Let's talk about apples...

mom2ava07
mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Either my scale is broken or apples are actually not a low calorie snack.

Golden delicious apples are an example...I was eating one daily and have to admit I didn't weigh them as I was at work when I would eat them.

I weighed one today that was about the size of a baseball...I wouldn't even consider it a large but it was 217 grams! Essentially every apple in the data base was listed as large and 100 grams at 80 calories. So basically an average apple has close to 200 calories?! Is a "large apple" really the size of a grape?

Granted, I've lost 15.5 pounds in 6 weeks, so despite apples I'm still doing good.

Someone please tell me my scale must be broken ;)

I now know how important it is to weigh every single thing regardless if it's fruit.
«13

Replies

  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    How much did the edible part weigh?
  • mom2ava07
    mom2ava07 Posts: 186 Member
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    How much did the edible part weigh?


    I was weighing it whole. My husband suggested slicing it and then weighing it minus the core but I didn't think it would make that big a difference, but maybe it would on second thought.
  • azulvioleta6
    azulvioleta6 Posts: 4,195 Member
    Yes, slice it first! Either that or weigh the core afterwards and subtract that from the total weight.

    Apples have a lot of carbs/sugar, so the really big ones pack a punch. I actually seek out small apples as they are closer to what I need as a single serving.
  • Spreyton22K
    Spreyton22K Posts: 323 Member
    Hmmm.....the big 'uns are a bit of a calorie shock, aren't they. :smile:

    We cut ours 1st off the core too....you would be surprised how much it will take off at times.
  • jvt63
    jvt63 Posts: 89 Member
    Apples--so good, but so sugary/carby. I never find apples small enough to be one serving, so I typically wedge them with one of those thingies and weight out 2-3 ounces. To eat one "medium" apple takes me a few days. I'm small, eat 1200 calories a day. You gotta do what you gotta do. :)
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    That doesn't sound right. The large apples I've been eating (weighing 214g total) are 85 calories or so (the core is typically 20g). That's using MFP's entry for raw apples with skin.
  • SpecialKitty7
    SpecialKitty7 Posts: 678 Member
    edited February 2015
    Francl27 wrote: »
    That doesn't sound right. The large apples I've been eating (weighing 214g total) are 85 calories or so (the core is typically 20g). That's using MFP's entry for raw apples with skin.

    Agreed. I eat huge ones all the time. Per the USDA:
    cz0fe31j1jyw.png
  • jvt63
    jvt63 Posts: 89 Member
    per the usda nutrient database http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2171 1 large apple (223 g) = 116 calories. Not so bad, but for me, 30 grams of carbs is a no-go. But for larger/taller people, ya can't do better than an apple. :)
  • jvt63
    jvt63 Posts: 89 Member
    ah, jut saw that you took out the core. sorry about that.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    I don't eat apples very often, because they (or at the the kinds I like best) are so big, and they don't keep very vell once they are cut.
  • healthygreek
    healthygreek Posts: 2,137 Member
    Apples are sooooo good and good for you!
    I love fuji and honey crisp.
    I make them fit my goal cause they're very satisfying to me.
    Sometimes I have them with peanut butter or cheese.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Apples are sooooo good and good for you!
    I love fuji and honey crisp.
    I make them fit my goal cause they're very satisfying to me.
    Sometimes I have them with peanut butter or cheese.

    That's how I eat them! And maybe that's the real reason why I can't eat apples all the time o:)
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited February 2015
    mom2ava07 wrote: »
    Either my scale is broken or apples are actually not a low calorie snack.

    Golden delicious apples are an example...I was eating one daily and have to admit I didn't weigh them as I was at work when I would eat them.

    I weighed one today that was about the size of a baseball...I wouldn't even consider it a large but it was 217 grams! Essentially every apple in the data base was listed as large and 100 grams at 80 calories. So basically an average apple has close to 200 calories?! Is a "large apple" really the size of a grape?

    Granted, I've lost 15.5 pounds in 6 weeks, so despite apples I'm still doing good.

    Someone please tell me my scale must be broken ;)

    I now know how important it is to weigh every single thing regardless if it's fruit.

    I know ! I weigh everything, and many a banana is not 110 calories as the database says. Some are 145, others are as low as 90 calories.

    No, dear, your scale is not broken. :)

    I have a scale in my purse so I can weight food at work.

    Before you remove the core from the apple before weighing, because you don't eat that.


