Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

How do you guys get it!

Troyboi

Troyboi

Member
I just don't get it, I weigh my meat at 200g raw then it comes to 110g cooked so is that the same as raw? Also. Cook rice and Iknow water weighs on it and some poeple say it adds up to 300g cooked to get your 100g raw but I did a test you see :) I cooked 100g raw and just took it out and weighed it, it was 245g cooked so guys help me out ? What am I missing ?

177pounds 5'7 2 months of training doing a 2 body part split

Mon chest/tri/shoulders
Trus back/bi
Weds legs/abbs
Thurs rest
Repeat
 
Troyboi said:
I just don't get it, I weigh my meat at 200g raw then it comes to 110g cooked so is that the same as raw? Also. Cook rice and Iknow water weighs on it and some poeple say it adds up to 300g cooked to get your 100g raw but I did a test you see :) I cooked 100g raw and just took it out and weighed it, it was 245g cooked so guys help me out ? What am I missing ?

177pounds 5'7 2 months of training doing a 2 body part split

Mon chest/tri/shoulders
Trus back/bi
Weds legs/abbs
Thurs rest
Repeat
Click to expand...

Grains and stuff should be measured dry/uncooked: oats, pasta, rice, quinoa, cous-cous, lentils, etc. Everything else should be measured cooked.
 
Epolis13 said:
Grains and stuff should be measured dry/uncooked: oats, pasta, rice, quinoa, cous-cous, lentils, etc. Everything else should be measured cooked.
Click to expand...
Hi, thanks for the reply, I still don't get ya tho I mean I cook 3 days a head so I cook 600g of meat a batch and I can only get 110g of meat per meal I also weigh 4 cups of rice for the 3 days and I put 200g of rice on each meal for the 3 days ?
 
Well meat cooked vs uncooked won't change the nutritional value. I was told uncooked but honestly I'm only off 1-2oz when I weigh my meat after its cooked so its not that big of a deal.

Wait you cooked something and it came out to more than what it weighed uncooked... That's impossible since when you cook meat it loses water.....
 
EatMoar said:
Well meat cooked vs uncooked won't change the nutritional value. I was told uncooked but honestly I'm only off 1-2oz when I weigh my meat after its cooked so its not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, yh I get what ya saying in a way but its stupid because iv seen huge guys ripped guys and great people that know there stuff but no1 can give me a real answer I mean do we honestly just don't know lol?
 
Epolis13 said:
Grains and stuff should be measured dry/uncooked: oats, pasta, rice, quinoa, cous-cous, lentils, etc. Everything else should be measured cooked.
Click to expand...

most meat recommendations is based on raw value
 
i measure it cooked for simplicity, but trial and error is your ultimate option for nutrition
 
Why are you worried about the cooked weight? Nutrition info for meat is based on raw weight. Weigh it, cook it, eat it.

Also, cooked weight of rice will vary based on how much water is absorbed. It's another thing that's not worth stressing over.
 
Rhone said:
Why are you worried about the cooked weight? Nutrition info for meat is based on raw weight. Weigh it, cook it, eat it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, it's hard to know because you have you saying one thing then others saying another you know what I mean? I'm taking around 4oz cooked right now
 
I'm 34 years old and I have never seen a package of raw meat that provided nutrition info based on cooked weight. That would be ridiculous because the weight of the meat after cooking will vary based on how much water you boil off, and the nutrient content could also change if you drain the fat.
 
Rhone said:
I'm 34 years old and I have never seen a package of raw meat that provided nutrition info based on cooked weight. That would be ridiculous because the weight of the meat after cooking will vary based on how much water you boil off, and the nutrient content could also change if you drain the fat.
Click to expand...

Hmm good point, so lets say I weigh it at 200g and I. Eating 110g that's the same cals and protein as 200g raw right?
 
my ground round usually loses .5-.75 oz, meaning 4oz cooked is about 4.75 raw. I measure rice dry by the cup....
 
