Let's talk about apples...
Replies
-
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Yes, you are supposed to. It's simple math.
Edible apple plus indigestible core = total.
You know the total (given by USDA). The core and edible portion do not have the same calorie density. If a given apple has 100 calories, that would mean that the edible part has about 95 and the core has 5, as it's fibrous bits and seeds that you don't digest. By weight however, the core might be 1/5 of the weight.
So the core is 5% of the calories but 20% of the weight. If you just ignore the core by weight you subtract 20% when you are actually only discarding 5% of the calories.
It's the same with bones in meat, the cob in corn, the skin on fish. Calories are reported for the whole food. You can't just ignore weight and assume it has the same calorie density as the rest of it. Usually the inedible bits are a substantial weight with almost zero calories.
It's underestimating to not log them.0 -
OMG!
you mean i didn't calculate about 5 calories every time i only logged what i ate of the apple and threw the core away?
**starts to calculating how much i didn't log over the last 115 days. And could have lost more in weight than the 66 pounds that i did***
0 -
williams969 wrote: »
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
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.
The calories in the core and stem are almost 0. Therefore the calorie count for the whole apple already essentially discards the core. You are underestimating your consumed calories.
Admittedly this doesn't really matter for an apple (where you may underlog by 10-20 calories). If you use the same strategy on chicken wings, ribs, bone-in roasts, whole chickens etc and don't log bones, you could underlog by hundreds of calories in a single meal.0 -
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »OMG!
you mean i didn't calculate about 5 calories every time i only logged what i ate of the apple and threw the core away?
**starts to calculating how much i didn't log over the last 115 days.
As I said above, it doesn't much matter for apples. Matters a hell of a lot if you use the same strategy with meat bones, corn cobs, popsicle sticks, milk cartons etc.0 -
*** looks at the title to make sure this post was about apples**0
-
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »*** looks at the title to make sure this post was about apples**
Bad strategy is bad strategy, regardless of the outcome. Feel free to do whatever you want, no skin off my back.0 -
[/quote] As I said above, it doesn't much matter for apples. Matters a hell of a lot if you use the same strategy with meat bones, corn cobs, popsicle sticks, milk cartons etc. [/quote]
There are entrees for those in the database. Meat with bone etc. and you can check those at the USDA site too.
We are talking about apples here. And you are talking about being accurate etc.
So it was hitting my funny bone, sorry for that.
We are talking about a few calories lol
0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »*** looks at the title to make sure this post was about apples**
Bad strategy is bad strategy, regardless of the outcome. Feel free to do whatever you want, no skin off my back.
Mine either thank you
0 -
williams969 wrote: »
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
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.
The calories in the core and stem are almost 0. Therefore the calorie count for the whole apple already essentially discards the core. You are underestimating your consumed calories.
Admittedly this doesn't really matter for an apple (where you may underlog by 10-20 calories). If you use the same strategy on chicken wings, ribs, bone-in roasts, whole chickens etc and don't log bones, you could underlog by hundreds of calories in a single meal.
No. There are MFP database items (the unasterisked ones, which use USDA values) for "meat only." For example, use the "chicken breast, meat only, raw" for weighing raw chicken. It's correct, and I'm not underestimating whatsoever. I do the same for beef, pork, etc. There is a boneless or "meat only" or "meat and skin" (for chicken & skin included) entry for all the meats I've ever consumed.0 -
According to the USDA, for fruit: "Weights are given for edible material without refuse, that is, the weight of an apple without the core or stem."
Same for meat (USDA entries, anyway, which are all I ever use)--bones aren't included.
So not a bad strategy.
And, yeah, even so many apples that don't look especially huge are well over 100 grams. (I did buy some tiny orange pippins at the green market recently, which were more like 80 grams each.)
I frequently eat them anyway, because a diet so restrictive that I couldn't have an apple wouldn't work for me.0 -
Yeah, but I would think that's obvious. If you have two values, one for meat only and one for "whole chicken", you should log what you actually have.
Where you go wrong is logging something like "chicken wings" and then subtracting bones etc.0 -
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Yes, you are supposed to. It's simple math.
Edible apple plus indigestible core = total.
