should you measure the weight of meat before or after its cooked when counting calories (and protein)?

>>76267364 (OP)
is it that big a deal?

>>76267369
Meat loses like 20-25% of its weight when cooked, some times more. Like a pack of meat of 300grams weights 170grams after cooked, that is like 40% loss of weight and that is half the calories and also half the protein. So yeah if you ever eaten within a caloric target and hitting your protein goals it matters.

>>76267364 (OP)
Raw. Measuring it cooked is too inconsistent

>>76267364 (OP)
doesn't matter as long as you always weight it in the same state (raw or cooked) and monitor if your scale shows an expected weight loss, in the end that's the indicator that your are around your target calories per day

>Like a pack of meat of 300grams weights 170grams after cooked
That is kind of crazy.

100g Uncooked beef
113 kcal
22 g protein

300g beef = 339 cals, 66g protein

300g cooked beef turns to 170grams beef which still has 339 cals and 66g protein?
85g cooked beef then thas 169cals and 33g protein

>>76267393
Get what you are saying but hitting protein limit and saving money are factors that matters.

https://www.modus-energy.com/raw-vs-cooked/

>Whether broiled, baked, or sautéed, animal meat loses approximately 25% of its mass when cooked. As meat cooks, water is driven off (same applies for baked potato!). Only water is lost; the caloric and macronutrient values do not change despite the change in scale weight.

https://fitia.app/en/learn/post/raw-vs-cooked-nutritional-comparison/

When you cook food, it either loses or absorbs water, changing its weight but not its nutrient content.

Proteins (Chicken, Fish, Meat):
Cooking reduces weight because water evaporates.
Example: Cooking 3.5 oz (100 g) of chicken breast, which contains 23 g of protein, will leave you with 2.6 oz (75 g) after cooking. But the total amount of protein stays the same—only the water is lost.
So, if you compare 3.5 oz raw to 3.5 oz cooked, the cooked portion will appear to have more calories and protein per ounce because it’s more concentrated. In reality, those 3.5 oz cooked originally weighed about 4.7 oz (133 g) when raw. This explains why cooked food can have higher calories and protein per ounce than its raw counterpart.

>>76267421
I always weight everything raw (not just protein, also grains and vegetables), water and even some fat might evaporate; protein? not much so. IMO it offer more consistent data and more consistent data allows you to make better decisions, nutrition and/or economy-wise

>>76267445
What if you have chicken breasts that are of different size and you cook many together and eat it over a few days, how do you know the weight of the chicken breast you are eating that day?

>>76267463
It averages out. I wouldn't worry about it. But if you're autistic you can weigh the gross load after cooking, then weigh each day's portion and take a simple ratio. for example gross load you know is 300g protein from the raw weight, and the scale reads 250g. That day's portion is 56g, so you have 56/250 * 300 = 67g protein.

>>76267364 (OP)
If you buy raw meat at the store, the label will have the raw meat weight and nutrition information, so use those. You weigh the cooked meat after only for portion ratios and then convert those to raw equivalents.

If I buy 1lb [454g] of raw ground beef for 4 meals, it's going to reduce down during cooking to something like 350g cooked total, which is 87.5g cooked beef per meal, this is how I would record each meal:
>0.25lb [113.5g] ground beef

Don't forget to add the oil or whatever additives you use separately. If I use 16g of olive oil to cook all of that beef, I would add this entry for each meal:
>4g olive oil

>>76267475
That you anon! That is very helpful and it helped my soothe my autism a lot. I hope you make it!

>>76267504
Thank you anon!

>>76267504
retarded, are you eating the meat raw? 200g of raw meat is not the same as 200g of cooked. They use the machine that burns the raw food to generate the caloric energy count. If they where to use cooked meat before hand it would have different numbers. Weighing the food after cooking is far easier too, why the fuck are you idiots complicating this more than necessary?

>>76267663
>Weighing the food after cooking is far easier too
But how do you much protein and calories you are getting?

>>76267663
The meat is weighed raw and the nutrition amounts on the label are calculated for raw. If you enter the cooked weights with the raw nutrition information, your calculations for macros and calories are going to be off.

