Why is there such a massive disprepency between raw and cooked calories from the same food?
Trying to track my calorie intake but when I take the exact same food and enter its raw vs cooked values it's drastically different, basically double!
I measured out 400 grams of raw 85% lean ground beef, after I cooked it the scale said it was now 200 grams.
Beef, ground, 85% Lean Meat 15% Raw states 400 grams is 860 calories, but Beef, Ground, 85% Lean Meat 15% Fat, Patty, Cooked, Pan broiled states 200 grams is 464.0 calories, sooo which one is the right one? Did I just eat 464 calories or 860? The numbers aren't even close. The same happens with raw vs cooked pork chops, the raw states nearly double.
So yeah, which one of the two am I supposed to be going for? It seems as if it will make a very drastic difference in what I try to do for my diet.
Comments
Hi @Gat , it really depends on the specific food, how different it is going to be. The process of cooking can definitely change the makeup of a food somewhat. Mostly, water weight loss from cooking is going to cause the biggest change when looking at differences between cooked and Raw values. Choose the Cooked option if you wish to weigh your food's portion size after you have cooked it. Choose the raw option if you wish to weight your portion size before you have cooked it. Choosing the raw option can be convenient if you are creating a mixed dish.
There are some great conversations about this on the forum already:
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/comment/1722#Comment_1722 https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/comment/2928#Comment_2928
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/1590/questions-about-cooked-and-uncooked-foods
Hilary
cronometer.com
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer
Thanks for the detailed response @Hilary, so prompt and quick to! I actually already found those threads doing some quick google-fu prior but my main issue still doesn’t quite make sense to me. You say that the water loss can account for the weight difference which totally makes sense when it comes to cooking hamburger which always seems to lose a ton of water weight, however it’s not like water has many calories in it haha. My main hangup I still can’t wrap my head around is how the exact same food reports significantly less calories when I chose the cooked option at the cooked weight vs the same hunk of meat at the raw option at the precooked weight, after all I would imagine it’s not expected for one to eat raw beef even during the most hurried of meal times. I apologize if this is a simple concept I’m missing here, but I’ve only recently gone from eating everything in sight to watching my calorie intake meticulously after some health scares and I want to insure I’m doing everything the proper way. At the end of the day I’m assuming perhaps it will always be the best option to simply forget the raw measurement and always seek out the database entries with cooked in the names?
Hi Gat,
This discrepancy can be as a result of the fats cooking off of the meat. Cooked weights will also always be a bit variable due to different cooking times, methods, and temperatures.
Perhaps @Karen_Cronometer or @Susan_RD_101 has a better answer than me for this one!
Hilary
cronometer.com
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer
There is not only water loss, there is also a lot of fat too, and some protein. When you cook the meat, the fat melts and drain away.
Yes, forget of the raw measurement and weight the food you actually eat.
I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.
You guys are really smart, thanks for explaining it so perfectly to me, I totally understand now.