EatMoar said:
Well meat cooked vs uncooked won't change the nutritional value. I was told uncooked but honestly I'm only off 1-2oz when I weigh my meat after its cooked so its not that big of a deal.Wait you cooked something and it came out to more than what it weighed uncooked... That's impossible since when you cook meat it loses water.....
Click to expand...
This was the point I was trying to make, but I didn't word it well, so I apologize. The nutritional content doesn't change with the cooking of the food.
 
Most meal plans that you see that are put together by trainers have their clients measure their meats after they're cooked, btw. So, there's a bit of a difference here, I think, based on people's experiences. Every single meal plan I was given when I was competing instructed me to measure my meats cooked and my grains uncooked.
 
Thanks for the reply guys, ok so I know what your saying with that but I weigh the 200g and convert it in oz raw and that's 7oz now when it's cooked it goes to 4.5oz so maybe ima try and cook 250g raw that leads me up to just over 5oz
 
Seems like you are making this way harder than it needs to be. Just weigh it after you cook it, keep it consistent, even if your numbers for calories are wrong you are still getting in the same amount day in and day out
 
xigotmailx said:
Seems like you are making this way harder than it needs to be. Just weigh it after you cook it, keep it consistent, even if your numbers for calories are wrong you are still getting in the same amount day in and day out
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, your just made it harder lol I can't weigh it after I cook it because how say I need 250g per meal then il have left overs. I think ima just weigh it at 200g raw
 
I have no idea what you are saying. But when you cook something you lose predominatly water, not proteins, fats or carbohydrates. Cooking alters the proteins (denatures) but if you had a 300g breast then after cooking it weighs 250g, the protein content will still be the same (roughly).

The main thing is too keep your measuring consistant, if you weigh it uncooked then weigh that same thing everytime uncooked, otherwise you'll just confuse yourself.
 
Jiigzz said:
The main thing is too keep your measuring consistant, if you weigh it uncooked then weigh that same thing everytime uncooked, otherwise you'll just confuse yourself.
Click to expand...

That is what I was trying to say. I always measure my meat after cooking, never bothered with raw
 
WRT to Atwater: One key area where the system is inaccurate, Wrangham reported, is in estimating the calories for cooked food. Cooked items often are listed as having more calories than raw items, yet the process of cooking meat gelatinizes the collagen protein in meat, making it easier to chew and digest—so it takes fewer calories to eat. Heat also denatures the proteins in vegetables such as sweet potatoes, said Harvard University evolutionary biologist Rachel Carmody, a postdoc who studies the energetics of digestion and organizer of the session.

Its a big debate, the main point is to not get too caught up in semantics. IF you find you are not meeting your calorie goals (by weigh of body fat or scale measurements), then simply adjust by eating more or less.

One thing I will say is that, and chances are this is true, that you obtained your TDEE from a computer calculation that wouldn't be a proper indication of your true TDEE (did the calculation take into effect TEF? NEAT? etc.) and therefore the number would be incorrect anyway.

In short, if you use a program like MyFitnessPal or whatever to track your calories, then make sure you select either the raw or cooked variations as they will take into account the loss of water; if you select 200g raw on MFP when it is actually supposed to be 200g cooked then the numbers will be different.
 
Jiigzz said:
WRT to Atwater: One key area where the system is inaccurate, Wrangham reported, is in estimating the calories for cooked food. Cooked items often are listed as having more calories than raw items, yet the process of cooking meat gelatinizes the collagen protein in meat, making it easier to chew and digest--so it takes fewer calories to eat. Heat also denatures the proteins in vegetables such as sweet potatoes, said Harvard University evolutionary biologist Rachel Carmody, a postdoc who studies the energetics of digestion and organizer of the session.

Its a big debate, the main point is to not get too caught up in semantics. IF you find you are not meeting your calorie goals (by weigh of body fat or scale measurements), then simply adjust by eating more or less.

One thing I will say is that, and chances are this is true, that you obtained your TDEE from a computer calculation that wouldn't be a proper indication of your true TDEE (did the calculation take into effect TEF? NEAT? etc.) and therefore the number would be incorrect anyway.

