Meat Raw-to-Cooked Conversion Table
Nutrition & Sports Nutrition Reference Tables
Meat Raw-to-Cooked Conversion Table
Cooking yield must be measured or matched to a specified food and method; illustrative ratios below are arithmetic examples, not universal rice or meat factors.
| Element | Relationship or example | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Cooking yield factor | cooked edible mass / raw edible mass | Method- and food-specific |
| Illustrative grain batch | 100 g raw -> 300 g cooked; factor 3 | Example only; water uptake varies |
| Illustrative meat batch | 200 g raw -> 150 g cooked; factor 0.75 | Example only; fat and water losses vary |
| Raw equivalent | cooked mass / yield factor | Use the same food and method |
| Edible fraction | edible mass / purchased mass | Remove bones or peel consistently |
Food Composition Database An organized source of nutrient values for identified foods, with coverage and quality depending on the database and its methods.
Food composition analysis depends on matching the reported food to an appropriate database entry. Variety, brand, fortification, preparation and raw-versus-cooked weight can change the match. Missing data do not necessarily mean that a nutrient is absent. Recipes require ingredient amounts, edible yields and suitable retention assumptions. Record the database and version when comparability matters. A detailed software output remains an estimate; checking the food match and units can be more valuable than reporting many decimal places from uncertain intake data.
Portion assessment translates what a person reports into a usable quantity. Household measures, photographs, food models and scales offer different types of help; none eliminates uncertainty. Distinguish an individual's actual portion from a standardized serving used for analysis or labeling. Check density, container size, edible fraction and whether a photograph depicts the same food form. In an athlete's plan, practical examples should make adequate intake easier while allowing the assessor to explain how the reported amount was estimated and where uncertainty remains.
Accuracy concerns closeness to an appropriate reference, while precision concerns repeatability; consistent measurements can still be systematically wrong. Validity asks whether a method supports its intended interpretation, and reliability asks how consistently it performs. Reporting error can reflect memory, burden, food omission or social pressure. An implausible estimate should prompt review rather than an accusation. Calibration may reduce specific errors under defined assumptions, but it does not turn every self-report into an exact measurement of an athlete's habitual intake.
🔒 The rest of this entry is available after free Google sign-in.
Home
Academy
Site Map