Have I been weighing my food wrong?

I mostly meant that 3oz of turkey vs 3oz of beef seems a lot different. I feel like there's a lot more turkey on my plate than there would be beef. Also thank you for that link! I do find tracking keeps me from straying and eating things I don't want to. Well, I do want to eat them, but you know what I mean lol!

3oz of very lean sirloin actually will tend to have more protein than 3 oz of fatty turkey. Meat is organic and, like plants, nutrition is approximate unless you can use a mass spec on your particular meal to figure out empirical measurements. It's because what animals eat and their environment changes what their muscle is made from, so there is variation we cannot control. I'd argue it's miniscule...but interesting.

Food macros are weird, and I am not entirely convinced we can ever have 100% accurate calorie tracking down to the precise calorie.

I would track stuff and not overthink it. I realize this is like the pot calling the kettle black, haha, but I am very guilty of this, and then I get tired and fed up tracking, and then I don't track.

The main thing is to hit protein goals; everything else is gravy. Or more protein, I guess since I don't eat gravy... >.>

You can also note cooked or not cooked in various apps, too, so there's always a way to get more accuracy!

Dead turkey jokes, Donna? Really? Boy, once Thanksgiving is over, people figure it's just open season on turkeys.

Birds of a feather, Grim. Birds of a feather...

Your intake is cooked meat.

Your weights should be for cooked meat. Otherwise the protein count is off....by at least 1/2 ounce@ each serving.

Turkey will appear as much more/per serving because it is not as dense.

Vegetables eaten raw should be measured that way, and cooked vegetables should be measured -totally cooked.

I asked a lot of nutritionists when I started, and the answers were about 50-50 for weighing raw vs cooked meat. It turns out that, at the time, there was no definitive answer. I have always weighed mine cooked, then subtracted the weight of the bones and anything I didn't finish afterward.

But, now, there actually is a correct answer. The calorie and nutrition figures on the label are for raw meat, not cooked.

I didn't realize, nutrition labels have only been required on raw meat and poultry products since 2012. If they are prepared or have a small amount of meat in them (think pork and beans, pasta sauce with meat, etc) the regulations are different, as well as their history. These sre products that are only 5% or less meat.

I'm not going to change the way I log. I don't plan to, anyway. I have over 4 years of food logs, and I would rather maintain consistency. It's the relation between number day-to-day and month-to-month that is important to me, not the actual calorie number. But if I were to start logging today, I would begin by using the right numbers.

I think the confusion in the past, and especially when I first started logging, there was NO requirement to provide nutrient labels on raw meat. The calorie numbers out there were from various sources, and some used raw, and some cooked. That's why, when I asked various nutritionists, I received conflicting answers. It must have been just before the nutrition labels began to be required in 2012. I wish the labels actually said raw or cooked though. It would have cleared up some confusion.

When I read that article saying all meat should be measured raw I felt so bad. I beat myself up so much about how I should have known better. I don't feel that way now though, thankfully. I figured, what I'm doing is working for me. It's rare I even eat the 4oz of meat I plan to eat, aside from maybe ground meats which are easier in. The way I've been logging and keeping track is working, so I'm okay. I will make a more conscious effort to weigh raw now that I know for sure though. I don't feel like I'm in too deep into the habit of weighing cooked to turn around. Thank you for the information and insight though! It makes me feel better to hear that consistency is the key.