What's the deal with the numbers on the cooked chicken vs raw chicken?

Calorieking.com lists 8 oz of "Breast, broiled or grilled, no skin" as:

375 cal, 8.1g fat (2.2g sat), 70.4g protein

They also list "Breast, raw, no skin, boneless" as:

250 cal, 2.7g fat (0.7g sat), 52.3g protein

NAL.usda.gov lists 227g (8 oz) of "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, raw" as:

250 cal, 2.81g fat, 52.41g protein

They also list "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted" as:

375 cal, 8.1g fat, 70.42g protein

John Stone's food logs show 8 oz of Chicken Breast as:

220 cal, 2g fat (0 sat), 50g protein

chicken loses water when you cook it

so 8oz raw chicken has less chicken and more water than if its good and weighs 8 oz

so since theres more chiicken, theres more fat and protien

ummm, what hobow is trying to say in an odd, round about manner is that:


8 oz of chicken + water would have less chicken in it than 8 oz of chicken [only]

so maybe you have 6 oz of chicken and 2 oz of water vs. 8 oz of chicken.


same thing as saying which has more concrete in it? 100 lbs of concrete or 20 lbs of concrete with 80 lbs of sand mixed in. both are 100 lbs.

You are all wrong...John eats his Chicken in traditional Oriental fashion...

Ever heard of Chicken Tar Tar? Guess we better all start eating raw chicken!

HA HA :drool:

The other possibility is that the various sources assume that certain things are added during the "cooking" process.

For instance, using FitDay, many times an item is shown once as raw and once (or several times) as cooked using some method.

Expanding the item in question shows you how they ASSUME it is cooked. As an example, "Peas, Green, Cooked, from frozen" shows the addition of salt and margarine, which changes the nutrition information drastically from just the peas.

I guess they are there so that you can get information for a "typically prepared" dish. You can use this to ESTIMATE if you eat at a restaurant or someplace where you don't know exactly how the food was prepared.

I find it much more accurate to just do things based on the raw ingredients that I am going to use. In some cases, I have entered data based on how I actually cook the thing in question. I measured weight before cooking, then weight afterward. Given the nutrition information for the raw ingredient, I can calculate that for the cooked food.

My frozen chicken breasts, for example, showed a loss of weight of approximately 30% when I cook them in the oven or on the grill. So, 1 oz of raw chicken breast has about 25 calories, but one ounce cooked has about 35.

It's really not that complex. Meat loses weight when it is cooking. Water evaporates. This is why restaurants that advertise a 1/3 lb hamburger say, "Weight before cooking" so that they can't be sued for delivering a 1/4 lb cooked burger.

So, when you read about 8oz of cooked chicken, it was probably more like 10 - 12 oz of uncooked chicken.

No, it doesn't gain protein and fats - it loses weight.

So take your 8oz chicken, cook it, weigh it after cooking, you'll see it lost a few ounces but is pretty much the same protein/calories/fats.

It loses up to 1/4 weight during cooking.

Jeremy

What's the deal with the numbers on the cooked chicken vs raw chicken?

Calorieking.com lists 8 oz of "Breast, broiled or grilled, no skin" as:

375 cal, 8.1g fat (2.2g sat), 70.4g protein

They also list "Breast, raw, no skin, boneless" as:

250 cal, 2.7g fat (0.7g sat), 52.3g protein

NAL.usda.gov lists 227g (8 oz) of "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, raw" as:

250 cal, 2.81g fat, 52.41g protein

They also list "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted" as:

375 cal, 8.1g fat, 70.42g protein

John Stone's food logs show 8 oz of Chicken Breast as:

220 cal, 2g fat (0 sat), 50g protein

However, if you look at the ratio of protein and fat, you can see that the fat goes up way more than the protein (cooked vs raw).

Protein goes up about 50%, given the same weight of cooked vs raw chicken. Fat goes up 300% to 400%.

How come?

Good point! Not sure about that one.

I guess I just get confused about why people sweat calories and details so much? It's almost like paralysis by overanalysis. The errors come out in the wash. If the calories are off, which they may be, then the adjustment will come out somewhere else. My chicken may be 50 calories more than yours or more or less fat simply due to whether or not the chicken was free range (Exercised) or not, if it was fed grains or not, etc. So why even sweat the details? Pick one and stick with it, as it's not the grams of fat or exact calories that matters, its your consistency and taking action.