You know the total (given by USDA). The core and edible portion do not have the same calorie density. If a given apple has 100 calories, that would mean that the edible part has about 95 and the core has 5, as it's fibrous bits and seeds that you don't digest. By weight however, the core might be 1/5 of the weight.
So the core is 5% of the calories but 20% of the weight. If you just ignore the core by weight you subtract 20% when you are actually only discarding 5% of the calories.
It's the same with bones in meat, the cob in corn, the skin on fish. Calories are reported for the whole food. You can't just ignore weight and assume it has the same calorie density as the rest of it. Usually the inedible bits are a substantial weight with almost zero calories.
It's underestimating to not log them.
So according to you, I should log the whole pizza I ordered for lunch instead of the 3 pieces I ate. Oh, and the whole cake, the bit of mix left in the packet of my instant shake, and the yogurt stuck onto the foil lid I threw out.
I know that the whole of certain foods is edible, such as your examples, but I'm not logging food I don't eat. My apple I had with lunch weighed 181 grams with skin, core, and stem. After I sliced and cored it, I weighed it at 127 grams and logged 127 grams because I ate 127 grams. I really, really don't understand how not logging food I don't eat = underestimating my calorie intake.
ETA (noticed 3 posts happened while typing the above) The apple entry I use is from USDA for apple, raw with skin. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/20 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »According to the USDA, for fruit: "Weights are given for edible material without refuse, that is, the weight of an apple without the core or stem.".
Again, that's the point. If an apple is USDA listed for 100 calories, and the USDA has counted the core as zero, and then you subtract the core weight, you are under logging.
What has been suggested:
100 gram apple minus 20 gram core = 80 grams of apple.
This is wrong. The core is worth 0 calories. Therefore the total should reflect the whole apple.0 -
No--the weight that the USDA uses when calculating calories DOES NOT include the weight of the core and stem, so you also should not. It's like with chicken breast--weighting your bones would greatly overstate the calories in it.0
-
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Yes, you are supposed to. It's simple math.
Edible apple plus indigestible core = total.
You know the total (given by USDA). The core and edible portion do not have the same calorie density. If a given apple has 100 calories, that would mean that the edible part has about 95 and the core has 5, as it's fibrous bits and seeds that you don't digest. By weight however, the core might be 1/5 of the weight.
So the core is 5% of the calories but 20% of the weight. If you just ignore the core by weight you subtract 20% when you are actually only discarding 5% of the calories.
It's the same with bones in meat, the cob in corn, the skin on fish. Calories are reported for the whole food. You can't just ignore weight and assume it has the same calorie density as the rest of it. Usually the inedible bits are a substantial weight with almost zero calories.
It's underestimating to not log them.
So according to you, I should log the whole pizza I ordered for lunch instead of the 3 pieces I ate. Oh, and the whole cake, the bit of mix left in the packet of my instant shake, and the yogurt stuck onto the foil lid I threw out.
I know that the whole of certain foods is edible, such as your examples, but I'm not logging food I don't eat. My apple I had with lunch weighed 181 grams with skin, core, and stem. After I sliced and cored it, I weighed it at 127 grams and logged 127 grams because I ate 127 grams. I really, really don't understand how not logging food I don't eat = underestimating my calorie intake.
ETA (noticed 3 posts happened while typing the above) The apple entry I use is from USDA for apple, raw with skin. http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2
Do what you want.0 -
The USDA says 100 grams is X calories (can't be bothered to check).
You eat 150 grams, so log 1.5 servings.
You would have someone log 2 servings (for 200 grams with core and stem) on what logic?
Are you assuming the information is for the calories in a hypothetical 100 gram apple, vs. 100 grams of the edible part of an apple? That's not how they do it.0 -
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.
Why would you log a part you're not eating? Would I log a whole three ounce steak if I'm eating two ounces?
0 -
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.
If you don't eat it why the hell would you account for it and log it. That's just dumb.0 -
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Yes, you are supposed to. It's simple math.
Edible apple plus indigestible core = total.
You know the total (given by USDA). The core and edible portion do not have the same calorie density. If a given apple has 100 calories, that would mean that the edible part has about 95 and the core has 5, as it's fibrous bits and seeds that you don't digest. By weight however, the core might be 1/5 of the weight.