  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    edited February 2015
    Francl27 wrote: »
    That doesn't sound right. The large apples I've been eating (weighing 214g total) are 85 calories or so (the core is typically 20g). That's using MFP's entry for raw apples with skin.

    Agreed. I eat huge ones all the time. Per the USDA:
    cz0fe31j1jyw.png

    That is a generic nutrition label, but it does have the grams. With these, I enter the food into my own food database using the grams option.
  • SpecialKitty7
    SpecialKitty7 Posts: 678 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    That doesn't sound right. The large apples I've been eating (weighing 214g total) are 85 calories or so (the core is typically 20g). That's using MFP's entry for raw apples with skin.

    Agreed. I eat huge ones all the time. Per the USDA:
    cz0fe31j1jyw.png

    That is a generic nutrition label, but it does have the grams. With these, I enter the food into my own food database using the grams option.

    Nope: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/HHFS_APPLES_FRESH_Nov2012.pdf
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
  • numinousnymph
    numinousnymph Posts: 249 Member
    you're right OP, an extra large apple can easily have close to 200 cals. i always seek out the smallest ones, sometimes going to the farmer's market is the only way i can find ones small enough to meet my calorie goals. i also weigh the apple whole, then cut around the core of the apple, gnaw off of it what i can and then weigh the inedible parts that are left, which for a small apple for me usually is right around 10g. then i subtract that from the whole apple weight.

    @francl27 i'm not sure if the entry you are using for apples is correct. for one, every apple breed/strain does differ slightly in its calorie and sugar content. i use usda entries when i can and always note the specific kind of apple i'm eating. but i've never had an apple weigh that much for that little calories. for example, 133g of a gala apple is 76 calories, according to a usda entry on MFP. i always check multiple entries on MFP to find ones that seem too high or too low and i've done that with the usda gala apple entries, and most seem to reflect that number.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    I guess it's what I get for using MFP's entry? I'm never eating apples again...
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
    So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?
    BpEpXE0CcAIcb17.png
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I always weigh apples with the core in. I'd rather overestimate than underestimate. Plus it'll make up for the odd logging error here and there
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    edited February 2015
    mom2ava07 wrote: »
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    How much did the edible part weigh?


    I was weighing it whole. My husband suggested slicing it and then weighing it minus the core but I didn't think it would make that big a difference, but maybe it would on second thought.

    Unless you eat the apple core, you shouldn't be weighing it whole.
  • Wiseandcurious
    Wiseandcurious Posts: 730 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
    So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?
    BpEpXE0CcAIcb17.png

    That struck me too. I think perhaps that poster is thinking of going by size and not weighing? If you weigh your food, obviously you will log only the weight you consume, and take the calories per gram, no?
  • williams969
    williams969 Posts: 2,528 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
    So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?
    BpEpXE0CcAIcb17.png

    Right? If I'm only eating 150g of a 175g apple, I log 150g--the amount I ate. Same for any other food. I don't log the part I toss in the compost.
  • sunnyside1213
    sunnyside1213 Posts: 1,205 Member
    Very high in fiber.
  • I eat an apple almost every day. I watch carbs pretty closely so it really kills me to have to spend that many calories and carbs on an apple. I like apples though and I feel the health benefits outweigh the high calories, or at least I'm hoping they do!
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
    Huh?
  • arditarose
    arditarose Posts: 15,573 Member
    I never considered apples low calorie.
  • SuggaD
    SuggaD Posts: 1,369 Member
    I get the lunchbox sized ones. TJ's ones actually weigh less than on the bag.
  • ketorach
    ketorach Posts: 430 Member
    If I didn't pick it, I'm not eating it. For me, apples are delicious treats reserved for fall when they are fresh and awesome.
  • sheldonklein
    sheldonklein Posts: 854 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Anyone slicing their apples and only logging the edible portion is cheating themselves. By law the nutritional information is reported for the product you are buying; for example, pasta is listed in its raw form, pancake batter in its dry form etc.

    The USDA info on apples includes the inedible portions (which, BTW, actually ARE edible). If you remove the core weight you should still log the entire thing.
    So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?
    BpEpXE0CcAIcb17.png

    Right? If I'm only eating 150g of a 175g apple, I log 150g--the amount I ate. Same for any other food. I don't log the part I toss in the compost.

    This is absurd. The only question is how the calorie source measured the apple. Ssince the source measured the apple as à whole apple, so must you.
This discussion has been closed.