 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / February 2005How to pick steak in Fitday?
I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and broccoli. I'm trying to figure out which is the right option to enter into fitday? Anyone have an idea? The option I have picked now says 483 calories which seems low. The cut didn't seem all of fatty, but I'd rather not fool myself. > I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and broccoli. I'm > trying to figure out which is the right option to enter into fitday? Anyone > have an idea? The option I have picked now says 483 calories which seems > low. The cut didn't seem all of fatty, but I'd rather not fool myself. That seems about right. I use "Beef steak, broiled or baked, lean and fat eaten", myself. It certainly is confusing the choices they offer. I eat sirloin, NY strip, and ribeye, so I figure it averages out. On the very rare occasions I have prime rib, I find a separate value for that because it's so fatty. KeS >> I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and broccoli. I'm >> trying to figure out which is the right option to enter into fitday? Anyone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >rare occasions I have prime rib, I find a separate value for that because >it's so fatty. I use the same... beef steak, broiled or baked, lean and fat eaten. Just my .02, Nicole 290.5/185.5/137 monthly-goal: 7.5 month-start: 187.5 since: 19/04/2004 >>> I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and >>> broccoli. I'm trying to figure out which is the right option to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I use the same... beef steak, broiled or baked, lean and fat eaten. What do these mean: Beef, top sirloin, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, select, cooked, broiled Beef, top sirloin, separable lean only, trimmed to 1/4" fat, choice, cooked, broiled What is the difference between those (spearable lean only and trimmed?)? >What is the difference between those (spearable lean only and trimmed?)? It looks like it. **************************************************** You, in the red uniform, go see what that noise is! **************************************************** > >>> I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and > >>> broccoli. I'm trying to figure out which is the right option to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > What is the difference between those (spearable lean only and trimmed?)? It's referring to the edging of fat around the steak. You can either trim it all away or leave some portion of it. There's going to be more fat in the one cooked with the fat on. I must say, though that if you only eat the seperable lean, I wouldn't think it would make much difference if you're only eating the lean. Martha  Signature"ALPO is 99 cents a can. That's over SEVEN dog dollars!!" Revek - ASDLC >> >>> I went to a restaurant tonight and had an 8 oz sirloin and >> >>> broccoli. I'm trying to figure out which is the right option to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the seperable lean, I wouldn't think it would make much difference if > you're only eating the lean. I just ended up putting the higher thing I could get in there, assuming 8 oz cooked, with 1/8in fat. As hungry as I am now, it's no biggie anyhow. Talking about lean steak seems a bit strange, though. > Talking about lean steak seems a bit strange, though. ============================ Doesn't sound like low-carb Atkins to me..... sounds more like Weight Watcher. ;-) SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > X-No-Archive: yes > >> Talking about lean steak seems a bit strange, though. > ============================ > Doesn't sound like low-carb Atkins to me..... sounds more like Weight > Watcher. ;-) Not all of us believe everything Atkins said, believe it or not. I often make a decision to limit fat intake. I just don't fear fat as I used to. > > X-No-Archive: yes > > > >> Talking about lean steak seems a bit strange, though. > > ============================ > > Doesn't sound like low-carb Atkins to me..... sounds more like Weight > > Watcher. ;-) ============================ > Not all of us believe everything Atkins said, believe it or not. I often > make a decision to limit fat intake. I just don't fear fat as I used to. =========================== I made a decision to limit fat last month. The more fat I eat the less of everything else I can have. I'd rather go with less fat and more variety. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== Crap - I forgot to get my official stamp of approval and sign the little document promising only to have thoughts that conform to the official ASDLC guidelines. I hate it when that happens. (credit Sophie) ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ ~~<~~<~~{@ > I just ended up putting the higher thing I could get in there, assuming 8 oz > cooked, with 1/8in fat. As hungry as I am now, it's no biggie anyhow. > Talking about lean steak seems a bit strange, though. There are three different factors being addressed in all those Fitday choices. The first is the trimming - that's how much pure fat edging is on the edge of the cut. The second is the cut itself - sirloin actually *is* very lean beef; there's not much embedded fat or "marbling" in that part of the cow compared to, say, the inner rib. The third is the "grade" of beef, select, choice, etc. These are FDA standards for, basically, how fat a cow that particular animal was (simplifying here). A big fat sedentary cow's sirloin will have a lot more embedded fat than that of a lean, mean, rodeo bull. The marbling, along with less developed muscle, makes the steak tender and juicy, so it will achieve a higher "grade" - it will also have more fat and calories than the same weight and cut from a lower grade beef. Since I don't usually know the grade of beef at a restaurant, eat a variety of cuts about equally, and don't eat that much steak anyway, as I said before I just use the generic entry. If I ate more, or more often, I'd dig into the details more. KeS >> I just ended up putting the higher thing I could get in there, >> assuming 8 oz cooked, with 1/8in