Finally buy a digital scale

What are you talking about

If 400 grams of raw chicken cooks into 200g of cooked chicken then the macros are still exactly the same. The cooked weight is just less how because it loaes water etc

You calculate by uncooked weight anyway, don't you burgers learn this in school?

legit op, use your fucking brain. Im fucking TIRED OF SEEING BRAINDEAD POSTS ALL THIS TIME. Listen you fucking retard. When you cook your food, the water evaporates which makes it weigh less. There is no protein or calories in water you fucking asswipe.

this is why you always should eat it raw

Youre doing it right.
You can do either before or after as long as you use the appropriate macros.
Most nutritional information on packaging will be for the raw weight.

Ops an idiot

What the actual fuck is that image?

The macros in myfitnesspal etc. are for raw weight unless specified

A general rule of thumb is you take the lighter weight of whatever you're cooking unless specified. Mainly All that leaves is water when cooked which doesnt have macros. Same thing when things that gain weight. Rice doesn't gain any macros by obsorbtion water

He calculated by uncooked weights, while the macros applied to cooked portions

pineal gland

pretty wild that you'd get sperm there but im no doctor

will this work on my biceps?

>he counts the bar weight

well everyone does it right?

why not. You do realise that you also lift the bar itself?

yes, you dumbfuck, but there is a protein difference between 200g and 400g of chicken

Yes, between 200 and 400 grams of chicken in the same state! Fucking hell why is this such a difficult concept for you people to grasp?

not if they both have the same uncooked weight fag

That's not what he's saying. He's saying the water that evaporates is what makes the weight difference between cooked and raw. 200g of raw chicken isn't completely 200g of chicken because of all the moisture in it. The moister itself does not have calories

omg, youre truly never gonna make it if you cant grasp this simple fucking concept. enjoy no gains.

You sir, are a retard

Please elaborate.

If I drop 400g of raw chicken and 200g of cooked chicken which will hit the ground first ?

Nutritional value of foodstuffs are never measured by their cooked weights. Not 1/4lb burgers, not 12 oz ribeyes and not 400 gram chicken titties. What ever the weight post cooking is irrelevant.

Plus you're on Veeky Forums, it kinda goes without saying

ngtmi

>all foods either increase weight when cooked or decrease weight when cooked
So with your retard mind you will always be over or under eating at potentially high levels

is the chicken free range?

no they don't, this is well established
some of my meat packaging even says nutrient composition (raw) on the back

Guys remember to "seer" the chicken meat on a high fire before cooking it on a low fire so the juices stay trapped.

That didn't negate my point. You can inject a chicken breast with a shit ton of water and when your logic, that makes it have more chicken
A

Somethings, such as rice, will specifically say (cooked) on the nutrition label.

this is my favourite thread of all time

I FIGURED IT OUT
OP MEANT THE SAME CHICKEN, HE HAS 400G AND IT TURNS INTO 200G AFTER ITS COOKED. THINKING ITS MACROS CHANGE

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT CHICKENS

dont forget to also weigh your shit to get the real total food weight you metabolized

Why would anyone need to measure their chicken to know what's in it? Just read the nutrition label for fucking sake.

this

OP has the right to be concerned

in the packet it writes X protein per 100 G of UNCOOKED meat. So, OP paid for the 4*X of protein, but only received 2*X (since he ate the cooked meat, which weighed less than the uncooked meat)

you need 80g of protein to fit your macros

you go to the super market, and behind 400 g of chicken breast, the label says "20 g per 100g"

oh you think I am fine, I can just eat this 400 g of chicken breast and I will be good.

you cook it, and then you weigh the cooked chicken breast and it is only 200g

so now, you thought you would be eating 80 g protein, but instead you will be eating 40 g, so you are fucked.

so do we count the 200g or 400g?

What the fuck is happening brehs? Have I been not getting all my necessary gainz this whole time?

Am I too retarded to figure this thread out, or not retarded enough?

All nutrition labels are for raw food unless they're in water or something. Think about it - raw is the only quantifiable state the product will ever be in. Cooked is a subjective term and will never fly with even the most backwater country's labelling regulations. Exceptions exist but they are exceptions.

boiling lentils with water gives them 2,5x more protein.

>vegans

but then you would have to adjust the nutrition info / 100g you brainlet

This
Guys i am confused by this thread, can someone make one post where everything becomes clear?

>not boiling lentils in blood for maximum gainz

but that's too much iron...

I was going to reply with a handy recap for the brainlets here but then I realized this was all an epic ruse

So you count the weight of your arms too?

All of the water evaporates and gets boiled out. You lose 200g of waterwhich has none of the protein in it, so there's 80g of protein in the 200g of chicken.

Unless you're asking if the marked values are for COOKED chicken. In which case the 400g of raw chicken would start with 40g of protein and end with 40g of protein. I don't have the answer to that. All I know is that cooking that shit isn't going to change the protein by any noticeable amount.

