possibly stupid question about bananas...

I just weighed a banana for my breakfast tomorrow because I want to be accurate with the calories, obviously bananas can vary hugely in size so want to log it by the grams. But am I supposed to weigh it peeled or unpeeled?
I weighed it with the skin still on but my boyfriend thinks that because the skin is so thick it's going to add too much to the weight and give false nutritional info. I'm confused! :/

Replies

  • debsdoingthis
    debsdoingthis Posts: 454 Member
    unpeeled, unless of course you are eating the peel?
  • canary_girl
    canary_girl Posts: 366 Member
    I would think unpeeled, too, as you don't eat the peel.
  • SpicyBaconCake
    SpicyBaconCake Posts: 96 Member
    I would weigh what ya actually eat. I personally just estimate in the database, small,medium, and large bananas are all listed.
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    This is why people who argue about a hundred calories a day one way or the other, or who otherwise think they can accurately log their food, are nuts.

    Put in a banana. It'll average out over time.
  • smotheredincheese
    smotheredincheese Posts: 559 Member
    Thanks guys, peeled makes sense but I'm still getting the hang of logging so it's all a bit confusing. Turns out bananas have a lot less calories that I thought they did which is surprising. You're right though, it probably ill average out anyway.
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    You eat all of it. Obviously.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    edited June 2015
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    If you eat the peel log it, if you don't eat the peel then don't log the weight for it. Think about it this way - do you log your yogurt container when you eat yogurt? No - you only log what portion you eat. Same with fruit - log the part you eat.

    For an apple I eat the peel but not the core. So I slice it, toss the core, log it and eat it. If you're not into slices. Weigh the apple. Eat it, weigh the core and whatever is left, then subtract that from the original weight - log that.

  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    edited June 2015
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    You eat all of it. Obviously.

    That makes sense. Perhaps MFP should track the cyanide from the seeds as a micronutrient? (Don't want to get too much cyanide, after all . . .)
  • ManiacalLaugh
    ManiacalLaugh Posts: 1,048 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    This is why people who argue about a hundred calories a day one way or the other, or who otherwise think they can accurately log their food, are nuts.

    This ---_______---
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    If you eat the peel log it, if you don't eat the peel then don't log the weight for it. Think about it this way - do you log your yogurt container when you eat yogurt? No - you only log what portion you eat. Same with fruit - log the part you eat.

    For an apple I eat the peel but not the core. So I slice it, toss the core, log it and eat it. If you're not into slices. Weigh the apple. Eat it, weigh the core and whatever is left, then subtract that from the original weight - log that.

    It's really going to depend on how the calories were measured in the first place. When 100g apple was entered into the database, did that mean 100g of apple flesh, or did it mean that a 100g apple (core and all) has x number of calories in the flesh? I don't know which was used. If you weigh the whole thing (peel, core, seeds, and all), you risk OVERestimating your calories (entering more calories into your diary than you actually consumed). If you weigh only the flesh (without the peel, etc), then you risk UNDERestimating your calories (entering FEWER calories into your diary than you actually consumed). I suppose it truly depends on which way you want to err. Personally, I always err on the side of consuming fewer calories than I enter.

    I think the only way to REALLY know is to make the measurement yourself. It's not hard. You'll need a bit of scientific laboratory know-how and this piece of equipment: http://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Food-Calorimeter/dp/B005Z1W3WC
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    You eat all of it. Obviously.

    That makes sense. Perhaps MFP should track the cyanide from the seeds as a micronutrient? (Don't want to get too much cyanide, after all . . .)

    They aren't digested. Plus it wouldn't even be an issue thanks to your liver.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited June 2015
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    If you eat the peel log it, if you don't eat the peel then don't log the weight for it. Think about it this way - do you log your yogurt container when you eat yogurt? No - you only log what portion you eat. Same with fruit - log the part you eat.

    For an apple I eat the peel but not the core. So I slice it, toss the core, log it and eat it. If you're not into slices. Weigh the apple. Eat it, weigh the core and whatever is left, then subtract that from the original weight - log that.

    It's really going to depend on how the calories were measured in the first place. When 100g apple was entered into the database, did that mean 100g of apple flesh, or did it mean that a 100g apple (core and all) has x number of calories in the flesh? I don't know which was used. If you weigh the whole thing (peel, core, seeds, and all), you risk OVERestimating your calories (entering more calories into your diary than you actually consumed). If you weigh only the flesh (without the peel, etc), then you risk UNDERestimating your calories (entering FEWER calories into your diary than you actually consumed). I suppose it truly depends on which way you want to err. Personally, I always err on the side of consuming fewer calories than I enter.

    I think the only way to REALLY know is to make the measurement yourself. It's not hard. You'll need a bit of scientific laboratory know-how and this piece of equipment: http://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Food-Calorimeter/dp/B005Z1W3WC

    Is your apple fully hydrated? Won't that snuff out the flame in your calorimeter?
    Plus, if you put it in there, well, you can't eat it afterwards.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    You eat all of it. Obviously.

    That makes sense. Perhaps MFP should track the cyanide from the seeds as a micronutrient? (Don't want to get too much cyanide, after all . . .)

    Even the most faithful apple fan would not be able to eat enough apples for seeds to be toxic (not to mention most of them pass undigested). People just like being scared.
  • andympanda
    andympanda Posts: 763 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    You slice the apple up around the core, weigh and eat.

  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.

