I can’t believe I did not know this!!!

Options
2»

Replies

  • AmyC2288
    AmyC2288 Posts: 386 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")

    The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.

    If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.

    :'(:'(:'(:'(:'(

    In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")

    The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.

    If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.

    :'(:'(:'(:'(:'(

    In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.

    On a nutrition label, the calories and weight are always raw or dry unless otherwise specified, like "as prepared" or "cooked". With meat, I've never seen "cooked" or "as prepared" except for bacon.
  • AmyC2288
    AmyC2288 Posts: 386 Member
    Options
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")

    The calories for 4 oz is raw weight...so long as you weigh it raw before hand, you can grill it and log it like that. The calorie count won't change, it just loses water in the cooking process and thus weight.

    If you do not weigh it raw and cook it and weigh out 4 oz and log that, you will be eating more than what is listed because the raw product would have been 5 or 6 oz.

    :'(:'(:'(:'(:'(

    In all seriousness, thanks to OP for posting this. I had no idea and I'm already -42 lbs in. Learn something new everyday.

    On a nutrition label, the calories and weight are always raw or dry unless otherwise specified, like "as prepared" or "cooked". With meat, I've never seen "cooked" or "as prepared" except for bacon.

    TY!
  • 39flavours
    39flavours Posts: 1,494 Member
    edited February 2019
    Options
    39flavours wrote: »
    Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!

    as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked

    Exactly! That's why I was surprised when I realised it was cooked weight! It definitely had an impact on my weight loss for those few weeks. Didn't even list the dry weight calories per 100g, just cooked. Tesco shoppers beware!
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    39flavours wrote: »
    39flavours wrote: »
    Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!

    as in a box of raw pasta? because most pasta servings are for uncooked weight since pasta can double/triple in size when cooked

    Exactly! That's why I was surprised when I realised it was cooked weight! It definitely had an impact on my weight loss for those few weeks. Didn't even list the dry weight calories per 100g, just cooked. Tesco shoppers beware!

    looking at the calories they list i'm not surprised - since 2oz raw (46g) is 200cal - it makes sense that 100g cooked would be 185cal - but that is knowledge gained from many years of tracking food
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    i would probably also contact Tesco and say hey - you might want to consider adding cooked to the label for calories; and then point out that the majority of other brands use uncooked and provide some reference points
  • ExistingFish
    ExistingFish Posts: 1,259 Member
    Options
    39flavours wrote: »
    Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!

    My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.
  • kami3006
    kami3006 Posts: 4,978 Member
    Options
    39flavours wrote: »
    Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!

    My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.

    Yeah, that's what was so weird about the Tesco thread. The nutritional information was for cooked with no mention of dry weight.

    They really should be contacted about it.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    kami3006 wrote: »
    39flavours wrote: »
    Pasta. It took me ages to realise my pasta packet listed cooked weight not raw weight, it's a big difference and I was gutted!

    My pasta lists dry weight. It's impossible to give an accurate weight for cooked pasta as the water content depends on how long it was cooked, in how much water, and how thoroughly it was strained.

    Yeah, that's what was so weird about the Tesco thread. The nutritional information was for cooked with no mention of dry weight.

    They really should be contacted about it.

    i said the same thing above...the only reason i could look and notice a difference was because i eat pasta quite regularly and so know what an uncooked 2oz portion looks like calorie wise
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    Options
    How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?
  • suziecue25
    suziecue25 Posts: 289 Member
    edited February 2019
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?

    Not in UK, everything is raw, including mince [ground beef] I'm afraid it's a case of suck it up buttercup :'(

    Edit: I buy 5% fat mince, get a bit more that way when it's cooked.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?

    there are different entries depending on what ratio of fat you guy (80/20; 90/10 etc) - best you can do is pick the raw entry and you'll get pretty close
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    AmyC2288 wrote: »
    Guys- still not clear on meat issue. If I scan a pack of chicken breast, grill, then weigh out 4 oz- can I or can I not go by the 4 oz listing on the label (assuming there are no specified cooking directions like "as prepared")

    No, you would be underestimating calories.

    You can find cooked entries for chicken breast if you want to weigh after cooking.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited February 2019
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?

    I don't think it makes the raw entry inaccurate, but if you are worried that you are giving up calories you should have, you can use the cooked entries.

    Here's an example of a cooked entry: Beef, ground, 85% lean meat / 15% fat, patty, cooked, broiled.

    When I was losing I used cooked entries for bone-in meats, but not otherwise. I also never worried about fat cooking out, as I figured enough stayed on the meat that it was worth counting, that it might be taken into to some extent in the raw entry anyway, and that it was a margin of error.
  • laurelh8
    laurelh8 Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    The only time I can remember seeing nutritional information listed on the package for cooked meat is Kroger Ground Sausage. The Hot Italian variety specifies 2 oz cooked, 170 calories.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    I think bacon often does too.
  • Kalex1975
    Kalex1975 Posts: 427 Member
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    How does it work with something like ground beef and the fat cooking out? Are there any good ways to estimate that?

    The USDA has a ground beef calculator here...

    https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/beef/show

    You can select raw, crumbles pan-browned, loaf baked, patty broiled, and patty pan-broiled.
  • SMKing75
    SMKing75 Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I'll go against the majority and say I never weigh my meat raw, always cooked. Have lost 120lbs and counting (10 to go). I never eat more than 2 oz beef in say tacos so I'm sure it's not that much of a difference. As far as chicken, if it says 4 oz, then I'm counting it as 4 oz. I can not worry about small caloric mishaps as I cannot always be in control of the food in front of me unless I never leave the house. There always has to be some room for error IMO.