Let's talk about apples...
Replies
-
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.
wonders now how much a dinosaur steak is in calories.
0 -
Project2015 wrote: »the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue
Just when crazy discussion about apple cores was petering out .......
Now we can divert to evil sugar in apples talk
PS for most people the amount of sugar in an apple, as opposed to the calorie count, is not an issue at all
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Project2015 wrote: »the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue
Just when crazy discussion about apple cores was petering out .......
Now we can divert to evil sugar in apples talk
PS for most people the amount of sugar in an apple, as opposed to the calorie count, is not an issue at all
I was having a ball lolzzzz
0 -
Double the fun now - evil sugar and apple core pedantics, what more could one want in a discussion?
0 -
All of the posters claiming that the USDA does not include bones and gristle and cores in its entries are correct.
0 -
I apologize for derailing what has now become a Sugar: Evil or Very Evil? thread
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
No, you would log the whole cow.
Now *that's* good sarcasm.
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »I eat an apple or two a day in the fall when the apple harvests are in and I can go buy local apples!
Mmmm. Me too.
This time of year I mostly buy the imported granny smith apples, which are okay but nowhere near as good as our local Quebec apples in season. I love me some just-off-the-tree Macintosh apples in the fall.
0 -
Project2015 wrote: »the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue
Huh?0 -
williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.0 -
bennettinfinity 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.
Why would you log a part you're not eating? Would I log a whole three ounce steak if I'm eating two ounces?
No, you would log the whole cow.
Now *that's* good sarcasm. 0 -
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
0 -
Omg. This thread. I can't even.0
-
obscuremusicreference wrote: »
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
Authority please, that the USDA weight is without the core.0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
Authority please, that the USDA weight is without the core.
Obscure posted the USDA booklet upstream.0 -
So if apple core is not included in USDA entries, what do those of us who eat the core do? There isn't an entry for apple cores.. Anyway, I don't sweat it. I don't sweat the calories or the sugar either. Apples are so satisfying that I end up eating less calories overall.0
-
SpecialKitty7 wrote: »
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.
It has the grams. 182 g.
Why is this so complicated?0 -
Because sugar weighs so much.......on our minds.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SpecialKitty7 wrote: »
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.
It has the grams. 182 g.
Why is this so complicated?
0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
Authority please, that the USDA weight is without the core.
Obscure posted the USDA booklet upstream.
How do I log crow?0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »sheldonklein wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
Authority please, that the USDA weight is without the core.
Obscure posted the USDA booklet upstream.
How do I log crow?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/generic-crow-77733291 0 -
sheldonklein wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »
There isn't an entry for "Apple-no core" because the USDA doesn't count the complete core in its tests. It certainly doesn't count the seeds, which contain amygdalin and should not be chewed by humans, and I can't imagine the flesh of the core is so materially different from the apple flesh that it would need to be counted if it isn't consumed.sheldonklein wrote: »williams969 wrote: »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).
If there was an entry for Apple no-core, then log that. But there isn't, so you don't. This is an insane discussion, even by MFP standards. There are not two reasonable sides of this argument.
Darn right there's not two reasonable sides here.
Authority please, that the USDA weight is without the core.
I quoted from the USDA booklet upthread. Didn't link it because it's a pdf and easy to find.
Edit: apparently obscure linked it anyway. Excellent!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SpecialKitty7 wrote: »
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.
It has the grams. 182 g.
Why is this so complicated?
Nobody said it was complicated. You're missing my point.
I'm just saying that many times the MFP database has the generic with grams in parenthesis, but does not have the actual gram option when entering food. Instead of putting .7 of the apple, for example, I will make my own entry with the grams, because I weigh most everything I eat in grams.
In fact, have food entries where choose the actual grams makes it less complicated, and more accurate. 0 -
Project2015 wrote: »the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue
An issue for whom? For most people, it's not an issue at all.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Project2015 wrote: »the problems isn't the calories in apples, its the amount of sugars in them thats the real issue
An issue for whom? For most people, it's not an issue at all.
In fact, for most people that's one of their best aspects.0 -
This reminds me of a time years ago when I tried Atkins (and quit because I felt like passing out after about 3 days) and was on an Atkins thread, where this woman was stressing because she was eating a lot of celery and it had more carbs than her daily limit, so it was preventing her from losing. However, she admitted she was also drinking a couple of bloody Mary's every day. Guess it must have been the celery stalk that was putting her over.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »SpecialKitty7 wrote: »
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.
It has the grams. 182 g.
Why is this so complicated?
Because there are some people on this globe that think that when you do not accurate log an apple ( about 5 calories) when you eat in a deficit of 122.000 you gain weight.
( and yes the number hunderdtwentytwo thousand is not a typo)
this is indeed a total crazy and out of hand post. And not by the OP btw
You know you can be accurate with logging but you can also have some common sense.
But i had a ball over it yesterday thanks for the entertainment.
Oh and i lost a pound overnight.....and i ate an apple ...WITH core just to test it.
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