How Much Fat in Cooked Ground Beef

No its best to overestimate rather than under estimate. Use a lower fat % for your burgers and it will fix the calorie count. A 95/5 would have only cost you 340 calories. Burgers can be bad news between the bun, mayo, cheese, and using a higher fat % to get a juicier patty. I gave up traditional burgers while I was trying to lose the weight. I would do a 3 oz 95/5 on a wrap with lots of veggies mustard and ketchup. I eat one every once in a while now that I am on maintenance but they just don't seem worth the effort I would need to put in to cutting or burning calories elsewhere.

We had burgers tonight, too.

You can log cooked or raw, just make sure you're using the correct entry. So either hamburger, raw or something like hamburger, grilled.

My cooked burger was 100g. When it was raw it was 200g. Couldn't it just have lost 100g in fat dripping into the bbq? That said, may it be safe to log superstore regular ground beef 100g? ??

Anyone? Can i use cooked weight for my bbqed superstore regular ground beef burger?

If you search the database for something like:
USDA ground beef 80% lean raw
then use the raw weight.

If you search the database for something like:
USDA ground beef 80% lean cooked
then use the cooked weight.

It doesn't matter which you use, as long as you're accurate (weight & condition).

I'd try to find an entry in the database that says cooked beef, and use the cooked weight.

My cooked burger was 100g. When it was raw it was 200g. Couldn't it just have lost 100g in fat dripping into the bbq? That said, may it be safe to log superstore regular ground beef 100g? ??

There's a drop-down tab on the link that gives options for raw and different types of preparation.

Honestly, I'd say that you mostly lose water when cooking (as with anything). I use the raw weight with a raw entry. Any fat that *might* leave the bun is a bonus for the day. Meat is calorie dense, that's just the way it is. don't kid yourself into allowing yourself a lower number for a heavy meal.

K so i used this entry
Hamburger cooked regular ground beef 80/20 and of course used the cooked weight of 100g

So now im wondering what entry should i use when i have lean ground beef? Is it 90/10??

Also. So many entries...what is really accurate? Sure would be beneficial to know...everyone knows how important accuracy is when weight loss is your goal

It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

But better overestimate than the opposite.

It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

But better overestimate than the opposite.

No, a 100g cooked patty is quite regular size.... a 50g burger would be puny...

Im sad i can't find accurate info on my burger....i love burgers

Thats about the size of burger I have when I grill them. I use 93/7 beef so thats what I log. If you notice some entries have a check mark by them I try and use those when I log. If something I go to log doesnt have any confirmations on it I wont use it, I will find another one that has been verified or enter it on my own.

It should be pretty easy to find and log accurately

It looks to me like you are trying to justify to yourself that the hamburger is not as caloric as it appears in first place.
To me a portion of meat or fish is around 120-125 g in raw state, having a 200g burger seems a bit on the big side.

Although I'm a 1.54m female with a current weight of 63kg, so maybe based on your stats it's not that big.

But better overestimate than the opposite.

No, a 100g cooked patty is quite regular size.... a 50g burger would be puny...

Im sad i can't find accurate info on my burger....i love burgers

I would have logged it as the raw weight using the raw entry. You don't know how much fat or water was lost during the cooking process and you don't know if the database cooked entry lost the same amount of fat and water.

Im gonna weight my frozen patties when home...i can't see 200g raw being 520cals and 100g coked being 250cals... (exact same patty) WAY too much of a difference for my liking.

I log things using the cooked entry whenever I can. I like to log what I actually eat. It's not always possible, but where I can, I log cooked. Seems more accurate to me to log what you eat.

Some people prefer the raw version. Whatever floats your boat.