So the core is 5% of the calories but 20% of the weight. If you just ignore the core by weight you subtract 20% when you are actually only discarding 5% of the calories.
It's the same with bones in meat, the cob in corn, the skin on fish. Calories are reported for the whole food. You can't just ignore weight and assume it has the same calorie density as the rest of it. Usually the inedible bits are a substantial weight with almost zero calories.
It's underestimating to not log them.
Never thought of it that way, and I've lost 44 pounds not logging inedible parts of fruits and veggies, and I've been maintaining for over a year doing the same thing.
As for bones in meats and skin on fish - I buy boneless meat, but I've weighed skin on fish and it can be a bit substantial.
You sound ultra precise. 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »According to the USDA, for fruit: "Weights are given for edible material without refuse, that is, the weight of an apple without the core or stem.".
Again, that's the point. If an apple is USDA listed for 100 calories, and the USDA has counted the core as zero, and then you subtract the core weight, you are under logging.
What has been suggested:
100 gram apple minus 20 gram core = 80 grams of apple.
This is wrong. The core is worth 0 calories. Therefore the total should reflect the whole apple.
How do you know the core has zero calories?0 -
Yeah, but I would think that's obvious. If you have two values, one for meat only and one for "whole chicken", you should log what you actually have.
Where you go wrong is logging something like "chicken wings" and then subtracting bones etc.
Yeah, but you're assuming we're logging some generic and incomplete "chicken wings" entry. I know I'm not. I'm logging "Chicken, meat and skin only" or "meat only" if I'm not eating the skin. I choose the correct entry for my needs, then I can weigh just the edible portion I'm eating. BTW, the "boneless" entry in MFP is "Chicken - wing, meat and skin, cooked, roasted" (or fried, or stewed, or whatever method of cooking done to it).0 -
This is such a crazy discussion! I eat a small-medium apple every day and log whatever MFP says. I don't think that's what's putting me at a plateau, or that counting an apple incorrectly has made any of us gain or not lose.0
-
This is such a crazy discussion! I eat a small-medium apple every day and log whatever MFP says. I don't think that's what's putting me at a plateau, or that counting an apple incorrectly has made any of us gain or not lose.
indeed that is why it hit my as funny....but.....
I eat air popped popcorn every night and will subtracting the 10 un-popped corns that are left over in the bowl....or eat them
just to be accurate and get the numbers right in my diary.
rofl.
0 -
Apples are great. Why stress over an apple? Worry about the other 1400 calories you ate that day.0
-
the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue0
-
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Ah negative! Am I suppose to count the banana peel next?0 -
TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »This is such a crazy discussion! I eat a small-medium apple every day and log whatever MFP says. I don't think that's what's putting me at a plateau, or that counting an apple incorrectly has made any of us gain or not lose.
indeed that is why it hit my as funny....but.....
I eat air popped popcorn every night and will subtracting the 10 un-popped corns that are left over in the bowl....or eat them
just to be accurate and get the numbers right in my diary.
rofl.
No. The skin of the popcorn is zero therefore you'll be short changing yourself and grandma on uneaten but really eaten non core calories. Also, dinosaur.0 -
Yes but only if you live in China because boxtops.Liftng4Lis wrote: »
So I'm supposed to account for food I don't eat?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.
Ah negative! Am I suppose to count the banana peel next?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No--the weight that the USDA uses when calculating calories DOES NOT include the weight of the core and stem, so you also should not. It's like with chicken breast--weighting your bones would greatly overstate the calories in it.
^ This.
Having said that, I admit freely that apples (along with restaurant food, food at other people's houses, and pizza slices) are one of my exceptions to my "weigh everything" policy. The reason is sheer practicality: I usually grab one in the morning before leaving the house and typically eat it at lunchtime at work. The only accurate way to weigh an apple would be to weigh the whole thing before eating it, and then weigh and subtract the leftover parts when I'm done. Since I don't have my scale with me when I actually am eating the apple, I tend to just pick an average number and log that.
It'd be a difference of a few calories one way or the other, since I usually buy around the same sized apples. I'm not gonna stress about it. Apples didn't make me fat.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions