Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   SparkPeople Cafe
TOPIC:  

Hamburger meat...



 
 
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
      Share
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


ETHELMERZ
SparkPoints: (77,804)
Fitness Minutes: (57,600)
Posts: 3,505
2/9/13 9:01 P

After going off and on various eating plans, I find it doesn't make a big difference to worry about weighing before or after cooking, really. Not enough to affect your weight loss. Think lifetime, are you really going to weigh and measure every little bit of food you cook and eat for the rest of your durned life??? You know in your heart how much is too much by now.........lifetime is a long time, friends.



AM_MORRIS87
Posts: 703
2/9/13 8:10 P

You're not totally right or totally wrong. The weight of meat reduces when you cook it whether you do it on the grill, on the stove, in the microwave etc. That's why you're suppose to weigh your meat once it's cooked to give you accurate weight for calories. HOWEVER, on most packaging, it will state whether the calories are for cooked vs raw. Like on my ground turkey it will say one portion is 4 oz raw = ____ calories. My chicken however, gives me calories for 4 oz cooked chicken.

So you're right in the fact that you should be weighing the meat post cooking, but you're wrong in the instances where the calories given on the packaging are for a raw portion, and you're going by how much it weighs cooked. Make sense?



KKLENNERT809
Posts: 7,244
2/9/13 8:08 P

I'm confused as well............................



TAMMYSUE21
Posts: 324
2/9/13 8:07 P

STOP! You're confusing the blond! emoticon



NIRERIN
Posts: 11,757
2/9/13 7:45 P

cooking does reduce the weight of a four ounce patty, but you can't use raw nutrition info for cooked meat is my point. let's say 4oz of raw meat cooks down to about 3 oz of cooked meat. most that ounce difference is water [no cals] and a little bit of it is going to be fat. if you enter the cooked weight [3oz] with the raw nutrition info, it's going to reduce the number of on paper calories by 25%, but what you're eating isn't actually reduced by that much [again, most of what you are removing is water, not anything with calories].
let me put it this way. i'm going to use 95/5 beef as the example because i can more easily find the info.
if you start out with 4oz raw, that's 152 cals and 24 grams of protein. if you used the baked info for 3oz of 95/5, that's 148 cals and 23 g protein. that's pretty darn close. but if you use the cooked weight [3oz] and input that as if it were raw, you're going to see 114 cals and 18 g of protein. and the last time i checked, nuking something in the microwave is not going to take 6 g of protein out of it with the water. so if you're inputting raw nutrition info with cooked weights then you are underestimating the calories that you are actually eating. because most of what you are taking out of the ground is water. yes, a little fat, but it's mostly water, which is why if you are weighing cooked you need to be using cooked nutrition info.



ZENANDNOW
SparkPoints: (33,359)
Fitness Minutes: (2,138)
Posts: 2,405
2/9/13 7:21 P

@ Nirerin: I tend to disagree, IMO. Cooking the meat before eating it will produce a lower weight portion. The nutrition label lists the calories in 4-oz of raw meat with all the weight and water. After cooking the meat and THEN weighing it, not only are there fewer ounces but fewer fat grams. Seems like simple logic to me. The cooked meat is going to weigh less than the same amount of uncooked meat...and therefore there will be fewer calories and less fat consumed (if you drain the juice/fat and pat the meat). I won't go so far as to "rinse" off the uncooked meat.

Besides, we all know that nutrition information for the same food product and the same portion size is going to be different, depending on which company lists the information. Example: look on SparkPeople, calorie count.com, nutritionpal.com or any other nutrition website, and each of them will have slightly different information on the same food item.

It's all a guessing game at that point...I tend to go with the nutrition label on the food item (if it has one). Otherwise, I will research the food item online and choose one. To me, it is usually arbitrary...nothing is going to be precise here.

But I may be wrong...but I'd like to hear from others on this matter.

Edited by: ZENANDNOW at: 2/9/2013 (19:22)


JOYCECAIN
SparkPoints: (60,477)
Fitness Minutes: (42,525)
Posts: 2,751
2/9/13 7:08 P

I love smart people. I just grab whatever is handy and cook or nuke it.



NIRERIN
Posts: 11,757
2/9/13 7:02 P

erm. if you cook 170 cals of meat in the microwave, just cook, it will still have 170 cals in it even though it is a different weight.
let me use a baked potato as a better example. 100 g of raw potato has just under 100 cals. 100 g of baked potato has about 120 cals. it's just a water weight difference because if you bake that 100 g just under 100 cals of potato it still has 100 cals when you are done with it, it just weighs about 80 g now. to get that 120 cals from 100 g of baked potato, you have to start out with about 120 g of potato. so it's not that cooking actually changes the calories, it just changes the water and the weight of the item.

so you just can't swap cooked for raw weights. in other words, measuring your cooked meat and using that measurement with the raw nutrition info isn't accurately counting your calories. since you are draining, that's going to take out some of the calories, but not in the same way that entering less raw meat would. poke around on the boards to find where dietitian becky gives the info for how to calculate the calories if you are rinsing your ground beef, and actually make sure that you are rinsing it as well as draining it. that's going to get you a better idea of what kind of calories you're actually looking at for what you're eating.

eta: found it!
www.hillbillyhousewife.com/?s=draining+gro
und+beef


Edited by: NIRERIN at: 2/9/2013 (19:05)


PJ2222
SparkPoints: (91,526)
Fitness Minutes: (2,976)
Posts: 7,905
2/9/13 6:50 P

emoticon



ZENANDNOW
SparkPoints: (33,359)
Fitness Minutes: (2,138)
Posts: 2,405
2/9/13 6:40 P

For those of us who eat hamburger meat, I've found that if you take a portion of meat and microwave it for a couple of minutes (or until done)...then weigh it before eating it or putting it into chili or whatever, you will end up with fewer calories per portion.

Example: there are 170 calories in 4-oz of lean ground beef (93/7). If you micro the meat before eating it, you will find that there are fewer ounces, therefore fewer calories per portion. The micro will leech out a lot of the fat and water from the meat.

I like meat, so if I want a burger, I will take a 4-oz portion of raw hamburger (I make them into patties and freeze them), micro it for a couple of minutes, then remove it from micro and drain off all the juice and fat that has leeched out of the meat. Then I weigh the meat again...and I find that I have fewer ounces, therefore, fewer calories and fat that I would otherwise consume if I hadn't done that simple step before cooking.

Does that make sense to anyone?



 
Page: 1 of (1)  
Search  



Share


 
Diet Resources: siberian ginseng | ginseng korean red | ginseng extract