# Weighing your food



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 12, 2020)

Do you weigh your food raw or cooked. I’ve always done it cooked but just read on here that it’s supposed to be raw. I cooked chicken earlier that was 8 oz raw, came out to 5 oz cooked. So I’m eating 5 oz worth of cooked chicken but logging it would technically go down as 8?


----------



## Rhino99 (Feb 12, 2020)

If you're putting 5 oz chicken into your body log it at 5 oz. If you're putting 8 ounces in log it at 8 oz.


----------



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 12, 2020)

That’s what I thought. I read that on here earlier today and it was confusing the shit out of me


----------



## brock8282 (Feb 12, 2020)

just do whatever is easiest for you bro, don't overthink it. most important part is consistency. its easy to find the nutrition info for foods both raw and cooked. if you cook chicken in bulk, its easiest to weigh the chicken cooked obviously. if you cook a portion at a time, obviously you need to weigh it raw.

for me I bulk cook chicken, so I eat 7 oz measured cooked. for ground beef I cook it a serving at a time, so I measure 10oz raw and then cook and eat.


----------



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 12, 2020)

Yah I’m going to continue doing it the way I am. Was just confused because that would have meant I was eating more than I needed


----------



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 13, 2020)

Sicwun88 said:


> It's easier to weigh it the next day, always look back in the toilet & just estimate!



I’ve been leaving mounds twice each morning


----------



## CJ (Feb 13, 2020)

If you want accuracy, always weigh it raw.

You can take a 16 oz steak raw, and cook it down to 14 oz, 12,oz,10 oz, or whatever depending upon how long you cook it. 

The macros don't change, only the weight as water is cooked off. 

Always weigh it raw.


----------



## Jin (Feb 13, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> If you want accuracy, always weigh it raw.
> 
> You can take a 16 oz steak raw, and cook it down to 14 oz, 12,oz,10 oz, or whatever depending upon how long you cook it.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately many poultry and fish products may be “volumized” by being put in a saline solution. 

The most important part is that your weighing methods are consistent.


----------



## simplesteve (Feb 13, 2020)

Me and gibbz were talking about this same damn thing a few weeks back, same weight measurements as well. 

I decided I weigh it and log it as cooked. Because I don't eat Raw chicken.


----------



## German89 (Feb 13, 2020)

Always.

Always.

Weigh it raw.


----------



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 13, 2020)

German89 said:


> Always.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Weigh it raw.



Care to explain further? Lots of opposing views here I guess haha


----------



## Seeker (Feb 13, 2020)

Most of the time nutritional labels on food are basing the product as being raw/uncooked. Especially meat


----------



## Seeker (Feb 13, 2020)

^^^ forgot to add if the product label is basing its nutritional value after cooking, it will say it on the label


----------



## Trump (Feb 13, 2020)

we have now found the issue with CJ not gaining weight



CJ275 said:


> If you want accuracy, always weigh it raw.
> 
> You can take a 16 oz steak raw, and cook it down to 14 oz, 12,oz,10 oz, or whatever depending upon how long you cook it.
> 
> ...


----------



## SFGiants (Feb 13, 2020)

The people that do it the best IMO and how I did things was by portion sizes.

Visually learning your portion sizes and knowing how to add and subtract without all the logging, weighing and such.


----------



## BRICKS (Feb 13, 2020)

Adding to SFG ^^^^.

Whichever method you choose doesn't matter and I'm going to explain why.  If somebody van think of reason why that I missed by all means chime in.

You start this process with calculating your TDEE.  It should be known that this number is a reference starting point only and it's not exact.  Just as your TDEE is not the same everyday.  Now if you weigh your food uncooked or cooked, if you're over or under calculating your calories in a couple weeks by scale and mirror you're going to know if you are losing or gaining according to your goals, and you're going to adjust your intake accordingly.  It's all fluid, it's not exact, and the important thing is that you do it the same everytime.

As an analogy let's take blood pressure.  A single blood pressure doesn't mean shit, just that you have one.  It's the trend that means something.  And you can't expect to trend this without controlling some variables, like what position you're in when you take blood pressure, time of day, did you drink that morning coffee yet or pack that chew in your lip, etc....

Pick a method for weighing food/measuring portions, and use that consistently.  And for what it's worth, I never weigh food, never  have. I've said many times on this board, don't complicate the simple.


----------



## CJ (Feb 13, 2020)

Weighing food that is cooked is NOT accurate, plain and simple.

You can turn a giant steak into a little flimsy pieces of beef jerky. 

VASTLY different weights, same macros.

Yes, the solution in some meats is a variable. But one variable is better than 2 variables, which is what you'll have with the solution and the meat being cooked. 

If you want to be as accurate as possible, weigh it raw. 

And sure, you can just cut your portion sizes down if losing weight is the goal, but it's just less accurate. That's like following a compass vs a map to your destination. It'll get you going in the right direction, but you'll have to keep making adjustments because you'll never be on as accurate a route as the map has you on.

I'm not saying that weighing food is even necessary for every one, I'm just commenting that if you DO decide to weigh your food and track your Cals, you might as well do it right.


