How do you count your meat calorie

[abdees]

How do you count your calorie in meat I'm having a hard time with meat!!

And is 3 oz of raw meat has the same nutritional value then 3 oz of cooked meat?

[CharH06]

it has the same nutrition value but it will look smaller due to water loss.

[Christiffer]

3 oz of cooked meat is more like 4-4.5 oz of raw meat. Normally when I make my chicken breasts they will lose an ounce per 4oz sometimes more if I cook it too long.

[Sami76]

When I did a google search before, it kept coming up that 4 oz of raw meat = 3 oz cooked.

[tonytoo]

when I cook top round, I find I lose almost exactly half the weight of it in water weight. a 10oz piece will become a 5 oz peice of meat.

[Dujin77]

Use sites such as nutritiondata.com to find calories and macros for meats and other unlabeled foods.

[WonderPug]

Cooking will change the weight of the meat and some percentage of the fat will likely be liberated during the cooking process. The amount of this delta depends on the cooking method and the cut of meat.

Thus, the more accurate method to determine macronutrient content is to use pre-cooked data.

[snrygo]

Use sites such as nutritiondata.com to find calories and macros for meats and other unlabeled foods.

i used to use nutritiondata until i found this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/

[bennettj]

How do you count your calorie in meat I'm having a hard time with meat!!

And is 3 oz of raw meat has the same nutritional value then 3 oz of cooked meat?

No. However, the amount by which a piece of cooked meat deviates from its raw macros depends largely on the kind of meat.

Ground beef/fatty meat cooked in very small pieces will likely produce a good deal of fat to be drained. The macronutrient profile of ground beef changes fairly substantially when the fat is drained off after cooking.

However, a large whole piece of meat and/or a lean cut of meat, such as a pork tenderloin or a chicken breast, will not change by an amount significant enough that it should cause you to count it differently. Even a hamburger, composed of ground beef, will not change a whole lot in the cooking process because the majority of the fat remains contained inside the patty (hence, hamburgers are often "juicy").

If the label on the package offers separate nutrition facts for raw and cooked, however (which many do), then you should count the "cooked" macros, rather than the "raw" macros.

[WonderPug]

^ Great post. Reps on spread.

[abdees]

No. However, the amount by which a piece of cooked meat deviates from its raw macros depends largely on the kind of meat.

Ground beef/fatty meat cooked in very small pieces will likely produce a good deal of fat to be drained. The macronutrient profile of ground beef changes fairly substantially when the fat is drained off after cooking.

However, a large whole piece of meat and/or a lean cut of meat, such as a pork tenderloin or a chicken breast, will not change by an amount significant enough that it should cause you to count it differently. Even a hamburger, composed of ground beef, will not change a whole lot in the cooking process because the majority of the fat remains contained inside the patty (hence, hamburgers are often "juicy").

If the label on the package offers separate nutrition facts for raw and cooked, however (which many do), then you should count the "cooked" macros, rather than the "raw" macros.

Thx for the great reply ( i won't drain the fat it will be easier)