Does anyone know the "conversion" to figure out how many "raw" oz of meat/chicken you are getting once it's been cooked?
|
-
04-01-2007, 02:30 PM #1
-
04-01-2007, 02:36 PM #2
- Join Date: Oct 2005
- Location: Colorado, United States
- Posts: 2,157
- Rep Power: 581
I don't think that there is really a standard conversion. There are a lot of factors like cooking methods, etc. to account for.
I suggest weighing out the food raw and counting it that way, but if you'd prefer to do it cooked... do that instead. It should be one or the other though.
Try this website: It's a fantastic tool and will list the calories and macros for foods cooked an uncooked.
www.nutritiondata.com
To answer your question though, 100g of raw chicken (boneless and skinless) is about 110 calories, and 100g of roasted boneless skinless chicken is 165 calories.
Check out that site though! My nutritionist showed it to me, and it's so helpful... I just love it!Last edited by nacersusaf; 04-01-2007 at 02:39 PM.
Owner, JS Fitness Solutions
www.jsfitnesssolutionsllc.com
Magnum Nutraceuticals Athlete
hardmagnum.com
-
04-01-2007, 02:45 PM #3
-
04-02-2007, 05:11 AM #4
Thanks girls! I usually grill my meat so I know it weighs less after it's been cooked. You are right though. I should just cut it all into equal sizes before I cook it... then I won't have to worry about it.
Thanks for the nutrition site!.
.
~*~ If you stumble just make it part of the dance ~*~
..........
Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=2247371&page=45
-
-
05-05-2010, 11:26 AM #5
-
05-08-2010, 09:35 AM #6
-
05-09-2010, 05:26 AM #7
-
08-24-2011, 09:47 AM #8
-
-
08-24-2011, 12:38 PM #9
-
08-24-2011, 09:04 PM #10
I think it just weighs less due to the moisture being drawn out in the cooking process. So 100 g of raw might weigh 80 or 90g cooked (totally guessing on that, but you get the idea). Anyway, it might take 120g of raw chicken to produce 100g of roasted chicken ....
Just guessing...
eta: Oh, but now I see the discrepancy in calories is pretty extreme ... maybe the cooked includes some additional oil or butter??
-
08-25-2011, 06:55 AM #11
-
08-25-2011, 12:34 PM #12
-
-
08-25-2011, 01:58 PM #13
-
01-28-2012, 07:17 PM #14
-
01-30-2012, 01:52 PM #15
-
04-12-2012, 02:21 PM #16
i had the same question, did a search on google, and found this thread.
so i just weight it raw thenGAME 6 + 7 = BOTH IN MIAMI.
Heat win Game 6 (they haven't lost a back to back in 6 months)
SO FAR: each team has won 3, lost 3...
SO NOW IT COMES DOWN TO GAME 7 (IN MIAMI). LOL if you think SAS would win a GAME 7 in MIAMI.
MIAMI = 2013 World NBA Champions!
-
-
04-12-2012, 04:03 PM #17
And lot happens on the molecular level when you cook food. Easiest way to see this happen is when you bake something or cook eggs. The higher calorie content in cooked food has partly to do with that...when some foods are cooked it is easier for your body to extract all the nutrients and such, thus the higher calories.
Disclaimer: Or at least that's how it's been explained to meThere's holes up in the sky.
The devil punched down to the monkeys.
-
04-12-2012, 10:27 PM #18
it doesn't really matter
what matters is that if you weigh your meat raw, then take calorie value for raw meat, and if you weigh it after cooking then take your values for cooked meat. And thats it. Protein content does not change during cooking. The water draws off and thats it.
It is the same with rice, pasta etc
-
04-22-2012, 08:15 PM #19
I typically weigh my meat/pasta raw, but, sometimes, when cooking certain dishes for a group (or for several days' worth of food), that's nearly impossible.
Everyone cooks meat/pasta differently, so, IMO, your best bet is to create your own conversion chart. Next time you make chicken, weigh it raw, then weigh it cooked. Do the same for ground beef, steak, etc., etc. I have one that I created and I keep it right on the fridge; it helps enormously!
-
04-23-2012, 05:23 PM #20
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Illinois, United States
- Age: 40
- Posts: 1,233
- Rep Power: 2318
lots of things are more calorie dense when you cook them via dry heat....only because water evaporates during cooking. Try weighing bread before and after toasting it. Its a lot lighter once its toasted, but still has the same total calories, just more calories per gram. Same thing happens when you bake a potato, roast vegetables, dry fruit, etc. I don't know why this issue only comes up for meat. Its best just to weight it raw because you really don't know how much water evaporates during cooking.
The opposite happens for things that absorb water during cooking, like oats, pasta, rice. The dry weight is always way more calorie dense than when cooked since a lot of water is absorbed during preparation. (i.e. 100g of oats is going to weigh a lot more than 100g after its prepared with water) Thats why the nutrition label always gives the values for the dry weight of the product, and everyone normally measures their oats BEFORE they're cooked. Why is this any different for meat?
-
-
04-23-2012, 05:24 PM #21
-
07-20-2012, 08:53 AM #22
-
07-20-2012, 09:03 AM #23
-
07-20-2012, 11:58 AM #24
-
-
06-03-2013, 05:06 AM #25
-
07-10-2013, 12:20 PM #26
Bookmarks