I'm getting really confused here. If I measure out a 1/4 cup of rice raw, then after cooking it's expanded out so much, that I'm really only getting probably an 1/8th of a cup of rice.
Same with pasta. I put in 4oz of Spaghetti dry, then after boiling and weighing out, I still have a lot of left over spaghetti noodles.
Beef, I weighed out a 1/4lb, cooked it and it cooked down to an 1/8th of a pound.
I really need to figure this out, so I can get my macros and diet right.
Thanks!
|
-
02-08-2012, 08:49 PM #1
When portioning food, do you weigh food raw or after cooking?
-
02-08-2012, 09:04 PM #2
-
02-08-2012, 10:20 PM #3
So after thinking about logically, I finally figured out the solution, that there is really not any difference.. I just have to make sure to proportion out the meals afterwards to get what I was planning.
So if 4oz of raw chicken yields 36g of protein, then after cooking the chicken now weighs 3oz but it would still have 36g of protein.
Same for pasta. If it doubles in weight, it's not gaining any additional macros from the water. It still has the same macro content as when weighed raw, just double the amount due to water weight. So if I was preparing for two separate meals, I would just divide the total weight of the cooked past in half, to get the same macro portion as I had been planning before.
I really feel like a dunce now after thinking about it.
-
04-18-2012, 09:21 AM #4
- Join Date: Nov 2011
- Location: Colorado, United States
- Age: 33
- Posts: 63
- Rep Power: 0
"So if 4oz of raw chicken yields 36g of protein, then after cooking the chicken now weighs 3oz but it would still have 36g of protein."
Then you must assume the people that measured the calories measured the chicken in raw form. This assumption is not clearly stated on nutrition labels therefore causing confusion with people, me included.
The question still remains. In other words, are calories measured with uncooked chicken (e.g. composed of 1 parts water, 3 parts meat) or are calories measured with cooked chicken (e.g. composed of .5 parts water, 3 parts meat).
I do agree with your statement although there's a fallacy in it. The fallacy is of knowing weather the nutrients are based from raw (heavy) vs. cooked (light). I understand for simplicity sake, the nutrition within the meat stays the same before and after cooking.
I'm specifically talking about the composition of water and meat only.
An example I was thinking of:
-Assuming that the caloric measurements are determined with raw meat.
-Assuming that raw meat weighing 4 oz weighs less after being cooked (maybe losing a total of 1 oz from water, oil, etc).
+Therefore raw (4oz chicken) is more than cooked (3oz chicken).
-4 oz raw chicken = ~36g protein.
-1 oz raw chicken = ~9g protein.
From here we can easily "convert" from raw meat to cooked meat weight to determine caloric value. But all measurements were measured with water weight in the first place (assumption listed). Basing all of this math and reasoning on an assumption only.
This would all be different if it was initially measure with not raw meat but cooked meat.
The composition of nutrients and calories may be the same with a piece of meat uncooked vs cooked. But who's to say what weight they based those measurements from.
-
-
04-18-2012, 09:30 AM #5
I prefer to weigh it raw because the numbers change so much with various cooking methods. I weigh cooked pretty often though because I cook a lot of food in bulk at the beginning of every week. Raw will be most accurate but a few calories one way or the other isn't going to throw off your day too much.
Edit: I'm pretty sure they base the calories off raw numbers. I know my calorie counter has raw chicken breast listed in it.
-
04-18-2012, 09:31 AM #6
-
04-18-2012, 09:41 AM #7
- Join Date: Mar 2009
- Location: Scottsboro, Alabama, United States
- Age: 43
- Posts: 6,138
- Rep Power: 11263
-
04-18-2012, 09:48 AM #8
-
-
07-14-2013, 03:15 PM #9
-
07-14-2013, 03:33 PM #10
-
07-14-2013, 06:52 PM #11
Bookmarks