 1,083 calories and you ate 200 grams or 1/3 of it then you consumed about 357 calories (1/3 of 1,083). Cooking doesn't get rid of calories.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    spiffy90 wrote: »
    So I have made some pan grilled chicken breast yesterday.

    Started with ~950g raw meat, ~114kcal / 100g. Now this cooked down to 600g of grilled material. I say material because it might have overcooked a bit. Oops.

    So how can I calculate how many calories are in the cooked stuff ? I know I ate ~200g of it today but have no idea what to put in my diary. :(

    So you ate 1/3 of the total and you have 2 options:
    1. Use a database entry for raw chicken breast and log 1/3 of 950g = 316g.
    2. Use a database entry for cooked chicken breast and log 200g.

    They will probably (hopefully) be similar but not exact, because unfortunately there is no way to know how much of the weight you cooked off was water and how much was fat. There is some estimation unfortunately involved with logging, but if you're consistent you can always revisit your methods for your common meals/foods if results don't follow as expected in the long term.
  • Rodney_Mckay
    Rodney_Mckay Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So you ate 1/3 of the total and you have 2 options:
    1. Use a database entry for raw chicken breast and log 1/3 of 950g = 316g.
    2. Use a database entry for cooked chicken breast and log 200g.

    They will probably (hopefully) be similar but not exact, because unfortunately there is no way to know how much of the weight you cooked off was water and how much was fat. There is some estimation unfortunately involved with logging, but if you're consistent you can always revisit your methods for your common meals/foods if results don't follow as expected in the long term.

    That makes perfect sense. 3rd grade math why have ye abandoned me?! Now it seems such a stupid question to ask..

    Thanks for the help!
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    When you eat an entire prepared dish of food within a few days the only thing that matters is that the total calories for the entire dish are logged by the time it is all eaten. It is only if you waste, freeze, or share some of it that will you need a precise percentage for each log entry. This is another reason that it is a little more freeing to view your calories as a weekly budget instead of only as a daily budget.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Options
    spiffy90 wrote: »
    So I have made some pan grilled chicken breast yesterday.

    Started with ~950g raw meat, ~114kcal / 100g. Now this cooked down to 600g of grilled material. I say material because it might have overcooked a bit. Oops.

    So how can I calculate how many calories are in the cooked stuff ? I know I ate ~200g of it today but have no idea what to put in my diary. :(

    Weigh your chicken raw and calculate calories from that. Most of what you lose in cooking is water so the calories will be very close. The main reason you don't want to use a "cooked" entry is because the cooking method and time will change the amount of water cooked out of the chicken. Overcooked chicken will be dry and weigh less than a perfectly cooked piece but the calories will be the same.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    Options
    Unless it's completely unavoidable (and I don't think I've had a situation where it has been) I only ever log raw to avoid any inconsistencies

    100g raw is always gonna be 100g raw

    Cooked entries add too many inconsistencies.
    - does that cooked entry include oils used to cook it?
    - cooking can add water (like boiling pasta) or remove water (like broiling chicken) so how much of that cooked weight has been increased/decreased due to water gained/lost?
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    Danp wrote: »
    Unless it's completely unavoidable (and I don't think I've had a situation where it has been) I only ever log raw to avoid any inconsistencies

    Bone in meat is difficult to log raw, and the cooked entries are perfectly adequate if they are the USDA ones that take into account cooking method. Variations in fat content are likely to create more inconsistency/inaccuracies than cooked vs. raw.

    I log raw too when possible, but I think people often give advise as if logging cooked is totally wrong and worthless, and it's really not meaningfully different.
    does that cooked entry include oils used to cook it?

    Cooked entries from USDA do not. You never use homemade entries and always add what oil you use. Common sense.
    cooking can add water (like boiling pasta) or remove water (like broiling chicken) so how much of that cooked weight has been increased/decreased due to water gained/lost?

    This is why you use an entry (as with the USDA entries) that specify the manner of cooking.

    Pasta I'd do raw unless eating at a restaurant where it's easier to estimate cooked (and you are going to be off in any case, realistically), but we were talking about meat.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Using USDA entries from the database

    Raw Choice Flank Steak - 200g = 321cal

    Person one likes their steak rare (20g moisture lost)
    Grilled Choice Flank Steak - 180g = 364cals

    Person two likes their steak more well done (40g of moisture lost)
    Grilled Choice Flank Steak - 160g = 324als.

    Person three likes their steak charred and really well cooked so leaves it on longer (60g moisture lost)
    Grilled Choice Flank Steak - 140g = 283cals

    So 3 people each eating a 321cal serving. One is logging 43cals too many, one is about right and the other is logging 38 calories too few.

    All up that's a variation of 81 calories which might not seem like much but inaccuracies like that adds up and for someone with a slim deficit that can definitely have an impact on their progress.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Danp wrote: »
    Using USDA entries from the database

    Raw Choice Flank Steak - 200g = 321cal

    Not a proper USDA entry, even if labeled as such. It's not in the USDA database, it's someone's entry. Proper USDA entry would look something like: Beef, flank, steak, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, raw, or Beef, flank, steak, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, cooked, broiled.
    Person one likes their steak rare (20g moisture lost)

    Yes, this difference is going to be minimal vs. the other possible variations, and for bone on meat cooked is usually the best option. No reason to tell people that cooked entries are unworkable or no good when they are perfectly fine (and if you overcook your meat you will consistently do so, so it evens out over time).

    The same kinds of variations happen with logging raw (and IMO just as much) -- the fat variation is a huge one. You adjust to results. I get my meat from a farm and have no specific calories or fat information and have to guess, and some meat (usually pork) may be more fatty and some (like beef) less than comparable grocery store cuts, and so you guess. It's perfectly workable. No reason to think you can't use the very good USDA cooked entries for something like bone-in meat.

    The more important thing, always, is don't use wacky homemade entries, stick to USDA or package information, and -- most of all -- be consistent and adjust based on results.
  • nicsflyingcircus
    nicsflyingcircus Posts: 2,566 Member
    Options
    I log raw if it's something feasible. If I am cooking for myself, or doing a couple boneless steaks/chops or hamburgers where I can make sure mine gets its own side if the grill.

    The reality is, I am a full-time working parent who does the majority of the family cooking when not at work. A pan of ground beef cooked into crumbles for taco filling? Cooked weight. Any bone-in meat? Cooked weight. Large cuts of meat (pork butt/loin/tenderloin, beef roasts, whole chickens, etc)? Cooked weight. A whole grill full of seasoned boneless skinless thighs to cover a dinner and three work lunches for me? Cooked weight, because it's impossible to keep track of individual raw weights when there are easily 15+ pieces of meat going.

    I use Usda data entries and pick the most accurate description for my given cut of meat.

  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    deannalfisher wrote: »
    i build a recipe - put in raw chicken amount, oils etc...then log the serving size as the final cooked weight in g or oz - then i have it for quick reference - i do this when i make anything in bulk for meal prepping

    This is exactly what I do too. It is the most accurate way of determining calories.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,558 Member
    Options
    Do you plan to eat all of it eventually? if so you could possibly allow for some estimating.
    weigh raw, and calories and calories of oil and everything you cooked it with.

    Say you eat three times of that. Then you take three portions that are roughly 1/3 of the total. Ok, one will probably be a bit bigger and one a bit smaller but it will equal out in the end.

Categories