Dude i am fucking stupid can you explain?

If it says 22g per 100 and you cook 100g and it becomes 50
Does it mean the 50g of cooked chicken contains 22g of protein?

So the protein does not dissapear?

Please answer seriously

the text is a joke

It depends whether the nutritional values are for the raw or the cooked chicken. If it's for raw chicken then I think you'd be right about the 50g of cooked having 22g of protein. If it were for the cooked values then the 100g of raw would have 11g of protein and and the cooked 50g would also have 11g of protein.

It doesn't disappear.

while we're on the topic, does cooking whole vs. sauteeing affect the nutritional value?
i never thought it did, but this thread is making me question it

If it does then the difference is so miniscule as to have no effect

in terms of vitamins yes... in terms of protons no...

>in terms of vitamins yes
can you elaborate

What.

Jesus Christ Veeky Forums

A) Nutritional value does not change when a food is cooked. 400g of uncooked chicken has the same amount of protein in it after you cook it to 200g

B) by default, nutritional values are given for uncooked weights. Weigh your shit before you cook it.

Picture the opposite, rice doubles in weight with water.
Does that mean you have double the carbs? NO. The nutritional values stay the same.

Was just about to post this. Veeky Forums going full retard mode.

so if i char a chicken breast to coal it'll still have the same amount of calories?

>charring to coal is the same as cooking it
If you don't burn up your meat, the calorie content stays more or less the same.

That's not cooking, that's a chemical reaction. It would longer be chicken then. If you char the outside you'll be fine, you probably had it on too high a heat. Check to make sure the inside is cooked, and you should be ok

youre cooking away the water...it's frozen remember, thats all ice. when you defrost chicken breast is super liquidy,

not true

cooking delets the protein by 15% of any animal prodcut

Do you have some kind of source for that?
Che ked

>Not eating it raw to get 400g
Amateur

Of course.

God damn you guys are fucking retarded. As a rule of thumb, meat loses around 20% of weight after cooking. Also you have to deduct bone weight I don't know why i have to mention this but you people are probably too stupid to wipe your own ass.

There’s a difference between boiling away water, and literally losing chicken.

>not eating it alive
Look at this plebeian.

>Still made gains
>Didn't notice a problem
Why is your daily protein intake jacked up so high?

>not eating the chicken raw to get more protein

200g because less air resistance if they're the same shape

>Two people read a nutrition label that says 200g cooked chicken has 46g protein
>One person cooks 400g raw down to 200g cooked (with the same 46g)
>OP cooks 200g raw (thinking raw vs cooked doesn't matter) and only gets 23g protein
>OP is mad that he's been measuring protein wrong.

Lads, if store-bought eggs have macros per 100g, how the fuck should I calculate them for boiled eggs?

>weigh the eggs
>boil them
>take off the eggshell
>weigh the eggshell
>reduce the weight of the eggshell from initial weight
?

Nigga just eat the fucking eggs

Eggs are all similar. Take the nutritional value from another place for small/medium/large eggs and you're done.

>are all similar
Would you say the same applies to vegetables?

Started buying frozen ones since you can't get the exact macros for fresh, market ones.

> dropping chicken
your gains will be the first to hit bottom

>nutritional information on packaging will be for the raw weight.
but I don't eat the food raw

To some extent yes. Some vegetables are 90% water, so there aren't many calories though.

This will only fuel further retardation but:

1 oz cooked chicken is 35 cals, 5.3 g protein

fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/chicken-breast-ns-as-to-skin-eaten?portionid=5041&portionamount=1.000

1 oz raw is 29 cals, 4.4 g protien
fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/chicken-breast-ns-as-to-skin-eaten?portionid=5040&portionamount=1.000

Good luck and good night.

because chicken loses water weight when its cooked, but still retains its protein.

200g raw = 100g cooked

this fucking thread holy fuck

the amount of retardation in this thread.

COOKING ADDS OR REMOVES WATER

THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE UNCOOKED MEASURED MACRO WEIGHTS

That's not the point, the issue is that a true weight isn't recorded because of the water in the meat.
I can soak chicken is a brine and make it gain 30 grams to the raw weight. Yes it will has the same nutrition in it but one would overestimate the amount of actual meat they have

Wtf is that image about?

but the nutrition info on the pack is given for the raw state of the food, and the weight of the food in the pack is given as the raw weight

I tell you what lads im fucking scared for some of you like, how the fuck can you not comprehend this, what are you talking about it goes from 80g to 40g because it loses half of its mass in water? watt the fucjkaskdasldbhnasijdgbasui

Nah you're definitely wrong. Think about it this way: if you lost half of your body weight you would have less protein in you so obviously the same thing happens with chickens. I swear gym bros have to be the most retarded group on average.

> if you lost half of your body weight

yeah if you cut me in fucking half of course i would

BUT ITS THE WATER LEAVING THE RAW CHICKEN

IT GOES FROM HYDROUS TO ANHYDROUS