fat. As hungry as I am now, it's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > on the edge of the cut. The second is the cut itself - sirloin > actually *is* very lean beef; Ah.... there's not much embedded fat or > "marbling" in that > part of the cow compared to, say, the inner rib. The third is the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "grade" - it will also have more fat and calories than the same > weight and cut from a lower grade beef. Thanks for that info. I don't remember saying any visable fat around the edges. > Since I don't usually know the grade of beef at a restaurant, eat a > variety of cuts about equally, and don't eat that much steak anyway, > as I said before I just use the generic entry. If I ate more, or > more often, > I'd dig into the details more. I'm the same. It is rare that I eat a steak. > trying to figure out which is the right option to enter into fitday? Why wouldn't you want to use the various sirloin, top loin or short loin options available via the search function? They would seem to match more closely that particular cut of meat for balance of protein and fat. Then again the fat/protein ratio can be radically different based on the marbling of the meat and how you had it cooked. A well marbled steak will render much more fat prepared "well done" vs. "rare". Another factor to consider is that 8 ounce steak advertised in the menu translates into an average raw weight with unknown variability as supplied to the restaraunt. Hello, Snip > Another factor to consider is that 8 ounce steak advertised in > the menu translates into an average raw weight with unknown > variability as supplied to the restaraunt. The weights given are usually the 'before cooking" weights. Take care, Carmen SignaturePlease note change in Reply To address carmensrt <at> gmail <dot> com Hotmail isn't working and is being abandoned > Hello, > Snip [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The weights given are usually the 'before cooking" weights. Agreed. The restaraunt suppliers' packaging will contain many steaks (12, 18, 24, 30, etc.) The variability of weight from piece to piece is enough to question the precision of the Roger's 483 fitday guesstimate. Without bringing a scale into the kitchen and weighing the meat, its more like in PotC Captain Barbarosa quote: "And thirdly, the code [fitday via USDA SR-17] is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." Sample offerings from restaraunt suppliers: http://www.syscocentralontario.com/publication-pdf/category/bbq-cat-volume2.pdf Variable nutrient content statistical analysis on beef in the US: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/IFDC5_Beef.pdf >> Hello, >> Snip [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Sample offerings from restaraunt suppliers: http://www.syscocentralontario.com/publication-pdf/category/bbq-cat-volume2.pdf > Variable nutrient content statistical analysis on beef in the US: > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Other/IFDC5_Beef.pdf Thanks for that. I ended up going with this choice: Beef, top sirloin, separable lean and fat, trimmed to 1/8" fat, choice, cooked, broiled as it came in at 587 kcals, the highest I could get. >> trying to figure out which is the right option to enter into fitday? > > Why wouldn't you want to use the various sirloin, top loin or short > loin options available via the search function? Why wouldn't I? I did. I guess my question is which is best for a restaurant cut of beef. They would seem to > match more closely that particular cut of meat for balance of protein > and fat. Then again the fat/protein ratio can be radically different > based on the marbling of the meat and how you had it cooked. A well > marbled steak will render much more fat prepared "well done" vs. > "rare". I never eat rare, though. > Another factor to consider is that 8 ounce steak advertised > in the menu translates into an average raw weight with unknown > variability as supplied to the restaraunt. It doesn't need to be precise for me, because I'm well under the calories needed for me to lose weight. I just want to get something in there that is ballparkish. All of those options in fitday come with no explanation... > It doesn't need to be precise for me, because I'm well under the calories > needed for me to lose weight. I just want to get something in there that is > ballparkish. All of those options in fitday come with no explanation... To get an explanation from Fitday would be difficult since they are not the original publisher of the data. Fitday ported the data from the USDA NS-17 database and seemed to add commercially available foods into their own database. You can search the USDA database online or download the whole shebang from: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/ Other food nutrition sites borrow heavily from the USDA data as well and provide more "value-added" functionality like NutritionData's website: http://www.nutritiondata.com/index.html Then again the fat/protein ratio can be radically different > based on the marbling of the meat and how you had it cooked. ## Which is a classic example of why figuring CALORIES exactly is impossible! No 2 slabs of the same cut are going to contain the same amounts of fat. All animals are different, just like people. A well > marbled steak will render much more fat prepared "well done" vs. > "rare". Another factor to consider is that 8 ounce steak advertised in > the menu translates into an average raw weight with unknown variability > as supplied to the restaraunt. SignatureWysong Age 60. Height 5'6" Starting date: 1/8/05 171/ 165 / 140 lb Starting date LC 7/01 at 207lbs Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs ========================================== > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ## Which is a classic example of why figuring CALORIES exactly is > impossible! snip > -- > Wysong snip > Stopped losing on LC 11/01 at 165lbs > ========================================== It would seem that some folks have been figuring CALORIES impossibly for a very, very long time. Looks like a clue. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.