sup Veeky Forums. recently discovered a mistake in my diet - i was counting the fat and calories from beef that i was pan frying, when a large amount of that fat was actually being lost in the pan (i didnt eat the fat left in the pan, just threw it out).
so i realized that every day ive been under my calories and lacking my macro requirements for fats. explains why i felt unusually tired (im cutting now so low cal already).
i decided to continue discarding the fat in the pan, but replace it by eating almonds, 90% dark chocolate or avocados. feelsgoodnowman.jpg
if anyone is interested, here are some results from the little experiment i did: >153 g frozen raw ground beef, extra lean (patty shape) (includes 11 g fat) >92 g cooked patty >8 g fat left in pan (therefore 3 g still in patty) >53 g water lost to evaporation
anyone else on Veeky Forums make this mistake before (or are currently making it?)
lol u mad brah? you mirin my experimental results?
Tyler Cooper
bump
Cameron Jones
Lold at this
Good job OP
Eli Ward
i cant be the only one who has made this mistake before
Brody Hughes
>not taking into consideration weight lost by water vapor
Adrian Flores
>not drinking the leftover fat in the pan not gonna make it
Jordan Barnes
no i am taking it into consideration, the nutrition label on the ground beef package is talking about the raw beef, so 153 g raw beef still has the same macros and calories after being cooked, and i know it loses 53g of water from my experiment (but obviously the water doesn't have any fat, protein or calories)
the fat left behind in the pan was a problem till i measured it, about 8g is left in the pan, so you either have to eat it (not very appealing) or get 8g of healthier fat, like eating almonds
Matthew Gonzalez
but im making up for it by eating an equivalent amount of fat from healthier sources (almonds, avocados, etc)
Samuel Moore
Biggest pro tip I have is to weigh food after it's cooked.
>Tfw watched some news article on how some supermarkets in my country pump their meat up with water >Oh fuck >Start weighing after cooking instead of raw weight >Sometimes up to 200g difference
Bacon is the biggest offender. I like it crispy and a little overdone, and by that point almost all the grease and fat has been cooked off.
But holy fuck user, how delicious is pan frying? I always thought cooking was some sort of arcane witchcraft, but it's so easy.
Also, have you weighed yourself post-experiement? Has weight loss continued at a steady rate?
Eli Foster
Blew more air out of my nose than usual Thanks for this man
Tyler Gonzalez
>Biggest pro tip I have is to weigh food after it's cooked. did not consider that the nutrition label could technically be lying (for example saying 100g of raw beef has so many macros & calories, when in reality these numbers are diluted because the beef has a higher % water weight than the nutrition label assumes)
isn't the above illegal / false advertising?
pan frying is tasty, and very convenient. cooking comes naturally to me as ive worked in kitchens before, cooking is a weapon that women can no longer wield over me because i am very self-sufficient
>Also, have you weighed yourself post-experiement? Has weight loss continued at a steady rate?
i only fixed this mistake a couple days ago, so no data so far. but it would be hard to detect since its only a difference of 8g of fat so 72 calories.. quite minimal (although i am aiming for 1500 cals / day and 41g fat, so its still a substantial loss relative to my reduced budgets)
Nicholas Torres
remember to count all significant figures, understand the limitations of your measuring devices, and consider all possible sources of error
Aaron Evans
actually liking this thread.
also is there a way you can calculate nutritional values yourself? like some backyard science experiments to calculate real world values rather than >(((averages))) on the back of the box
Nathan Evans
>isn't the above illegal / false advertising? Well they say that # per 100g of beef is this amount of nutrition and then say the weight of the product (including packaging) weighs this much
So no, not really false advertising persay, just falling to tell you that only 700g of your 1000kg beef package is beef and not packaging/ water
Josiah Bailey
fuck me, meant 1000g but was thinking of kilograms
Jackson Wright
>persay Retard detected It's per se
Cameron Phillips
>also is there a way you can calculate nutritional values yourself? like some backyard science experiments to calculate real world values yes, you basically just dry out the food in the oven at a low temp, maybe 200 F (dry it completely so it will burn), then burn the food in a little aluminum foil setup so that it heats a glass of water - measure the water temp before and after the burning, take the change in temp and the volume of water heated, and you can calculate calories from that
this vid is okay but she clearly didnt insulate the burning food much so a lot of energy went to the air, which would make the answer inaccurate (lower calories actually than it should be)
Easton Robinson
what about working out protein, fat, carbs, iron, calcium etc?
Jaxson Allen
but if they say "100g of the beef in this package contains x g of protein", then dont they have to measure this taking into account the water weight of the beef as well?
100g of dry-ish beef will have much more protein than 100g of wet beef, since the 100g of wet beef has a much larger amount of its 100g made up of water (diluting the beef basically)
its like selling someone "100g of 24K gold", which is actually impure and only contains 70g of 24K gold - it's blatant lying / false advertising, essentially a scam
Owen Parker
not sure i think thats a lot harder
Austin Turner
I know, at work so don't have time to proof-read, I think my bigger fuck up was the 1000kg
Connor Thompson
>I think my bigger fuck up was the 1000kg No. Also, that's really not something you should have to proofread, that just means you don't know how it's pronounced either. And that's a worrying prospect,considering you might use it on real life. People aren't laughing with you, user.
Jose Collins
Oh yeah. I used to work in an abbatoir. The supermarkets paid extra to have us water up the meat.
You can tell the moment you throw it in the pan. Non-watered meat will take a good while to start letting up smoke, but if it's been pumped? Smoking the second you throw it in.
Adam Fisher
>getting this worked up about grammar on a Chinese rice-fishing crossword puzzle who hurt you user
Michael Thompson
The latin and ancient greek lecturers at my university. I'm a teacher.
Logan Price
so now im more confused.. if 53g of my 153g raw beef patty evaporates off as water, that means about one third of the raw beef is water.. does the nutrition label account for this, or am i getting scammed by beef cut with water? in which case my calories and macros would all be lower than they should be..
Jace Butler
This seems like an appropriate thread to ask: do you guys account for difference in altitude, geography and latitude where you're lifting?
Adam Green
There's still the same in there as it says there is, don't worry. There simply could be a lot more.
Easton Perry
>There simply could be a lot more. you mean the package does contain the amount of beef that it claims to, but also contains additional water?
what is the point of watering up the beef after labeling everything.. doing it before has an (illegal) incentive to make more money by scamming customers into buying water priced as beef by weight.. but watering it after labeling seems stupid and pointless
Jose Perez
Meat contains cells, blood and other tissues which contain a lot of water. If you want dehydrated meat, look for jerky.
John Peterson
i know that, im not looking for jerky, im just trying to figure out if the meat im buying has been maliciously diluted with water so the store can make more money, according to what these anons said: >Tfw watched some news article on how some supermarkets in my country pump their meat up with water >Oh yeah. I used to work in an abbatoir. The supermarkets paid extra to have us water up the meat.
Ethan Martinez
>americans get watermeat Wew
Eli Evans
the beef is the right nutrional values, you're just not getting some much beef as you think
>oh nice! 1kg of beef for $5 >oh nice! great nutrional value for every 100g of beef >*main contain 300g of water
this is the equivalent of cutting cocaine with a 70/30 ratio of cocaine and sugar
Connor Morgan
it was the only way to get the darkies off the watermelon and eating like us
Jaxson Sanders
>wet beef,
James Miller
You still get the nutritional value on the package. Of course, those values are lower than in real meat, but they don't lie.
Jordan Russell
>you mean the package does contain the amount of beef that it claims to, but also contains additional water? Yes Did you expect them to straight out lie?
