burgers on george foreman- how do u figure the calories?

Yup, weigh the meat raw and that is what you add into your diary

I just ate 2 1/4 burgers fixed on a GF grill. They were originally 80/20. should i have weighed the meat before i ate it? how do y'all figure the calories?

I personally figure the calories based on how it is consumed, much like McDonald's calculates nutritional information for their patrons on their website. Were the patties pre-packaged? Perhaps you can get information from there? If you made them yourself, well, unless there is posted information for 80/20 ground (meat? beef? chuck?) out there -- and I'm sure there is -- then it just becomes a matter of estimating the weight.

Yes. How do you know how much you ate without weighing it? And start using the better meat if you are going to eat hamburger. I use 97/3 if I can find it. Cost a little more but it is much better for you. Also, try to start mixing ground turkey with your hamburger. Even better for your body.

Normal serving is about 4 ounces per burger, depending on how big your patties were.

Good luck.

I think the OPs question is regarding the fat content. The grill claims there is less fat in your food because of the way it is cooked. I have ran into the same problem with my Nu-Wave oven. You consume less of the fat but really, there is no way to tell.

it is simply impossible that the grill doesnt change the fat/calorie content somewhat. the package says 240 calories per patty, and that is the number I would use if I let it thaw and made a meatloaf or something out of it (ie something where I wouldnt drain any fat). but there's a ton of white gluey fat in tray. that's fat that would be in my body and on my list had i eaten those patties in a meatloaf. but because i didnt, i have to augment the numbers somewhat.

if you buy a patty that says it has 240 calories in it and you record the same nutritional info regardless of how you prepare it (esp if we're talking about grilling versus frying), then you shouldnt have any faith in your numbers.

You can't count on packages to be 100% accurate either. They are allowed to be off by a certain percentage (I think 20 or so) and things are allowed to be marked as "0 calories" if they contain less than 5 calories per serving. Leaving in the fat that is removed from your burger probably evens out whatever calories my be sneaking by you every day.

Edit to add: if it really bothers you, measure how many tbsp of fat are removed. 1 tbsp of butter or oil comes in at about 100 - 120 calories so you could estimate based on that?

You'll have to do some math if you're that gung-ho about accounting for the calories you've saved by grilling. I would think you could get a fair estimate with a little weighing and the knowledge that 1 g of fat is about 9 cal.

You'll have to do some math if you're that gung-ho about accounting for the calories you've saved by grilling. I would think you could get a fair estimate with a little weighing and the knowledge that 1 g of fat is about 9 cal.

This is what I was going to suggest too. If the OP really NEEDS to know. Personally, I'd just use the nutrition information on the package.

I think you're putting too much thought and worry into this.

Yes, you're cooking off some fat, but wouldn't you rather include that fat in your log by recording the uncooked weigh instead of possibly overestimating the amount of fat lost? Realistically, it's probably a pretty small number, as you are also losing come meat solids and moisture into the drain pan. If you go off of uncooked weight, then you can easily log the meat regardless of how it is cooked.

If you want to get obsessive, separate the fat and weigh it on a digital kitchen scale. I believe fat is 9 calories per gram.

wouldn't you rather include that fat in your log by recording the uncooked weigh instead of possibly overestimating the amount of fat lost?

Those are the only two options? How about a third option:

Try to get it right.

You asked a question and people are trying to help. No need to be so snarky about it. Good grief.

"Try to get it right."

I do get where you're coming from, honest. Error control in any experiment or procedure is an important thing to think about.

The thing is, no matter what you do there will be some error. You can carefully weigh the burger and then *assume* that the % fat measurements are accurate. This is as far as most of us will go. There is some error that creeps in here, no doubt.

Ala skylark94, you could make a sample burger, weighed very carefully, then collect everything that cooks out of the burger, maybe strain it to get out any meat pieces that come out too. Then heat the fluid again past boiling to get rid of all the water. Then you assume (probably reasonable) that most of the remaining fluid is fat. Use a conversion from weight to calories to determine how many calories you saved. To reduce the error further, subtract the calories represented by the little bits you strained out of the liquid.

Armed with this info, you could assume that the next burger you make will be similar. Or, you could say, no, there is error there and keep performing the same actions (as outlined above) every time you make a burger.

But you will still have error, guaranteed. There are errors on the package about % fat, burger packed a little differently so it holds more or less fat in, variations in moisture content of the burger, variations in nutritional and caloric content of the meat. The heart of this question is, what % error are you willing to tolerate and how does that jibe with the fact that you probably don't have time to do a full scientific analysis of everything you eat at every meal.

What most of the respondents are saying, in essence, is that the error you are eliminating probably isn't really worth worrying about. But if precise accuracy is your goal, power to you, but even with the steps I've outlined above, you will not be 100% accurate no matter how hard you "try to get it right."

So, you have error here despite your best efforts, though no doubt you could decrease it. But even then, how do you decide how many calories you really burned in a day? How much of your old food is sitting in your colon today as opposed to yesterday, affecting not only your weight but energy expended moving around? How about salt and water retention effects? Error here, error there, error everywhere!

Here's how I "try to get it right": I prefer to think that errors end up cutting both ways and figure it all is a wash over time. Now, if 90% of your calories come off of the GFG, I'd say you still have bigger problems than the (presumably) over-reporting of calories, but your mileage may vary. If you think it makes sense to do some of the steps above to get an extra half-carrot after dinner because you used the GFC, power to you.

Ultimately, it looks like you've dropped 52 pounds (and I'm guessing have also had a significant %body fat reduction)! Isn't that the ultimate measuring stick?

Then again, if you quit worrying about all this (what I would say is) little stuff, you might burn less calories. ;-)