Should you weigh food before or after cooking?
It took me a second to figure out the picture but when I did I let out a hearty chuckle
Thanks OP
I tend to do it before, because a lot of my dishes consist of a carb+sauce+meat slurry which doesn't work well with a scale.
>>35091909
it weighs the same dumbass
>>35092144
I weighed chicken before after and it was much lighter after.
>>35092144
>it weighs the same
>>35091941
am i missing something?
>>35091909
Before, always before.
>>35092166
>>35092168
>what is conservation of mass
muscleheads everybody
>>35092194
No retard it weighs less after you cook, but it has the same amount of calories assuming it was water that left.
>>35092194
>what is evaporation of water when heating
You seem to be the meathead m80
>>35092194
Friend, I hope you're baiting.
Depending on cooking method, what you weigh before and after may vary significantly due to loss of water.
On the off chance that you're not baiting
You have only the barest comprehension of "conservation of mass", and you should probably kill yourself.
After because that's what you're putting in your digestive system.
Don't listen to the trolls who say before.
Take spaghetti for example. Wouldn't it make sense for you to weigh it after it's cooked and not before?
I weigh it after, and used the "cooked" measurements in myfitnesspal.
I suppose its better to weigh before cooking, because if you undercook or overcook, the weight will be less/more than the reference.
Either way is fine, as long as you don't log 4oz of cooked chicken but weigh out 4oz uncooked, then your count will be totally fucked.
>>35091909
I usually weight after because my mother cooks for the whole family and i can't expect her to cook for me seperatly. I just calculated some factors when i cooked for myself. Rice gets about 3 times heavier with cooking, noodles about 2.5 times heavier and chicken gets about 1.27 lighter. Those factors work for me as i have lost 30 pounds in the last 25 weeks without losing to much strength. (I use iifym)
>>35092278
>Take spaghetti for example. Wouldn't it make sense for you to weigh it after it's cooked and not before?
No, because you're weight could vary based on how much water was absorbed, which differs based on cooking times. If you weigh before cooking then there is no variables.
>>35092194
>the scale is wrong and i'm right
>>35092194
This is why you should stay in school, kids.
Signed,
A concerned /fit/izen
You don't need to weigh your food, implying you have a strict, healthy diet. Whether you eat 400gr or 600gr of brocoli won't make you a fatass. The simpliest way to go is to not weigh anything or not count calories; just eat more if you wanna gain weight.
>>35092691
but i have the autism
>>35092144
No it doesn't
Cooking can either take water or add water to what you're cooking
>>35092171
Instead of waking his wife with breakfast in bed to pamper her he's waking her up with a tray full of cleaning supplies for her to do chores with
That's the joke
>>35092194
>cooked rice weighs the same as dry rice
>>35092194
>>35092217
>>35092219
>>35092250
>>35092542
>>35092649
>>35092995
>>35093017
You fucking autistic retards. Conversation of mass/energy/momentum CLEARLY indicates that there's no difference. I could give a list of formulas to prove it, but you guys are too fucking stupid anyway.
t. physics undergrad
>>35093039
Here's an experiment mr physics
Take 100 grams of pasta
Cook it
Then weigh it after cooking and see how many grams are there
Or rice
Or oatmeal
>>35093098
>what's the difference between weight and mass
here's your (you) for your bait
>>35093111
Who's baiting who
All OP is asking is when to weigh it
Because the weight changes
No one is asking about mass
The mass might be the same but the weight will change and that's all we're talking about mr physics
>>35093135
Okay i'm gonna do it anyway
To model the heat transfer contour integrals are used. The function used is a holomorphic function, thus we can directly apply Cauchy's integral theorem:
∮[∂u/∂dt-α∇^2(u)] = 0 ; giving us that there's no difference in mass.
>>35093236
We know. But interpretation is part of the test and you failed at that so you get an F
>>35093269
Just do the experiment yourself.
Get a kg of pasta, weigh it, throw it in a pan or microwave and heat it up. Weigh it again when you feel like it's been long enough and you'll see that there's no change.
>no response after 5 minutes
Guess that's another argument won :)
>>35093286
You don't cook pasta in a microwave you do it with boiling water and the water gets in there and changes the weight
>>35093447
Fuck you man I don't owe you my attention there's other threads to shitpost in
![1305523587250[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6Lsiw9r.png "1305523587250[1].png")
>>35093491
too late i already put down the mark
>>35091909
After cooking, 600g of chicken turns easily to 300g when you take it from oven.
>>35093551
You haven't earned it and you know it
Live with the shame
>>35092194
>Water evaporated when I cooked food causing it to weigh less
>>35091909
Just to be clear we want to weigh before and assume that only water is the difference in weight
>>35093236
nice job prooving than heating something up doesn't increase its weight, now try adding water
what a bunch of retads jesus
>>35093039
>>>35092217
>>>35092219
>>>35092250
>>>35092542
>>>35092649
>>>35092995
>>>35093017
>You fucking autistic retards. Conversation of mass/energy/momentum CLEARLY indicates that there's no difference. I could give a list of formulas to prove it, but you guys are too fucking stupid anyway.
>t. physics undergrad
rice weighs about double when cooked. however 100g uncooked rice has the same macronutrient profile as the same rice when cooked, it just happens that the rice is hydrated by the cooking process.
if you're going to weigh food, do so before cooking, less error prone.
side note - cooking does change the bioavailability of food.
