I get all my nutritional info from the internet. For example, at nutritiondata.com, when I look up “chicken breast” it gives me a variety, depending on how it’s cooked or fried or not cooked.
I always (with eggs, pork, steak, chicken, everything!) log the information from the weight of the “raw” items, because I always weigh the meat ect BEFORE cooking. I always cook with olive oil as well, and add in those grams of fat separate.
Am I doing this correctly to be the most accurate?
[quote]crazyman wrote:
I get all my nutritional info from the internet. For example, at nutritiondata.com, when I look up “chicken breast” it gives me a variety, depending on how it’s cooked or fried or not cooked.
I always (with eggs, pork, steak, chicken, everything!) log the information from the weight of the “raw” items, because I always weigh the meat ect BEFORE cooking. I always cook with olive oil as well, and add in those grams of fat separate.
Am I doing this correctly to be the most accurate?[/quote]
No, but you are being the most precise… Remember, you are precisely logging the number given to you by the nutrition data website, but there is no knowing if that number is accurate. The major source of error here is in assuming that all chicken breasts have exactly the same nutrient profile. That number represents a statistical average of all the chicken breasts examined to get the nutritional content.
Basically, don’t rely on the numbers to be representative of anything but a gross estimate.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
No, but you are being the most precise… Remember, you are precisely logging the number given to you by the nutrition data website, but there is no knowing if that number is accurate. The major source of error here is in assuming that all chicken breasts have exactly the same nutrient profile. That number represents a statistical average of all the chicken breasts examined to get the nutritional content.
Basically, don’t rely on the numbers to be representative of anything but a gross estimate. [/quote]
Then what should a person go by? I don’t use fitday but a different website to look up all my macronutrient info. Is there that much difference to what they post on those sites as to what may be found in each individual chicken breast?
Please tell me it isn’t HUGE because my head will explode.
OK, let’s assume that the info is just a gross estimate. The real question is am I doing the right thing by weighing “raw” and logging my calories in raw figures from the nutritional info? I was thinking that maybe the food loses some nutrients after it’s cooked, maybe fats, but I’m not sure…
[quote]crazyman wrote:
OK, let’s assume that the info is just a gross estimate. The real question is am I doing the right thing by weighing “raw” and logging my calories in raw figures from the nutritional info? I was thinking that maybe the food loses some nutrients after it’s cooked, maybe fats, but I’m not sure…[/quote]
In general, I think you guys are way overthinking this. Yes, the nutritional profile of foods can change when they are cooked (in some cases actually getting better), but this isn’t usually huge, and usually doesn’t make much difference for fats and proteins.
In many cases, your body absorbs proteins better when they are cooked (meat and eggs are examples). With vegetables, just don’t cook them too long (especially boiled), and you should be okay.
As far as the logging aspect – I think worrying too much about cooked vs. raw is on the extreme end of anal.
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
crazyman wrote:
OK, let’s assume that the info is just a gross estimate. The real question is am I doing the right thing by weighing “raw” and logging my calories in raw figures from the nutritional info? I was thinking that maybe the food loses some nutrients after it’s cooked, maybe fats, but I’m not sure…
In general, I think you guys are way overthinking this. Yes, the nutritional profile of foods can change when they are cooked (in some cases actually getting better), but this isn’t usually huge, and usually doesn’t make much difference for fats and proteins.
In many cases, your body absorbs proteins better when they are cooked (meat and eggs are examples). With vegetables, just don’t cook them too long (especially boiled), and you should be okay.
As far as the logging aspect – I think worrying too much about cooked vs. raw is on the extreme end of anal.[/quote]
I disagree, I think that if a meat were to lose a lot of fat (ie ground beef 100g=15g fat raw, after cooking could lose 4 or 5g) after cooking it, it would make a substantial difference for me. I eat meat 6 times a day and losing a bit everymeal adds up, especially when on the anabolic diet and I have to have a certain amount of fat, or the diet won’t work!
I guess if the difference was only a gram or maximum 2, it wouldn’t matter that much. But this is what I don’t know and want to find out…