Meat Portions

[sking1001]

So I know that the nutritional info for meat is based upon the weight of the meat when it is raw. Therefore in this example, am I doing it right?

The reasoning here is that I'm cooking an entire package, so what I really need to know is what the macros will be for a portion after being cooked. Obvious reason is that there will be leftovers, and I don't want to divide up portions to store and keep track of them on the grill, etc. Everything already thinks I'm crazy enough.

So for example I weigh all the raw chicken in the package before cooking:
21.9 ounces

After I cook the whole package, I weigh all the meet together and get:
17.65 ounces

So now I have a multiplier for any cooked meat that I weigh:
21.9/17.65 = 1.24

So if I grab a piece to eat that weights 5.5 ounces, I log the nutritional info for:
5.5 * 1.24 = 6.82 ounces

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

This is exactly how I do it.

[modenacart]

I would think that multiplier would only be good with chicken.

I would get a few data points just to check.

[gtl]

Generally speaking, I think cooked measure is always 75% of raw. It fluctuates based on moisture content, fat content, cooking method, etc.

[WildPegasus]

So I know that the nutritional info for meat is based upon the weight of the meat when it is raw. Therefore in this example, am I doing it right?

The reasoning here is that I'm cooking an entire package, so what I really need to know is what the macros will be for a portion after being cooked. Obvious reason is that there will be leftovers, and I don't want to divide up portions to store and keep track of them on the grill, etc. Everything already thinks I'm crazy enough.

So for example I weigh all the raw chicken in the package before cooking:
21.9 ounces

Wouldn't the meat already be weighed and marked in the package? It would also be tared for the weight of the package itself and done on scales more likely to be accurate than yours.

[Corrie]

I'm probably missing something here but isn't the weight lost during cooking going to be stuff like fat that has nutrients in it? If so wouldn't 5 oz of cooked meat actually have less calories than the 5 oz of raw? I guess I don't get the multiplyer, it seems like it would overestimate things. I would think you'd have to go the other way, not multiply.

[Les Hahn]

Jordan, did you come up with the same number as Steve?

I only ask because I looked online and saw that 4oz of boneless skinless chicken breast cooks down to 3oz. So I was just using that ratio for my meals.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

I would think that multiplier would only be good with chicken.

I would get a few data points just to check.

Correct, it changes from meat type to meat type and how you cook them.

Wouldn't the meat already be weighed and marked in the package? It would also be tared for the weight of the package itself and done on scales more likely to be accurate than yours.

This is the RAW weight, for which most nutritional data is given and most nutritional labels are for a standardized portion size (i.e. 4oz). Sometimes this includes some broth or trimmings you might remove so it might be a good idea to weigh it again since it takes about 10s. When you cook it, you are no longer using the raw weight to measure, but the cooked weight.

I'm probably missing something here but isn't the weight lost during cooking going to be stuff like fat that has nutrients in it? If so wouldn't 5 oz of cooked meat actually have less calories than the 5 oz of raw? I guess I don't get the multiplyer, it seems like it would overestimate things. I would think you'd have to go the other way, not multiply.

No. Fat content on most foods (save for bacon) doesn't change significantly during cooking. Proteins crosslink and water is removed. Sometimes proteins lose their nitrogen too, but this usually is not a big deal too.

Jordan, did you come up with the same number as Steve?

I only ask because I looked online and saw that 4oz of boneless skinless chicken breast cooks down to 3oz. So I was just using that ratio for my meals.

I don't record my multiplier and save it week to week. I just cook a crap load of chicken on Sundays and weigh it pre and post cooking to get my number. Same thing for steak, beef, pork tenderloin, etc.

[sking1001]

I would think that multiplier would only be good with chicken.

I would get a few data points just to check.

No need for data points when I'm measuring the actual weight of the raw and cooked meat, whether it be chicken, beef, or horse.

Generally speaking, I think cooked measure is always 75% of raw. It fluctuates based on moisture content, fat content, cooking method, etc.

Again, I create my own ratio every time that is based upon what I actually measured with my scale both times.

Wouldn't the meat already be weighed and marked in the package? It would also be tared for the weight of the package itself and done on scales more likely to be accurate than yours.

The weight on the package never matches my scale, and I don't have the factory scales to weigh my cooked meat.

I'm probably missing something here but isn't the weight lost during cooking going to be stuff like fat that has nutrients in it? If so wouldn't 5 oz of cooked meat actually have less calories than the 5 oz of raw?

I have actually wondered this myself.

[sking1001]

Thanks so much, Jordan!