Weighing food.

Options
Cat_A_89
Cat_A_89 Posts: 93 Member
Quick question. Do you weigh food before or after cooking. Like meat and rice ect?

Replies

  • Panini911
    Panini911 Posts: 2,325 Member
    Options
    before is much more accurate, but either way just make sure to select and accurate entry (raw if raw - cooked if cooked)

    i use raw when i can but it’s not always possible.
  • RelCanonical
    RelCanonical Posts: 3,882 Member
    Options
    Generally, uncooked is going to be more accurate because cooking times can affect calorie density through the addition or evaporation of water and other ingredients. Be sure to choose an "uncooked" or "raw" entry to be sure.
  • Cat_A_89
    Cat_A_89 Posts: 93 Member
    Options
    Thank you!
  • Commander_Keen
    Commander_Keen Posts: 1,181 Member
    Options
    Cat_A_89 wrote: »
    Quick question. Do you weigh food before or after cooking. Like meat and rice ect?

    It depends on the food product.
    Chicken I would weigh it after.
    Rice/pasta, I would weigh it before.
    Fish - After
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    Cat_A_89 wrote: »
    Quick question. Do you weigh food before or after cooking. Like meat and rice ect?

    Depends...but really, you want to make sure you're picking the correct entry. If you cook some chicken and then weigh it, make sure you select a "cooked" entry. For the most part, nutritional information is provided for raw or uncooked weight unless otherwise stated on the package, but if you weigh it cooked and select a "cooked" entry from the database it should be good enough.
  • WholeFoods4Lyfe
    WholeFoods4Lyfe Posts: 1,518 Member
    Options
    I try to use raw whenever I can. The water weight can vary so much from raw to cooked. That said, I'm not super strict and sometimes just guess or use measuring cups, so maybe don't listen to me :)
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Cat_A_89 wrote: »
    Quick question. Do you weigh food before or after cooking. Like meat and rice ect?

    It depends on the food product.
    Chicken I would weigh it after.
    Rice/pasta, I would weigh it before.
    Fish - After

    What is your rationale for this?
  • LiLee2018
    LiLee2018 Posts: 1,389 Member
    Options
    I usually do it after. Especially if it's something fatty b/c a lot of the fat will melt off.
  • Scottgriesser
    Scottgriesser Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    Depends on what the nutrition label says. Most often it is raw/uncooked. If it says nothing, it is raw/uncooked.

    Waiting til after to weigh it then using a raw/uncooked label will totally jack up your numbers.
  • thanos5
    thanos5 Posts: 513 Member
    Options
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.
  • Scottgriesser
    Scottgriesser Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    thanos5 wrote: »
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.

    This will work on most cooked meats. I've had to do it myself. However, not everything works out to be 4oz raw=3oz cooked. And good luck ever trying to figure out rice...
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    thanos5 wrote: »
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.

    This will work on most cooked meats. I've had to do it myself. However, not everything works out to be 4oz raw=3oz cooked. And good luck ever trying to figure out rice...

    I think they were using that as an example... they weight foods uncooked, then cook it then weigh it again, so they know what % of the raw weighed food they are taking. This is how it should be done when cooking something that isn't whole and you take the whole thing.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    thanos5 wrote: »
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.

    You can find entries for cooked meat. For example: 15086, Fish, salmon, sockeye, cooked, dry heat. When I've had to weigh meat cooked (or anything else cooked), I just use the cooked entry.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    thanos5 wrote: »
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.

    You can find entries for cooked meat. For example: 15086, Fish, salmon, sockeye, cooked, dry heat. When I've had to weigh meat cooked (or anything else cooked), I just use the cooked entry.

    still not as accurate as we all cook things to different doneness, which affects the amount of water retained, which means the weight is affected.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited May 2019
    Options
    erickirb wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    thanos5 wrote: »
    i make it more complex than it needs to be, but i weigh twice. raw, and cooked. then i pretend the cooked weight is the raw weight. bah...makes sense in my head but i suck at words.

    for example:

    salmon.
    weighed raw, 16 ounces.
    weighed cooked, 12 ounces.

    made 6 ounces cooked equal to 8 ounces for logging purposes.

    i do it this way because i share with the family and can't just do it all in one fatal swoop.

    You can find entries for cooked meat. For example: 15086, Fish, salmon, sockeye, cooked, dry heat. When I've had to weigh meat cooked (or anything else cooked), I just use the cooked entry.

    still not as accurate as we all cook things to different doneness, which affects the amount of water retained, which means the weight is affected.

    Accurate enough when it's not possible to weigh before, especially if you don't tend to eat it super well done (which would tend to lead to underestimates). I almost always weighed and logged using cooked entries for chicken, since I prefer bone-in chicken (same with lamb, some cuts of beef, etc), and it did not cause any problems.
  • thanos5
    thanos5 Posts: 513 Member
    Options
    oops, i should have noted that i meant meat or fish. i wouldn't try that with rice lol.

    very true that i could go by the cooked weight in the database, and i very well may do that in the future. i'm still fine tuning.
  • cbihatt
    cbihatt Posts: 319 Member
    Options
    I do it after cooking because I find it easier that way. I think consistency matters more than anything.
  • vaman
    vaman Posts: 253 Member
    Options
    cbihatt wrote: »
    I do it after cooking because I find it easier that way. I think consistency matters more than anything.

    I agree, I've done it that way also and it works fine for me.