Appropriate protein for OMAD

[Shinita]

You’ve admited you know that water content doesn’t contain and macro value, so why count it like it does?

I don’t. I use the right macros… But I thought I was pretty clear in the end.

MAN. About everyone uses the raw weight as we have no other options and it MATTERS if it loses a ton of water or not.

Give me an example, seriously. Actually, you gave me one, the chicken. You wrote:

My raw chicken breast at 200g is 57g protein, 0 carbs, 2.4g fat

Why is it a problem if I use THIS, raw data for my 200g chicken breast? Tell me. It makes no sense that you don’t understand these trivial things.
I have my 200g chicken breast and use the data mentioned (or whatever is in my own database, probably something very close so either is fine and not exactly like reality but close enough).
So I ate 57g protein and 2.4g fat. You wrote these data so WHY would it be wrong?
I couldn’t care less how much my meat will weigh after I cook it. Why would I weigh it, that’s unnecessary work. I use the raw weight, 200g. Just like about everyone… It’s how one does it. (If we don’t eat it all, that’s a bit more weighing but we use the raw data as a starting point and derive everything else from it.)
What problem do you see in that? Using the correct info, why is it bad in your eyes?
I already wrote that if you think I use the cooked weight with the raw macros, you are obviously wrong. It’s not how one track, every proper CICO site explains it to you.

I could even eat my meat raw (okay, I wouldn’t do that with chicken or pork… some people do).
Many people eat meat raw.
They ONLY have raw data and they still can track right enough
It doesn’t even matter if I cook it or not, the macros will be the SAME. For the thing, not per 100g, why would I care for cooked macros for 100g when I eat it all at once (or half of it, still don’t need that info)?

I still I am pretty sure that everyone of us tracking use raw macros as WHAT ELSE? It’s the only one accurate available… Except if we calculated cooked macros from raw ones (it still started with raw) or when we buy cooked food with a label, obviously.

[lfod14]

Why is it a problem if I use THIS, raw data for my 200g chicken breast? Tell me. It makes no sense that you don’t understand these trivial things.

How about you quote what I said in it’s entirety instead of cherry picking?

My raw chicken breast at 200g is 57g protein, 0 carbs, 2.4g fat

When it’s cooked it will be around 140g which would be 40g protein 0 carbs, 1.7g fat.

To reiterate…

WHEN IT’S COOKED, IT WILL BE AROUND 140G, WHICH WOULD BE 40G PROTEIN, 0 CARBS, 1.7G FAT.

So again, you’ve already admitted that water has no macronutrient value, yet you count it as having such. Pick a side because you’re arguing both of them.

…It makes no sense that you don’t understand these trivial things.

[Naghite]

My raw chicken breast at 200g is 57g protein, 0 carbs, 2.4g fat

When it’s cooked it will be around 140g which would be 40g protein 0 carbs, 1.7g fat.

Please explain how cooking something destroys the protein content of said item as your claim of 57g protein raw which turns into 40g cooked. How does cooking destroy 17g of protein?

[Shinita]

I don’t cherry picking, I just want to un derstand you. But it’s me who do the whole work, explaining things very well that someone with half my IQ would get it but something unusual happens, apparently…

If we continue this, I must say I did everything, it’s up to you to finally point it any perceived problem. You didn’t do it this far.

WHEN IT’S COOKED, IT WILL BE AROUND 140G, WHICH WOULD BE 40G PROTEIN, 0 CARBS, 1.7G FAT.

And why should I care about ANY of these numbers when I use the raw infos so everything is perfect? I don’t even HAVE info about the cooked macros. I could derive them from the raw, sure but it still starts with the raw as that is the only accurate one.

I track what I eat, exactly. Thankfully macros don’t disappear while cooking (sometimes they can but I eat everything so nope).

So again, you’ve already admitted that water has no macronutrient value, yet you count it as having such.

I do nothing like that. Why would I? The macros I use taken care of water. 57+0+2.4 is still less than 100. That is the water.

…It makes no sense that you don’t understand these trivial things.

Likewise. I am totally amazed. Everyone uses raw macros anyway… As we only have those accurately.

It’s not important for me, it’s glaringly obvious I do it right (how could I not? seriously…) BUT sadly, I am a super curious one.
Come on, tell me how YOU track your 200g chicken. I use another data from another database so I get 45g protein but if I ate it raw, it still would be 45g protein, it’s database differences (not like chicken are the same, obviously they contain different amount of water, it can’t be helped).
But if I used your data, I ate my chicken, getting 57g protein. What is the problem with that in your opinion? Nothing I suppose. I told you TWICE that I use the correct (as much as it can be with the database I use) macros for the accompanying weight. The RAW one. 200g. 200. Why would I use 140 if I don’t have macros for that?

[lfod14]

Please explain how cooking something destroys the protein content of said item as your claim of 57g protein raw which turns into 40g cooked. How does cooking destroy 17g of protein?

I can’t for two reasons,

1: Because it doesn’t.
2: Because I never said that it did.

Cooking it removes water content, which if you record by raw weight, you’re counting water as having a macronutrient value, which it doesn’t.

[lfod14]

Nothing I suppose. I told you TWICE that I use the correct (as much as it can be with the database I use) macros for the accompanying weight. The RAW one. 200g. 200. Why would I use 140 if I don’t have macros for that?

What does that even mean “correct” macro’s are per a given weight.

It makes no difference what the macros are, you change the weight you record to what you actually have, it adjusts from there. What kind of backwards macro tracker are you using that you can’t enter the weight of what you’re eating?