Bubba Burger 440 --> hockey pucked on grill

wingednotes
wingednotes Posts: 274 Member
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I had a bubba burger (440 cals) yesterday. My husband cooked it into a hockey puck. It was extremely burned with no juices or anything in it.
So assuming almost all of the fat was burned out, (320 cals from fat, according to package), is it safe to assume my intake was approximately 120-200 cals?

Replies

  • Hayesgang
    Hayesgang Posts: 624 Member
    Sorry to say that it's still 440 calories~It doesn't matter if it is raw or a "hockey puck" the calories don't change because of the way it's cooked.
  • spearfox
    spearfox Posts: 276 Member
    I would go full value. No need to cheat little details.
  • mamitosami
    mamitosami Posts: 531 Member
    I would leave it as is... that's a lot of calories to cut out when taking a big guess....
  • desert_rhino
    desert_rhino Posts: 104 Member
    Probably did burn/drip a lot of calories out, but I sure wouldn't assume all the fat was gone. I'd log it as 440, and call it part of my error for other things where I have to estimate.

    I? would buy a better quality/lower fat meat and just sear it real good, then eat it mostly bloody. :) Easier to do the math then, right?
  • walkner88
    walkner88 Posts: 165 Member
    Sorry to say that it's still 440 calories~It doesn't matter if it is raw or a "hockey puck" the calories don't change because of the way it's cooked.

    Whenever calories are calculated in the united states, they are calculated with everything that is in the finished product. So for things like burgers or items like with sauces or other things like that where a person does not eat all of it they are not getting the full calories from the item. However it must be said that the juice that cooks out your burger may account for around 20 calories. All of the other shrinkage that happens in it is misty from water within the meat evaporating. Now not eating every drop of sauce from say an Alfredo meal, that can actually save a substantial amount over the advertised calories.
  • lilojoke
    lilojoke Posts: 427 Member
    Does that mean if I have a 10oz steak and burn it so that the fat is burned does that mean I can use the lean values instead? Heck no thats the worse kind of cheating possible!

    This is why I no longer count as well.
  • RollerDevil
    RollerDevil Posts: 31 Member
    Just because some water and fat were "drained", it doesn't mean it now has barely no fat. It probably still had a very significant amount of fat that was burned altogether. It's not gonna ruin your diet, today is a new day. I'd just log it as it is :)
  • jlr_12
    jlr_12 Posts: 170 Member
    Sorry to say that it's still 440 calories~It doesn't matter if it is raw or a "hockey puck" the calories don't change because of the way it's cooked.

    Calories DO changed depending on how meat is cooked. That's why all meat products give calories based on RAW instead of cooked, because there's no way the manufacturers can know how someone will end up cooking it. If 440 cals was based on raw, then it is safe to assume it was actually less calories when you ate it. I don't know if I'd go that low, but cutting 100-150 off would be safe in my opinion. If all that's in the burger is beef, in the future you could also weigh the COOKED burger, and enter it on here under cooked ground beef (lots of options) and get a more accurate estimate.
  • wingednotes
    wingednotes Posts: 274 Member
    Good info :)
    Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. Yesterday was a special kind of day. I just want to try and log what was already done accurately.
    I think I'll cut 40 calories off because I like round numbers.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories