I accidentally posted this in the weight loss forum. Wondering if anyone in Foods has any thought on this one. Got two good responses. One was to just forget it and use the higher numbers. The second was more of a science project to try to weigh the fat that drains off. I was thinking that this must be a common issue given the amount of grilled / ground meat that folks eat. Thanks for any thoughts.
Does anyone know how to accurately calculate fat / calories in food that has been grilled?
For example, for dinner tonight I had a grilled hamburger (actually a Bison Burger) that, according to the label had 180 calories / serving with 10 grams of fat 4.5 saturated. I assume that the label calculates this as if you eat all of the fat that is in the meat when it is raw. Clearly a lot of the fat ends up in the grill. I would estimate that the meat was something close to an 80 / 20 blend.
One pound uncooked weighed about .7 pounds after it was cooked. I realize that some of this was water, but I would imagine that quite a bit was fat.
When I cook the same meat inside, there is quite a bit of fat that you can pour off after cooking. Of course, the meat tastes like it has more fat when it is cooked this way as I am sure that the grill does a better job of cooking off the fat.
The same question would apply to meat that is browned and then used for tacos etc.
I appreciate anyone who can help.
I think the amount lost in cooking wouldn't make that much difference. I would just log the burger as it is. You can never get the exact amount. I mean you could do that with every bit of food you eat, but it may become a bit obsessive.
I was really hoping someone had a more substantial answer to this question as I wonder about the same thing. I know grilling eliminates weight and fat from meats more than any skillet method. How much? I don't know. Oh, well.
This is one of those questions that 'depends'. It depends on how obsessive you want to be about calorie counting. Unless you're prepared to weigh the meat pre and post cooking, scrape up the juices that come out of the meat, measure how much of that juice is fluid as opposed to fat... and then sit down with a calculator to work it all out.... you're not going to get a reasonable answer.
Meat contains intra-muscular fat as well as the fat you can see. This varies wildly. So the starting calorie-count for a raw hamburger can be quite inaccurate for a kick-off. Therefore the finished count is also inaccurate, even if you go to the obsessive lengths of measuring etc.
Work with averages. You may be 20 or 30 or even 50 cals out but, in the grand scheme of things, it will make no difference.
Finally.... to really reduce the impact, eat less meat... 
I find that a reasonable response and overview. Thanks!
I rarely buy ground beef anymore, but when I do I only buy 93% or 96% fat free ground beef. Made some mini meatloaves from the Kraft Foods website the other day, and only 267 calories for two of them. Made some fantastic chili a couple of days ago, and only 290 calories for a 1 2/3 cup serving. That's quite a bit of chili. Anyway, I pretty much solved the fat problem by buying very low fat meat. Same thing with a roast, actually. A rump roast is generally a tougher cut because of the lack of fat, but I cook it in the crock pot, and when it's done it just falls apart, it's so tender. Just relating my own experience.
