Macros as per raw weight or cooked weight?

Darrenon91

Maybe a stupid question but im wondering what people do in relation to this?

Do ye count the macros as per the raw weight or the cooked?

Ive always done it as the raw weight as I often use the barcode option on MyFitnesspal but last night after cooking 300g or raw beef I noticed that the cooked weight was 250g or so.

Not a significant difference but a difference all the same.

Alf Veedersane

Darrenon91 wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question but im wondering what people do in relation to this?

Do ye count the macros as per the raw weight or the cooked?

Ive always done it as the raw weight as I often use the barcode option on MyFitnesspal but last night after cooking 300g or raw beef I noticed that the cooked weight was 250g or so.

Not a significant difference but a difference all the same.

The loss in weight is mostly down to a loss in liquid and some fat (depending on how lean it was. The macros won't really change, except for a small change in fat.

bdonohuept

Whichever way you wanna measure it is fine, just keep measuring it the same way to keep it consistent.

Mellor

There's no difference between the quantity of macros between raw and cooked.

For example, the 300g of raw meeta, its about 25g/100g. So 75g protein total.
For the 250g cooked weight, its maybe 30g/100g, so 75g again. The total protein content doesn't change.