Weight-Loss Before Cooking OR After Cooking...THAT is the question!

Weight-Loss
GeminiGirl

GeminiGirl

New member
So - what's the verdict on when you should weigh your protein (chicken, meat, fish..etc)?

I originally thought AFTER since you'd be weighing after any moisture/fat melted or evaporated...but I've seen information to the contrary.

Anyone know what the "rule of thumb" for this is? I've gone back to weighing pre-cooking and then assuming, worst case, that I've overestimated my calories.
 
Whenever I look up the calories for a food, it is usually given for a particular method of cooking - broiled, fried, etc. Where are you getting your data?
 
I use for a lot of my information on meats/veggies/fruits.

I ignore the cooking type b/c I don't usually fry or broil or use salt...etc. So, I look for the "raw" details and get data on 1oz....then when I weigh my food, I input the servings (as ounces) and calculate out the totals that way.I also use the packaging information - I buy a lot of organic meats and so I use that information too.

If it's for 4oz for example, I divide it up by 4 so I can again get a 1oz serving. Rarely do you cut chicken or fish in perfect 4oz portions...so if I have 3.75oz, I enter it in my spreadsheet and multiply it out by the per oz data. Makes it very easy for me.
 
For me, it's most convenient to weigh the cooked food. I just put my plate on the food scale, zero the scale, take whatever serving I want from the meal my wife has cooked, put it on the plate, and weigh it.
 
Right....I get that it's more convenient. I'm looking for most accurate. The food doesn't weigh the same after you cook it.
 
Neither way is more accurate, if you choose the correct data to use. Since you are using data for raw food, you should weight it raw. If you want to weigh the cooked food, use the cooked data.
 
I prefer to use raw - the amount of calories doesn't change as much during cooking (although boiling may be an exception) but there might be a difference in weight based on how much water evaporated or was absorbed.
 
Come on, folks. Let's not make a science project out of this. If you are really measuring all of your portions down to a gnat's eyelash, where this kind of thing really makes a difference, you are making things too difficult for yourselves.
 
"Chicken: Broilers or Fryers, Breast, raw, meat only, without skin 3 oz 94 calories
Chicken: Broilers or Fryers, Breast, roasted, meat only, without skin 3 oz 142 calories"

That's a 48 calories difference. If you ate a 3oz chicken breast every night for a week that would be 336 calories. If you were eating 5oz of chicken breast instead of 3 that would be 560 calories difference, so no, it's not a huge difference, but...
If you are aren't measuring a few foods that you eat consistently correctly, yes, they will add up.

Try to pick reference data as close as possible to what you are eating. If it doesn't say cooked or raw, don't use it.
 
Harold - considering the my daily intake averages about 1260 calories (zig zagging average), I HAVE to measure down to a gnat's eyelash. :)

I'm sure many would get discouraged or frustrated by it, but it works with my personality. I don't like doing things half-@ssed. I'm sure many would think I'm too meticulous.

I figured raw would be my best bet on getting the right per oz calorie and it seems to be the case. I was just wanting to bounce the question off others and see what opinions there were.

Thanks for the input guys - much appreciated!
 
The best measurements are averages of raw nutritional values afaik (since there are pretty much a ridiculous amount of variants of say... sauteing something.)

So, get raw measurements, weigh raw, you're golden.

I've never head of cooked measurements being more precise anyways, but don't you have an english database of these things? We have a danish language one run by the Danish Technical University (brilliant folk out there, sort of denmarks retarded little brother of MIT) and they declare whether it is raw, percentage of fat in meats etc.

There must be an english language equivalent.
 
clever_plant said:
The best measurements are averages of raw nutritional values afaik (since there are pretty much a ridiculous amount of variants of say... sauteing something.)
Click to expand...
Yes, there are lots of ways to saute something. But, if you saute a skillet of food, you are going to have to count up the calories of the raw food going into the skillet and the oil, then figure out what percentage of the whole skillet you are eating in a serving (assuming all the oil was absorbed proportionally to the weight of the food being cooked, which it won't be anyhow). Me, I'm going to weigh a portion of the sauteed food and use the data for sauteed food accordingly. Then, if I'm off in my calorie estimate, I'm going to weigh myself on a regular basis and see if I need to adjust my calories up or down.
I've never head of cooked measurements being more precise anyways, but don't you have an english database of these things?
Click to expand...
No lack of databases here.
 
Meat - weigh before cooking-most accurate is raw. I sometimes rush and weigh frozen if I should swallow my meal ASAP!

sweet potato should be measured after
Rice - After cooked
oatmeal before cooked
quinoa - after
Thought of sharing other foods ehehe!
 
Harold14370 said:
Yes, there are lots of ways to saute something. But, if you saute a skillet of food, you are going to have to count up the calories of the raw food going into the skillet and the oil, then figure out what percentage of the whole skillet you are eating in a serving (assuming all the oil was absorbed proportionally to the weight of the food being cooked, which it won't be anyhow). Me, I'm going to weigh a portion of the sauteed food and use the data for sauteed food accordingly. Then, if I'm off in my calorie estimate, I'm going to weigh myself on a regular basis and see if I need to adjust my calories up or down.

No lack of databases here.
Click to expand...

Ah :) lol... opposite of me.

Me, I weight everything raw, add it all up, then I have a total calorie count for the cooked dinner, then i figure out how big a percentage of it I eat :)

The thing that I figured could be problematic is if you say.. take chiken, and read "100kcal / 100g", then you cook it evaporating all the water in it, or much of it, and then weigh it, then the energy density will have risen due to the cooking.

but idunno.. both ways would work no? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top