----------



## Viduus (Feb 13, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Weighing food that is cooked is NOT accurate, plain and simple.
> 
> You can turn a giant steak into a little flimsy pieces of beef jerky.
> 
> ...



Going to disagree completely here.

Cutting portion size is vastly more accurate then theoretical numbers made via calculation. 4oz of chicken will contain less calories then 6oz of chicken given it’s cooked the same and from the same batch/brand. 

It doesn’t matter if the label on something is off by 50%. If I cut the amount in half - the notion counts are getting cut in half.

Bricks nailed my thinking. Pick an arbitrary starting point and adjust based on scale/mirror. Tweak macros based on how you handle carbs/fats. Use your body as the feedback input.

Also weight raw is just as in accurate as weighing cooked.  One has more water - one has less. Two raw chicken breasts don’t contain the same amount of water. I could argue baking them for X minutes makes the water content much more so site to then when they’re raw.

also, when cooking in quantity you can’t easily weigh rare. If I’m prepping meals two days after cooking a tub of chicken... how to I get the raw weight?


----------



## snake (Feb 13, 2020)

BRICKS said:


> Adding to SFG ^^^^.
> 
> 
> Pick a method for weighing food/measuring portions, and use that consistently.  And for what it's worth, I never weigh food, never  have. I've said many times on this board, don't complicate the simple.



I do weigh when I'm I'm dialing in but only for the reasons Bricks mentioned; consistence.

Here's a quick Google from the same source:

8 oz. raw
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-...-not-eaten?portionid=5052&portionamount=8.000
8 oz. cooked
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-...-not-eaten?portionid=5049&portionamount=8.000

Only thing I would be concerned about is the inconsistency of the grams of protein. Like mentioned, stay with one system or another and adjust up or down. I mentioned this before and will say it again.

 "Unfortunately, Nutrition Facts labels are not always factual. For starters, the law allows a pretty lax margin of error—up to 20 percent—for the stated value versus actual value of nutrients. In reality, that means a 100-calorie pack could, theoretically, contain up to 120 calories and still not be violating the law. "

So you can see how counting calories is inherently flawed.


----------



## brock8282 (Feb 13, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Weighing food that is cooked is NOT accurate, plain and simple.
> 
> You can turn a giant steak into a little flimsy pieces of beef jerky.
> 
> ...



I gotta disagree, the only way this will cause a difference that matters is by going out of your way to overcook the **** out of your food. I weighed chicken raw and cooked, before and after, enough times to know that x amount of meat raw will way y amount cooked give or take just a few grams that won't matter in the long run.  same goes for ground beef, I've weighed that before and after enough times to see the variance in cooked weight is rather insignificant. its not some wide range like you claim unless again intentional, one day having steak rare, the second, having it burnt to a crisp.

if you look at meal plans given out by top level coaches, they even generally list meats weighed cooked as most people cook meats in bulk.


----------



## who_gives_a_shit (Feb 13, 2020)

I’ve always thought there was inconsistencies with labels but never knew for sure. I guess it all makes sense why it takes weeks to dial in someone’s nutrition to get that competition percentage body fat. I’m just trying to gain weight so I don’t need to be super accurate, as long as I’m not under eating in cool with it


----------



## transcend2007 (Feb 13, 2020)

While I understand everyone has their way and no doubt believe it's the right way ..  I will only say that I do not weigh food at all ... those of you who are weighing it raw or cooked are miles ahead of me ... both groups seem to have found things that work for them that allow measuring and track results which to me is my goal ... in any case great info here ... and congrats to those of you who are disciplined enough to do do the work to weigh and track your results ...


----------



## Viduus (Feb 13, 2020)

transcend2007 said:


> While I understand everyone has their way and no doubt believe it's the right way ..  I will only say that I do not weigh food at all ... those of you who are weighing it raw or cooked are miles ahead of me ... both groups seem to have found things that work for them that allow measuring and track results which to me is my goal ... in any case great info here ... and congrats to those of you who are disciplined enough to do do the work to weigh and track your results ...



Life’s about choices. Some people like to have sex with sheep, some prefer a hot women. You’re having sex either way and both get the job done. I’m just in favor of the things that lean me more towards the hot woman.

CJ makes other choices in life, who am I to judge? :32 (19):


----------



## CJ (Feb 13, 2020)

Viduus said:


> CJ makes other choices in life, who am I to judge? :32 (19):



Can't say you don't like it, if you've never tried it! :32 (20):


----------



## Viduus (Feb 13, 2020)

CJ275 said:


> Can't say you don't like it, if you've never tried it! :32 (20):



Rookies think you actually have to choose between the two. I like my feet count equal to my hoof count. I’m OCD like that.


----------



## ripper (Feb 14, 2020)

SFGiants said:


> The people that do it the best IMO and how I did things was by portion sizes.
> 
> Visually learning your portion sizes and knowing how to add and subtract without all the logging, weighing and such.



I agree with this, but the only way I can see to get to that point is to weigh/measure everything you eat for a while until you can accurately assess what a portion size is and what the macros are.


----------