In short, if you use a program like MyFitnessPal or whatever to track your calories, then make sure you select either the raw or cooked variations as they will take into account the loss of water; if you select 200g raw on MFP when it is actually supposed to be 200g cooked then the numbers will be different.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, now it's making sence :) thanks y'all
 
When it comes to things like rice, you can do either—you can use the cooked numbers, or the raw numbers. Just don't confuse them with each other.
For instance, 42 grams of UNcooked rice has about 0g fat, 2g pro, 34g carbs.
100 grams of COOKED rice has the same macros.


So, just go with whichever one is appropriate. If you weigh out the raw stuff, then go with the raw numbers. If you just cook a whole bunch of rice and once and then eat it out of the refrigerator—let's be serious, who has the time to cook rice every single time you want to eat it—or if you get rice from take-out, then use the cooked numbers.

--


When it comes to meat, now, that's a whole different animal.
If you are talking GROUND meat, then the "raw" numbers are going to be WAY off. Like "not even funny" level of off, the fat could be as much as 300% of the actual value.
I did a post on that, with ground beef. (the url ends with nutrition-health/228399-cooked-ground-beef.html)
You should just read the post, but the upshot is that 20/80 ground beef has 23 grams of fat per 4 oz raw, but that drops all the way down to 8 grams of fat when you cook it. Unless you don't drain it. But I'm sure you drain it.

Seems like you are making this way harder than it needs to be. Just ... keep it consistent, even if your numbers for calories are wrong you are still getting in the same amount day in and day out
Click to expand...

Whoa, no. Unless he literally eats exactly the same foods day in and day out.

If he eats a dish with 20/80 ground beef (which loses 2/3 of its fat when cooked) on Monday, and then a dish with chicken breast (which really doesn't lose any fat) on Tuesday, he is going to drastically overestimate his calories for Monday.
 
I think we are just overthinking this. Just get a list of foods you eat and how many grams per ounce (what I do) everything is weighed cooked as far as meats go. And rice is dry measure (not weight but using cups.

I literally just have a list of foods I eat and how many grams (of carbs,protein, or fats) in each one per ounce or cup. Measure and eat.,. Simple as that.
 
eluruguayo said:
Whoa, no. Unless he literally eats exactly the same foods day in and day out.
Click to expand...

LOL, I eat the same exact foods every day for weeks/months on end. I forget that some people...most people would go insane doing that. Seriously, 8oz beef, 4oz pasta, 1/2 cup sauce :P 2 times per day, upping to 3 now that i'm gonna bulk. And I know for sure that I have the wrong stats for the beef, it's 93/7 and says 8oz is 320 cals...lol but since I eat the same thing every day, although it's off, the amount of cals i'm getting even if 200+ more, is still consistent to the exact number, even if the number I think it is, is wrong
 
xigotmailx said:
LOL, I eat the same exact foods every day for weeks/months on end. I forget that some people...most people would go insane doing that.
Click to expand...

I bet most of us, on here, at least, are closer to you than you think. After all, we like the foods that we like—and inertia is a powerful force. It's annoying to calculate the macros for "something new" when you have all the old standbys ready to go.

But the point remains, if you ever switch foods you are going to need to reconcile the numbers with each other.

And I know for sure that I have the wrong stats for the beef, it's 93/7 and says 8oz is 320 cals...lol
Click to expand...

If that's 8oz RAW, then that sounds just about exactly right. 8oz of raw 93/7 should have about 16g fat, 44g pro... so that's 16*9 + 44*4 = exactly 320 calories.

On the other hand, if that's 8oz AFTER COOKING, then yeah, that's an underestimate. It won't be off by 200 calories, but it will be off.
 
On myfitnesspal it shows the same for cooked and uncooked. As for my meals, beef/pasta/sauce x however many times I need to eat, now is 3
 
Agree with everyone that says you're over thinking this man.

1. Use myfitnesspal to track what you eat.
2. Eat more to get bigger or eat less to get smaller.

Pretty simple concept, but it can be made extremely difficult when you think to much about it.
 
Troyboi said:
That's true.

the reason I don't weigh in at cooked with meat because the ****er cost to much! I'm on a collage budget :(
Click to expand...


What are your goals?

Eggs, peanut butter, olive oil, canned tuna, canned meats, milk, rice, flank steak, hamburger, are all pretty budget friendly foods that can pack on some size for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top