    Answered my own question. (Isn't Google great?) The answer is: the nutritional content of bananas do vary quite a bit as they ripen (to the point that diabetics can eat green bananas, but not ripe bananas) However, the total number of calories does not vary greatly.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.

    Answered my own question. (Isn't Google great?) The answer is: the nutritional content of bananas do vary quite a bit as they ripen (to the point that diabetics can eat green bananas, but not ripe bananas) However, the total number of calories does not vary greatly.

    The calories in a green banana don't "count" as much. Fact.
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    If bananas are unpeeled . . . how do you "properly" weigh an apple?

    If you eat the peel log it, if you don't eat the peel then don't log the weight for it. Think about it this way - do you log your yogurt container when you eat yogurt? No - you only log what portion you eat. Same with fruit - log the part you eat.

    For an apple I eat the peel but not the core. So I slice it, toss the core, log it and eat it. If you're not into slices. Weigh the apple. Eat it, weigh the core and whatever is left, then subtract that from the original weight - log that.

    It's really going to depend on how the calories were measured in the first place. When 100g apple was entered into the database, did that mean 100g of apple flesh, or did it mean that a 100g apple (core and all) has x number of calories in the flesh? I don't know which was used. If you weigh the whole thing (peel, core, seeds, and all), you risk OVERestimating your calories (entering more calories into your diary than you actually consumed). If you weigh only the flesh (without the peel, etc), then you risk UNDERestimating your calories (entering FEWER calories into your diary than you actually consumed). I suppose it truly depends on which way you want to err. Personally, I always err on the side of consuming fewer calories than I enter.

    I think the only way to REALLY know is to make the measurement yourself. It's not hard. You'll need a bit of scientific laboratory know-how and this piece of equipment: http://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Food-Calorimeter/dp/B005Z1W3WC

    Is your apple fully hydrated? Won't that snuff out the flame in your calorimeter?
    Plus, if you put it in there, well, you can't eat it afterwards.

    This is exactly how the professionals do it. This is exactly where the numbers on the side of your food packaging comes from. I don't know the exact process . . . I suspect that the food is likely dehydrated before-hand.
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.

    Answered my own question. (Isn't Google great?) The answer is: the nutritional content of bananas do vary quite a bit as they ripen (to the point that diabetics can eat green bananas, but not ripe bananas) However, the total number of calories does not vary greatly.

    The calories in a green banana don't "count" as much. Fact.

    A calorie is a calorie. However, if you're counting sugar, then you're exactly right. More starch in a green banana; more sugar in a ripe banana.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited June 2015
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.

    Answered my own question. (Isn't Google great?) The answer is: the nutritional content of bananas do vary quite a bit as they ripen (to the point that diabetics can eat green bananas, but not ripe bananas) However, the total number of calories does not vary greatly.

    The calories in a green banana don't "count" as much. Fact.

    A calorie is a calorie. However, if you're counting sugar, then you're exactly right. More starch in a green banana; more sugar in a ripe banana.

    Not metabolically speaking. Serious (for a sec): if you put a green banana in calorimeter you'd get a calorie value that would be way higher than what you absorb. Green bananas are to a large extent undigestible starches. In that sense a calories is not calorie (absorbed). If you were to put a nutrition label the Atwater factor you use would take into account the undigestible starch as "fiber".
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    edited June 2015
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    DaveAkeman wrote: »
    A related question I've always wondered . . . does the caloric content of a banana vary as it ripens? I suspect it does, but I don't know for sure.

    Answered my own question. (Isn't Google great?) The answer is: the nutritional content of bananas do vary quite a bit as they ripen (to the point that diabetics can eat green bananas, but not ripe bananas) However, the total number of calories does not vary greatly.

    The calories in a green banana don't "count" as much. Fact.

    A calorie is a calorie. However, if you're counting sugar, then you're exactly right. More starch in a green banana; more sugar in a ripe banana.

    Not metabolically speaking. Serious (for a sec): if you put a green banana in calorimeter you'd get a calorie value that would be way higher than what you absorb. Green bananas are to a large extent undigestible starches. In that sense a calories is not calorie (absorbed). If you were to put a nutrition label the Atwater factor you use would take into account the undigestible starch as "fiber".

    You're right. Those fiber carbs just pass right through. So . . . back to the original point . . . if you are going to be hyper-accurate about your log, not only do you need to define whether to leave the peel on - you also need to define some kind of ripeness factor.
  • debsdoingthis
    debsdoingthis Posts: 454 Member
    LOL no wonder there are so many questions lately relating to why counting calories is so hard. Its becoming more rocket science than it needs to be.
  • DaveAkeman
    DaveAkeman Posts: 296 Member
    LOL no wonder there are so many questions lately relating to why counting calories is so hard. Its becoming more rocket science than it needs to be.

    Counting calories ACCURATELY absolutely IS rocket science! In fact, there are many studies out there showing that even professional nutritionists are unable to ACCURATELY count their OWN calories! But that shouldn't deter you . . . track to the best of your ability, and watch for trends. Where you will get into trouble is if you are trying to be ultra-accurate . . . for example, if you are trying to keep EXACTLY a 50 calorie deficit. As long as you realize that your daily log is probably AT LEAST 10%-15% off (and probably low), then you'll be fine.
  • myheartsabattleground
    myheartsabattleground Posts: 2,040 Member
    onision_gif_by_mcrroxxmysoxx-d55oo05.gif