When to measure food

[ShoppGirl 5,073]

When you guys log your food into the tracking apps when do you weigh or measure food. For instance meat weighs the most out of freezer and the least after it’s cooked. I assume I’m not supposed to input the frozen weight but do I use the thawed weight or the cooked weight. Also with like rice, do I enter the dry measurement or the cooked one which is twice as much. Further for like veggies would I measure in cups before or after it’s cooked?? Just trying to be the most accurate I can but these seem to make pretty big differences.

[SpartanMaker 1,465]

Whatever app you're using to log should specify if it's raw or cooked weight.

[Arabesque 7,617]

Generally most things are raw like meat, vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds, oats, barley, etc. If I ate rice or Pasta I’d do it cooked like Soup. But yes as @SpartanMaker said apps tend to specific raw or cooked when you log your food.

[summerseeker 2,415]

Using these logs is a struggle in the beginning especially if its home cooked food. Bought food already comes with its own nutrition label so its standard. The log you use will get used to the foods you regularly eat and show them first. The one I use stores recipes too. It does get easy.

[ShoppGirl 5,073]

Thanks everyone. I use Baritastic and when you type in like salmon or skinless chicken breast it doesn’t specify raw or cooked: I will see if there is another option further down that does specify when I enter things though. I just wanted to try to figure it out, especially with the meat because I don’t want to be getting less Protein than I think I am. I have weighed the meats before and after cooking thinking maybe it wasn’t that much of a difference so it didn’t matter much, but it decreases quite a bit

Edited September 19, 2024 by ShoppGirl

[SpartanMaker 1,465]

This might be beneficial:

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/

This is the official USDA nutritional data for foods. Compare the Baritastic numbers to the USDA numbers. This should help you to know if it's raw or cooked.

[NickelChip 1,358]

Just to add, meat loses about 25% weight when cooked. So 4oz of raw chicken will weigh about 3oz after cooking.

[GreenTealael 25,622]

Not very scientific but I usually over estimate then use the highest calorie version when logging. It was easier to do this by dry volume vs weight.

https://www.cacfp.org/2023/11/14/fundamentals-of-measuring-weight-and-volume/#:~:text=Knowing the difference between weight,or mass of an item.

For accuracy you could use containers , tare the scale and do that for each item. Also I always weighed the food cooked (or raw for things eaten raw like veg and fruit).

[SpartanMaker 1,465]

30 minutes ago, GreenTealael said:

Not very scientific but I usually over estimate then use the highest calorie version when logging. It was easier to do this by dry volume vs weight.

This is good advice. Not everyone knows this, but calorie estimates in food, even prepackaged ones are not super accurate for a couple of reasons:

1. The USDA allows manufactured foods a 10% variance. In other words, if a packaged food states the calorie content is 500 kcal, it can be anywhere between 450 and 550 and still be within the allowed variance.
2. The USDA simply does not have the staff to check that every pre-packaged food even meets that 10% standard, so manufacturers are given wide latitude here. They can be a lot further off and it's extremely unlikely anyone would know. It's even less likely anything would be done about it.
3. Setting aside processed foods for now (those with nutrition labels), it's not all roses for unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Even these calorie counts can be way off due to the simplistic way we estimate calories. I'm simplifying a bit here, but to get calorie counts, we traditionally use something called a bomb calorimeter. Basically we burn the food in an enclosed space and measure how much heat is given off. Obviously, this is not how our bodies process food, so saying a particular amount of a food has "200 calories" as measured by a bomb calorimeter does not equal how many calories our bodies actually get from that food.

Obviously I'm being a little US specific here, but I'd guess most of the above applies to other countries as well.

In short, don't get in the habit of thinking calorie counts are as accurate as they might seem. They just aren't. Use the calories as a tool if you need to, but don't get overly dependent on them.

[ShoppGirl 5,073]

8 hours ago, SpartanMaker said:

This is good advice. Not everyone knows this, but calorie estimates in food, even prepackaged ones are not super accurate for a couple of reasons:

1. The USDA allows manufactured foods a 10% variance. In other words, if a packaged food states the calorie content is 500 kcal, it can be anywhere between 450 and 550 and still be within the allowed variance.
2. The USDA simply does not have the staff to check that every pre-packaged food even meets that 10% standard, so manufacturers are given wide latitude here. They can be a lot further off and it's extremely unlikely anyone would know. It's even less likely anything would be done about it.
3. Setting aside processed foods for now (those with nutrition labels), it's not all roses for unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Even these calorie counts can be way off due to the simplistic way we estimate calories. I'm simplifying a bit here, but to get calorie counts, we traditionally use something called a bomb calorimeter. Basically we burn the food in an enclosed space and measure how much heat is given off. Obviously, this is not how our bodies process food, so saying a particular amount of a food has "200 calories" as measured by a bomb calorimeter does not equal how many calories our bodies actually get from that food.

Obviously I'm being a little US specific here, but I'd guess most of the above applies to other countries as well.

In short, don't get in the habit of thinking calorie counts are as accurate as they might seem. They just aren't. Use the calories as a tool if you need to, but don't get overly dependent on them.

Really it’s the carbs and Protein that I am mostly interested in but I get it. They aren’t necessarily accurate. I have to get at least 90g a day and that’s actually a great deal harder than I remember without shakes. They didn’t operate on my stomach so it’s not an issue of capacity. It’s that I already eat every three hours. I can’t imagine eating any more often than that.

[ShoppGirl 5,073]

9 hours ago, NickelChip said:

Just to add, meat loses about 25% weight when cooked. So 4oz of raw chicken will weigh about 3oz after cooking.

Right. That’s where my biggest dilemma is. I don’t know when I enter it into Baritastic if I should use 3oz for the cooked chicken breast or 4oz for the raw chicken breast The calorie difference isn’t my concern. I would just enter the 4oz and be done but for Protein that’s like 8-9g difference. (Really not sure why 1-2 oz is 9g difference but 3-4 ounces is 8g but that’s a whole other issue).

[NickelChip 1,358]

4 hours ago, ShoppGirl said:

Right. That’s where my biggest dilemma is. I don’t know when I enter it into Baritastic if I should use 3oz for the cooked chicken breast or 4oz for the raw chicken breast The calorie difference isn’t my concern. I would just enter the 4oz and be done but for Protein that’s like 8-9g difference. (Really not sure why 1-2 oz is 9g difference but 3-4 ounces is 8g but that’s a whole other issue).

Choose the one that comes up around 21g Protein. I know that if you weigh out a 3oz serving (weight after cooking), you're getting roughly 21g protein, whether it's chicken breast, steak, or salmon.