Jeremy

It's really not that complex. Meat loses weight when it is cooking. Water evaporates. This is why restaurants that advertise a 1/3 lb hamburger say, "Weight before cooking" so that they can't be sued for delivering a 1/4 lb cooked burger.

So, when you read about 8oz of cooked chicken, it was probably more like 10 - 12 oz of uncooked chicken.

No, it doesn't gain protein and fats - it loses weight.

So take your 8oz chicken, cook it, weigh it after cooking, you'll see it lost a few ounces but is pretty much the same protein/calories/fats.

It loses up to 1/4 weight during cooking.

Jeremy

I believe that this weight phenomena doesn't only occur in chicken, right? So, what's the best way to weight something, raw or cooked?

However, if you look at the ratio of protein and fat, you can see that the fat goes up way more than the protein (cooked vs raw).

Protein goes up about 50%, given the same weight of cooked vs raw chicken. Fat goes up 300% to 400%.

How come?

If the fat/protein ratio changes dramatically, somehting was added in cooking. Small changes (by actual g, not % - 1-2g is 100% change) may be due to the measuring technique.

Also, in some cases different cuts of chicken are used in the raw vs cooked results. Use raw, look at your food, esimate. If you usually eat chicken with some fat around the edges, 1g fat/8oz is probably not realistic. Raw numbers are usually much more consistent.

I believe that this weight phenomena doesn't only occur in chicken, right? So, what's the best way to weight something, raw or cooked?

Raw, the numbers cooked will depend on how you cook it and for how long. I can disintegrate meat to a pulp or have it very rare. Protein/lb is going to vary dramatically. Raw is raw - no argument, no confusion.

Same for pasta, rice etc..

I disagree. Only if you're gonna eat it raw. You don't calculate the calories of 6 ounces of raw chicken and then cook it simply because you will actually be eating four ounces of chicken. You plan to eat 6 ounces of cooked chicken, you figure out the calories for six ounces of chicken. You also figure out the calories you add. If you have added olive oil and your chicken is 6 ounces of chicken after cooking, you have eaten maybe 6 ounces of chicken and a teaspoon of olive oil. Most cooking methods leave enough of the juices in that it's essentially the same. If you actually buy protein in a package, it assumes cooking with no added fat when telling you the calories. For example, four ounces of chicken at 120 calories means four ounces of cooked chicken. Think about it in terms of rice. (opposite of protein-cooked volume = much less calories than raw volume). A cup of raw rice has MANY more calories than a cup of cooked rice. So, you eat a cup of cooked rice, you calcualate how many calories that cooked rice is. A cup of raw rice might end up being 2 1/2 cups of cooked rice.

Raw, the numbers cooked will depend on how you cook it and for how long. I can disintegrate meat to a pulp or have it very rare. Protein/lb is going to vary dramatically. Raw is raw - no argument, no confusion.

Same for pasta, rice etc..

I disagree. Only if you're gonna eat it raw. You don't calculate the calories of 6 ounces of raw chicken and then cook it simply because you will actually be eating four ounces of chicken. You plan to eat 6 ounces of cooked chicken, you figure out the calories for six ounces of chicken. You also figure out the calories you add. If you have added olive oil and your chicken is 6 ounces of chicken after cooking, you have eaten maybe 6 ounces of chicken and a teaspoon of olive oil. Most cooking methods leave enough of the juices in that it's essentially the same. If you actually buy protein in a package, it assumes cooking with no added fat when telling you the calories. For example, four ounces of chicken at 120 calories means four ounces of cooked chicken. Think about it in terms of rice. (opposite of protein-cooked volume = much less calories than raw volume). A cup of raw rice has MANY more calories than a cup of cooked rice. So, you eat a cup of cooked rice, you calcualate how many calories that cooked rice is. A cup of raw rice might end up being 2 1/2 cups of cooked rice.

If I seriously replied my thoughts to this post, I'd probaby get thrown off the forums. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I had a long reply to this, but whatever suits you best!

No. You can reply. I don't offend easily. I probably didn't communicate my ideas very well, actually. And I really want to know your reasoning. I guess the method ultimately doesn't matter too much-if you know there's a certain amount of carbs and calories in a cup of raw rice, that works for your totals. Calculating it as cooked rice does as well. What I mean is 1/4 cup of raw rice makes 3/4 of a cup prepared rice. But it's the same 32g of carbs and 150 calories. I make a bunch of rice at once. So if I know that if I want 32g of rice in a meal, and I have some cooked from the day before, I need 3/4 of a cup. That's all I meant. How do you calculate protein? If I was having chicken with rice, and I wanted 5 ounces of chicken, I would weigh out 5 ounces cooked. All I do is bake it. With or without olive oil. If I had used olive oil and was having chicken in a salad, I would count out 5 ounces of cooked chicken and olive oil. If you were having chicken as part of a meal, you would determine its ounces by its raw weight or cooked weight? Because protein loses water in the cooking process and I'm determining weight after cooking, you think I'm having more grams/a higher amount of protein than I plan to in a given meal? Trying to understand. Still don't know if I got across what I was trying to say.

If I seriously replied my thoughts to this post, I'd probaby get thrown off the forums. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

I had a long reply to this, but whatever suits you best!

Trying to understand. Still don't know if I got across what I was trying to say.

You make sense.

Since you guys are talking about raw or cooked, I might just add as well... 3.5 oz of raw chicken has approximately 4 g of fats, if I'm not mistaken. But when it's cooked, it shrinked into a size of a 3 oz chicken, right? Also, I usually cook it in a toaster or a griller, and I can see some of the fats being drained away. It's almost the same thing as the "George Foreman's Grilling Machine". So technically, the amount of fat should also decrease, right? And not only the fat, I'm sure some of the protein content is also drizzling away, right?
Just asking anyway, but for me personally, when I'm counting calories, I count the raw meat, rather than the cooked meat :nod:

No. You can reply. I don't offend easily. I probably didn't communicate my ideas very well, actually. And I really want to know your reasoning. I guess the method ultimately doesn't matter too much-if you know there's a certain amount of carbs and calories in a cup of raw rice, that works for your totals. Calculating it as cooked rice does as well. What I mean is 1/4 cup of raw rice makes 3/4 of a cup prepared rice. But it's the same 32g of carbs and 150 calories. I make a bunch of rice at once. So if I know that if I want 32g of rice in a meal, and I have some cooked from the day before, I need 3/4 of a cup. That's all I meant. How do you calculate protein? If I was having chicken with rice, and I wanted 5 ounces of chicken, I would weigh out 5 ounces cooked. All I do is bake it. With or without olive oil. If I had used olive oil and was having chicken in a salad, I would count out 5 ounces of cooked chicken and olive oil. If you were having chicken as part of a meal, you would determine its ounces by its raw weight or cooked weight? Because protein loses water in the cooking process and I'm determining weight after cooking, you think I'm having more grams/a higher amount of protein than I plan to in a given meal? Trying to understand. Still don't know if I got across what I was trying to say.

In the end I think you are over complicating this for yourself. If you are adding up your calories and nutrients for a meal, you count what you have. When i input my nutritonal information I usually enter in what I had before I broiled mine. For example, I bulk bake chicken. So if I bake up 1 pound of chicken, when it's cooked I divide it into 4 servings, and on my program I input it as 4 oz of raw chicken. I think the amounts that change due to baking it (the little bits of fat that dribble off of the boneless skinless breast) are small enough not to go crazy over.

If you cook up chicken and then cut yourself off 5 oz of cooked meat, you would then just count it as 5 oz cooked. They have different nutritional values - but you really can't calculate it backwards. What I mean by that is, if I sliced off 5 oz of cooked chicken meat I wouldn't then try to figure out what it weighed before I cooked it. You can find the nutritional values for either - so just go with whichever moment you are in, instead of trying to figure out what it would be either before or after you cooked it.

:D

You don't need to reinvent the wheel to cook a piece of chicken. :rolleyes:

Cooking stuff can drain some water and a little fat. Cooked stuff is usually smaller than raw stuff (meat, that is). Cooking stuff does not pull in additional nutrients out of thin air.

The fat content of a raw piece of meat will not change significantly when you cook it, if it is pretty lean to start with. If you're eating anything that leaves large amounts of fat dripping off the grill (bacon would be an extreme example), it's probably not very nutritious.