It's not complicated at all. If you buy 1lb of raw beef you will enter 1lb of raw beef with all of the listed nutrients on the label into your calorie counter. The only "complication" is dividing that into meals, and that's something a toddler should be able to do.

>>76267745
Why divide just eat the pound daily twink

>>76267364 (OP)

science based gymcels (ugly nerds) weigh it raw

that jacked guy at the beach that everyone drools over weighs it cooked

How do you little mouthed sissy sluts only eat tiny pieces of chicken? We eat 12oz of chicken a meal you fucking transexuals.

>>76267861
post body with timestamp

>>76267807
What if I buy the 10lb Costco Meat Missile?

>>76267364 (OP)
depends, if you can measure before and now the serving size at the end yes, otherwise no

>>76267364 (OP)
cooking also alters calories and bioavailability.

cf. onions. raw onions have basically no bioavailable sugar. when you carmelize them in a pan (just water + heat), their indigestible (to humans) fibrous cell walls break down and release the sugar inside and they become sweet and caloric.

another example are the nutrients in eggs that change if they are raw vs fried vs boiled.

>>76267663
remember that calorimeters dont take into account the digestibility and bioavailability of nutrients which are altered by cooking, too

you guys haven't mentioned fat content. if i buy 70/30 ground beef, fry it up, and then drain all the oil- it's going to have far fewer calories than the label says because a lot of the fat just went down the drain. same goes for fatty cuts of steak. the easiest way to get an accurate number is to just buy the leanest ground beef and lean steaks and then you can trust the label but that's not always the primary concern.. at least not for normal people.

the essential thing to remember is that these are all estimates and you have to use your own judgement to get accurate numbers.

>>76267745
not counting the calories off the packaging, just generic calorie numbers from apps or google, if i weigh 93/7 cooked beef i'll put in the numbers from the cooked nutrition facts not the raw numbers from the label.

>>76267380
I thought it only loses water and not protein

>>76267380
>anon thinks loss of water means the protein somehow disappears

>>76267380
Maybe it’s best if we don’t post literally everything that comes to mind anon.

>>76269326
>>76269328
But what if the loss of water shows that you where actually getting less total meat and thus less total protein? They do some times add water to meat to bring up the weight, essentially selling water as meat.

>>76269465
Maybe. But we don't always do what is best. All we can do is try.

>>76267364 (OP)
how the fuck did it get whole 7g of protein from what seems to be frying

>>76269931
humans cooking food increased bioavavailability of nutrients and is why we are better than monkeys

>>76267364 (OP)
Always go by raw weight. The calorie trackers you find online should specify they're referring to raw weight as well. It's going to be more accurate and consistent, since it's the meat in its natural state. The difference in weight of cooked meat mainly comes from loss of water, which is going to vary depending on how something is cooked. for instance, completely dehydrated jerky is going to weigh significantly less, but the raw pre-cooked weight would still be accurate. Another hiccup is going to be fatty meats due to how much you bother trimming fat on things like chicken thighs, how much of the fat ends up rendering out if you're cooking 80% ground beef, etc.

There are so many rabbit holes you can go down when it comes to counting calories. It's why I'm not a fan of it as a viable long term strategy. It innately incentivizes people to steer away from proper cooking and toward easier-to-count meals. Things that come in boxes. Simple single-ingredient meals like "just a piece of chicken" and so on. I get why it's encouraged to noobs, and I agree it can be an important tool to people who don't even have a concept of where to begin when it comes to health/fitness/diet/etc, but I think the ultimate goal should be to reach a point where you don't have to really think too hard about weighing out every last gram.

>>76269931
It didn't gain anything, you're comparing two different chicken breasts. The one that is 100g raw is going to be probably 70-80g cooked. The one that's 100g cooked was probably like 130-140g raw

Moisture is released when cooking. Water has no macronutrients, so the macros become more "concentrated" when cooking. Same mass of protein/fat/whatever in a smaller overall weight. Remember that lean muscle is like 80% water.

>>76270517
chatgpt already explained that to me earlier but thanks for the effort anyway vro