Raw vs Cooked

I see a lot of sites make mention to food in a raw state when it gives the calorie count.  Obviously people don't eat these things raw. (Except for fish and veggies.) So does cooking the food change it's calorie count?  Naturally if you cook it in oils it would, but we can easily account for that by adding the oil in. 

Right - just like you said, they can only give you the calorie content of a raw item because they don't know how you're going to cook it.  If you grill a chicken breast with just seasoning, chances are, the calorie content will stay the same. But if you bread it and fry it, it's going to change.  KnowwhatImeanjellybean?

I didn't think the mere act of cooking an item would change its calorie count. I can understand it losing some of the nutrients because most everything breaks down under heat.  Wish we could get lucky and have the calories dissolve under heat. Hell then I'd burn all my food! hahaha

Then again I have always heard that toasted bread is healthier than untoasted.. What's up with that?

I think because you disolve the gluten when it's toasted?  I don't know.  Maybe mushy bread is just bad. 

Chris -- I'm assuming any difference you see in whatever items you're looking up is due to food cooking down, I guess due to water? (Let's not get too caught up in anything that even remotely resembles science. I'm bad at it.) All I know is that 4 ounces of raw fish or meat yield about a 3 ounce cooked portion. Etc. Is this what you mean?

Hell I rarely ever know what I mean!  But what I think I'm trying to say here is if you take a big yummmy fat cut of prime rib that's raw and has 800 calories then does it still have 800 calories if you cook it?  Assume you are cooking with no seasoning or oils.  I would think that it would change because you're going to be cooking off some of the fat an oils already in the meat.  Perhaps I'm getting too complicated and I really don't plan on counting my calories pre-cooked vs cooked but it's just something I've often wondered about.

O.K., now I get what you were asking. Yes, it's possible for fat to cook off a piece of meat and slightly alter the calorie count. As you hinted at, however, this possibility doesn't make it practical or smart to count calories based on how much fat you *think* might drip off a steak if you put it on the George Foreman grill. I'm all for low-fat cooking methods such as steaming, or those which might extract some grease, but whatever the basic calorie count is in my food...well, that's how I count it! A few calories accidentally shaved off here or there, once in a while, would just be a teeny little bonus.

Heck - I'll be happy the day I open a can of *whatever* and I actually find 3.5 1/2 cup servings..... It is usually closer to 3 servings... so do I divide it into 3.5 cups and assume the calories are right or do I eat a 1/2 cup and call it good??  SHEESH!

What I would do is take the correct serving, and if it happens to be that they didn't give me as much as promised...I get pissed and move on

Doesnt this happen to you??  Am I the only one???  diced tomatoes, green beans, pintos, kidney beans...  the can never seems to have the promised 3.5 1/2 cups!

Maybe I need to go back to measuring school...LOL