Most meat and other foods are measured and sold raw. Consequently, most nutrition information is for raw food. Just use the raw numbers and make it easy on yourself.

So just buy a package of roughly uniform chicken breasts, and divide into servings based on the weight of the whole package. Cook, eat, have a life. :d_rolleye

No. You can reply. I don't offend easily. I probably didn't communicate my ideas very well, actually. And I really want to know your reasoning. I guess the method ultimately doesn't matter too much-if you know there's a certain amount of carbs and calories in a cup of raw rice, that works for your totals. Calculating it as cooked rice does as well. What I mean is 1/4 cup of raw rice makes 3/4 of a cup prepared rice. But it's the same 32g of carbs and 150 calories. I make a bunch of rice at once. So if I know that if I want 32g of rice in a meal, and I have some cooked from the day before, I need 3/4 of a cup. That's all I meant. How do you calculate protein? If I was having chicken with rice, and I wanted 5 ounces of chicken, I would weigh out 5 ounces cooked. All I do is bake it. With or without olive oil. If I had used olive oil and was having chicken in a salad, I would count out 5 ounces of cooked chicken and olive oil. If you were having chicken as part of a meal, you would determine its ounces by its raw weight or cooked weight? Because protein loses water in the cooking process and I'm determining weight after cooking, you think I'm having more grams/a higher amount of protein than I plan to in a given meal? Trying to understand. Still don't know if I got across what I was trying to say.


OK, I was having a hectic day and I agree after reading this last post that perhaps a communication difference exists.

I too do weigh a lot of food after cooking. That does not mean that I think it is the 'best' way of doing it. Sure if I cook 5lb of chicken in one go, freeze it, then eat it, it's going to be a serious pain in the ass to weigh each peice before I cook it and write down how much it weighed. However from your first post I will point out:

> You don't calculate the calories of 6 ounces of raw chicken and then cook it simply because you will actually be eating four ounces of chicken.

Why do you care if you eat 4 or 6 oz? I care about g of macros. So if I want 30g protein I weigh out the appropriate amount of chicken, cook it and eat it.

> You plan to eat 6 ounces of cooked chicken, you figure out the calories for six ounces of chicken.

The point is it is less accurate to do this since you don’t know how much water you lost in cooking. Plus if I want 30g protein and then say that is 4oz cooked chicken how much chicken do I cook??? If I plan to eat 6 oz of cooked chicken how much do I put in the pan??? 8oz, 9oz??

> Most cooking methods leave enough of the juices in that it's essentially the same

This is exactly the point the first post and your first comment pointed out that is incorrect. The whole point of the post was that the food weighs more or less after cooking depending on how much water is lost or absorbed. And it can make a significant difference, especially if you loose fat as well as water during the cooking. This is the one time weighing it cooked may be more accurate than estimating how much fat you lost, but even so I prefer to estimate that because I think it is more accurate than guessing water content.

> four ounces of chicken at 120 calories means four ounces of cooked chicken

Unless you seriously undercook your chicken or cook it in a very hot deep fat fryer (to retain all the water by sealing the outside) I doubt 4oz cooked chicken is 120kcal. 3oz raw, with all fat trimmed is 95-110kcal.

> A cup of raw rice has MANY more calories than a cup of cooked rice

So??

> So, you eat a cup of cooked rice, you calculate how many calories that cooked rice is

How do you know how much water the rice absorbed.? If I want to eat 25g of carbs, how much rice do I cook? What if I pack the rice into the cup a bit more, what if I use a slightly different type of rice that is less or more dense etc.. Although cups are not the best measure you are going to be more accurate measuring raw, and even better still weighing it raw.

> A cup of raw rice might end up being 2 1/2 cups of cooked rice.

What’s wrong with cooking ¼ cup of rice??

What is more accurate is a different question than what is more convenient. As I said I measure a lot of food cooked, that does not mean it is a better or more accurate way of measuring it. The differnce may be that you cook a buch of food, eat what you want, then want to know what you ate, vs, decideing how much of each macro you want to eat, measuring out the food then eating it. Weighing food uncooked in the first case is still more accurate, but a serious pain in the ass. In the second case guessinghow much to cook becomes the problem as well as the issue of what exactly the marcos are in the cooked version.

