Calories before/after cooking

BigStupidGuy · 14-02-2014 8:40pm #1

Hi all,

So I've been using this website to calculate the calories of my food. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ and I just would really like to clarify something...

Let's say I have a pork chop which weights 120g raw

Apparently per 100g a Pork chop raw = 155kal and cooked 202kal

So the chop weighs 120g before cooking and has 186kal. After I cook it it will weigh considerably less, so odds are it will even out about the same calories. However if I overcook it and it goes really tiny (say I burned it) it might weigh as little as 45g. Does the chop now have 90.9kal instead?

I am guessing the process of over cooking will lower the energy in the food even further and reduce the calories it has, am I correct?

NoQuarter · 14-02-2014 8:43pm

I hope to god you're in single digit body fat and are trying to get from 9% to 7% or something because if you're not, that's waaaay too much detail to be looking into it!!:D

conzy · 14-02-2014 8:43pm

I dont think it will lose any calories unless you totally burn it to a crisp. Any of the weight that is lost is just moisture really.

100g raw chicken has about 21g of protein

100g cooked chicken has about 28-30g of protein. This is because it took about 130g of raw chicken to make that 100g of cooked chicken.

Hope that makes sense

huskerdu · 15-02-2014 9:07pm

BigStupidGuy wrote: »

Hi all,

I am guessing the process of over cooking will lower the energy in the food even further and reduce the calories it has, am I correct?

No, I doubt if you are correct and you are , IMHO, overanalysing the situation.

On-line tables for calorie content are guesses and averages only.

The calorie figure for the 120g port chop is an estimation based on some average figures they have for the fat/protein and water content of the chop.

Similarly, the calorie estimation for the cooked chop is based on some average figure for the amount of fat/water lost during normal cooking of the average chop.

If the chop was a poor quality chop with loads of fat or injected with water, the average value will not be accurate.
If you overcook it, the average water/protein/fat content used by the calculator will not be accurate and I don't know how you would be able to calculate the actual calorie value, but its probably not worth trying,

BigStupidGuy · 15-02-2014 10:54pm

Cool thanks a lot guys. In light of this new info I will measure all my meat before I cook it except for chicken breast (since I'm scared of germs).

I mainly asked because yesterday I ate 2 sirloin steaks which were overcooked and should total 600kal. But in light of the "cooked calories" should have equaled a lot less. I thought that cooking would scientifically reduce the caloric content of food and I shouldn't worry. But now I don't mind much, my cheat meals more than make this negligible anyway lol.

Thanks again!

SPS1 · 16-02-2014 3:35pm

You're going way OTT with this.

If you eat 100g of say potatoes one day, that may have more calories than 100g the next day due to a number of factors already mentioned in this thread. It evens itself out however over a week or month.

Oryx · 16-02-2014 6:35pm

The minor differences youre looking at won't make a difference to overall weight loss. Long term good diet and portion control will. It doesn't have to be exact to the nearest gram, just generally good.

I would hazard a guess that if you are nitpicking your calorie intake to this degree, its so that you can maximize those cheat meals you talk about.

BigStupidGuy · 16-02-2014 6:42pm

Not at all, in fact I just believe in being accurate, it's really easy to over eat and neglect your daily cardio if you're not careful.

Plus to be honest I just want to understand the process of nutrition as well as I can, if you don't use your head as much as your brawn you'll fail.

I was just generally curious whether or not cremating a steak to a quarter it's size would remove much of it's energy, I still think it does.

Doug Cartel · 16-02-2014 7:12pm

Everything you ever measure is really just an estimation. Some estimations are more accurate than others, but everything has some kind of wobble factor in it. The only thing you can do is be consistent in how you measure, and then the actual values will average out over time.

You're only guessing at how many calories you need, and you're only guessing at how many you consume. It should be an educated guess, but its a guess all the same. This means that no matter how well you plan, you're going to have to adjust your diet as you go. Be consistent with the way you measure stuff and adjust the portion size depending on how you're progressing.

Alf Veedersane · 16-02-2014 7:29pm

I'm open to correction but as far as I know, the calorie content of food is based on a system that uses an average calorie-per-gram value for the macro values of tbe food, which were originally determined by burning.

So, unless you can determine the loss of protein, fat and carbohydrates (minus the fibre) by cremation, then you'll be estimating. Use the values given or invest a lot of money in a lab to work it out.

Better still, invest in some cooking lessons if you're cremating your food

syklops · 16-02-2014 7:32pm

BigStupidGuy wrote: »

I mainly asked because yesterday I ate 2 sirloin steaks which were overcooked and should total 600kal. But in light of the "cooked calories" should have equaled a lot less. I thought that cooking would scientifically reduce the caloric content of food and I shouldn't worry. But now I don't mind much, my cheat meals more than make this negligible anyway lol.

Thanks again!

For someone eating 2 steaks, you are way over analysing the situation. If you are looking to lose weight, maybe eat less steak? Eat one really good one, cooked to perfection, not 2 overdone ones.

BigStupidGuy · 16-02-2014 10:14pm

Guys, my mam and I barbecued 4 steaks and we ate two straight away which were cooked very nicely. However she likes them well done and left the other two to cook while we ate. Needless to say they went beyond well done.

But I don't like to waste food, and they tasted good all the same. I ate the two the following day because the portion seemed small otherwise. I'm actually an excellent cook. Thanks anyway...

Maybe you all should stick to the question and stop judging a situation you lack all the facts in?

Mellor · 16-02-2014 10:26pm

BigStupidGuy wrote: »

Cool thanks a lot guys. In light of this new info I will measure all my meat before I cook it except for chicken breast (since I'm scared of germs).

Why aren't you weighing chicken raw?
[/QUOTE]

BigStupidGuy wrote: »

Not at all, in fact I just believe in being accurate, it's really easy to over eat and neglect your daily cardio if you're not careful.

There's nothing wrong with being accurate. The problem is that your logic id flawed from the first step.

I was just generally curious whether or not cremating a steak to a quarter it's size would remove much of it's energy, I still think it does.

I'm afraid you are looking at the the wrong way.

The difference in raw/cooked weight is mostly down to water content. When you cook meat, it loses water. This is water has almost no calories. The cooked value assumes an average amount of cooking. If you severely overcooked the meat, what would actually happen is the values per 100gs would increase much more.

Take jerky, or billtong, per 100g its has much more calories and protein than the cut of meat that started. It could be as high as 50g protein. Because it lost all its water.

The only aspect that might reduce a meats calories when cooking is losing fat. Most of the time its negligible, with lean chicken or steak. Or it remains in a sauce. The only time its significant is if you are render a lot of fat from something like duck breast, or pork belly. And, tbh, you can forget about cals there anyway.

Alf Veedersane · 16-02-2014 10:26pm

Then don't worry about the calorific value of cremated food.

Ultimately, it's not an exact science for most of us. Unless you're going to determine the calorific value of everything you eat in your own lab,you'll have to assume the values used are correct. Besides, it's mostly relative.

BigStupidGuy · 17-02-2014 10:08am

Mellor wrote: »

Why aren't you weighing chicken raw?

The difference in raw/cooked weight is mostly down to water content. When you cook meat, it loses water. This is water has almost no calories. The cooked value assumes an average amount of cooking. If you severely overcooked the meat, what would actually happen is the values per 100gs would increase much more.

I usually avoid handling raw chicken to reduce my chances of Salmonella poisoning.

Thanks what you said here makes perfect sense to me.

thegreatiam · 20-02-2014 11:30am

My father likes his steaks well done too. So I just stopped letting him have steak. Problem solved.

Calories before/after cooking

Comments