If you look at a variety of sources for nutritional info you will see that the cooked values have much more variability than the raw values. This is simply due to the differences in cooking methods and times. There is no such ambiguity with raw foods. The only exceptions might be where you do actually loose macros during the cooking, like grilling meat, then you are basically stuck with guessing either way, since you may have lost more or less water in your cooking than in the ‘cooked marcos’. Personally I don’t feel like this happens with my chicken, but I cut nearly all the fat of the outside and estimate 1g/3oz fat for uncooked and 1.5g/3oz cooked, so it probably comes out the same as Don’s estimates, starting with 4g/3.5 oz and seeing fat drip off and subtracting a few g for that.

At the end of the day, its all pretty much common sense, and I’m sure that no-one here is wildly off in their estimates if they actually take the time to weigh food – raw or cooked. However, I do like to argue semantics and the original question was ‘what is the BEST (most accurate way)’ which is quite obviously weighing food raw so you don’t have the ambiguity of how much water you lost or gained during cooking.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with you. Weighing raw probably is the most accurate. I think it was poor communication on my part. Kyra largely made the point that I was trying to assert. That is, once you have already cooked your food, you really can't go back and calulate it based on its raw value. I look at both macros and calories. So, with cooked rice and chicken made the day before, you're left with calculating your totals by the cooked values. 1/4 of a cup of raw rice is 32g of carbs and 150 calories. 1/4 of a cup of raw rice is supposed to correspond to 3/4 of a cup prepared. It may not correspond exactly, but if you want 32g of carbs, your best bet is to eat 3/4 of a cup of your rice. It may be less clear exactly how many grams of protein 5 ounces of baked chicken has than raw chicken. But, seeing as you're stuck with this cooked chicken, your best bet is to look up Cooked, baked no-fat added chicken and take what you find in terms of grams of protein and calories at face value. In terms of semantics, you are right: the BEST way is to weigh the raw food. I was thinking that this might be complicated and trying to advise people not to worry about weighing food after cooking from a practical standpoint. I should have prefaced with this. Sorry for the confusing and poorly written post.


At the end of the day, its all pretty much common sense, and I’m sure that no-one here is wildly off in their estimates if they actually take the time to weigh food – raw or cooked. However, I do like to argue semantics and the original question was ‘what is the BEST (most accurate way)’ which is quite obviously weighing food raw so you don’t have the ambiguity of how much water you lost or gained during cooking.

:D
Just buy a package of roughly uniform chicken breasts, and divide into servings based on the weight of the whole package. Cook, eat, have a life. :d_rolleye

I agree. This is exactly what I do. To be honest, I never gave this particular issue any thought until the original post. I think this post just got a little out of control...

Just want to add some thoughts about rice. Our entire family eats rice, so we cook it in a rice-cooker. So I think weighting them raw is not an option, for me. So I measured them cooked, whether it's half cup or one cup. I think the difference between raw and uncooked (when it comes to weight) is not so different, there might be some changes, but roughly it's the same. Cooking however, may change the nutritional value of the food. For example, you add a tablespoon of oil, then surely the fat will increase, right?

Sure, adding fat necessarily increases the fat content. For your macros, a tablespoon of oil is 14 grams of fat. It's 120 calories. In terms of weight, I think rice expands a lot (absorbs a lot of water). According to my box of natural long grain brown rice, a 1/4 of raw rice yields 3/4 of a cup of cooked rice. This is from being cooked in a saucepan with water for 40 minutes. This 3/4 cup of cooked rice has 32 g of carbs just as it did when it only took up 1/4 of a cup as raw rice. But it shouldn't mess up your calculations. You just note the carbs and/or calories in the amount of cooked rice you ate and factor in to your totals whatever added fat from preparation you consumed as well.
ah, but this post is starting to give me a headache...haha

Just want to add some thoughts about rice. Our entire family eats rice, so we cook it in a rice-cooker. So I think weighting them raw is not an option, for me. So I measured them cooked, whether it's half cup or one cup. I think the difference between raw and uncooked (when it comes to weight) is not so different, there might be some changes, but roughly it's the same. Cooking however, may change the nutritional value of the food. For example, you add a tablespoon of oil, then surely the fat will increase, right?

Ok, this thread did get a 'little' out of hand.

The whole point of my question was because here at work, I eat out at restaurants. I usually get grilled chicken salad, and looked up the nutritional information for "chicken breast", and I was confused.