watermelon calories

salmaelbardissy

I dont know how much is exactly 100 grams of watermelon can any one pleasee post a picture to a 100 grams of diced watermelon ,,,,,thanks

CharlieBeansmomTracey

why not just weight it on a food scale? since most of the time weights can be off depending on the sizes of the cuts and so on.just curious is all

flamingblades

I just know there are 28 grams in 1 ounce so 100/ 28 =3.57 oz
That's how I convert grams to ounces.

460mustang

460mustang

Easy, just did a search on the net

FoxyLifter

I highly recommend getting a kitchen scale. You can get a decent one for $10 on Amazon. It may not matter much for watermelon since it's not calorie dense, but you will be surprised how "off" our eyeballing can be.

Lily2you

You can get a good food scale for about $13 on amazon. Totally worth it.

Asher_Ethan

Definitely invest in a scale.... It makes a huge difference.

Hollywood_Porky

I think if you eat a whole watermelon it wouldn't matter - wouldn't the watermelon calories be all used up digesting it?

flamingblades

I still have the scale I bought while in culinary school. It displays BOTH grams and ounces. Handy little gadget to have around the kitchen.

nknjansen

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

I think if you eat a whole watermelon it wouldn't matter - wouldn't the watermelon calories be all used up digesting it?

No.

Food calories are "Calories", which are 1000 "calories", which is the unit of measure people use to perpetuate this ridiculous notion.

Lourdesong

If you're just going to eyeball a picture of 100g of watemelon, you may just as well use any eyeballing measurement (e.g., cups, balls, cubes, wedge, etc.) in the database.

Luckily watermelon is fairly low calorie that imprecision shouldn't do you in, but it does have calories, it's almost entirely sugar juice, and the pink/red flesh is not very fibrous at all.

FoxyLifter

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

I think if you eat a whole watermelon it wouldn't matter - wouldn't the watermelon calories be all used up digesting it?

Unfortunately, no.

Each macro does require some calories in order to be digested, but it's not significant (I think protein has the highest range 10-20%?). And there are no "negative calorie" foods. Even items listed at zero calories per serving may, in fact, have 4 calories. In the US, we like to have our calorie counts divisible by 5, so a few calories here and there may be missed.

460mustang

FoxyLifter wrote: »

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

I think if you eat a whole watermelon it wouldn't matter - wouldn't the watermelon calories be all used up digesting it?

Unfortunately, no.

Each macro does require some calories in order to be digested, but it's not significant (I think protein has the highest range 10-20%?). And there are no "negative calorie" foods. Even items listed at zero calories per serving may, in fact, have 4 calories. In the US, we like to have our calorie counts divisible by 5, so a few calories here and there may be missed.

Interesting I had wondered, many years ago I heard that some food, particularly raw vegetables, were negative calories because they took more calories to digest than they had. It didn't sound logical to me, but I never bothered to research it.

lemonlionheart

460mustang wrote: »

FoxyLifter wrote: »

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

I think if you eat a whole watermelon it wouldn't matter - wouldn't the watermelon calories be all used up digesting it?

Unfortunately, no.

Each macro does require some calories in order to be digested, but it's not significant (I think protein has the highest range 10-20%?). And there are no "negative calorie" foods. Even items listed at zero calories per serving may, in fact, have 4 calories. In the US, we like to have our calorie counts divisible by 5, so a few calories here and there may be missed.

Interesting I had wondered, many years ago I heard that some food, particularly raw vegetables, were negative calories because they took more calories to digest than they had. It didn't sound logical to me, but I never bothered to research it.

Popular myth from a few years back. Yes, your body does burn some calories digesting and chewing but a) the amount of calories was definitely overstated and b) whatever calories you do burn during bodily functions are accounted for in your BMR/TDEE calculations. It'd be like counting the calories you use breathing, blinking, or rolling over in your sleep.

tekkiechikk

Agreed, get a scale. You'll want to weigh more than just watermelon (mm, watermelon!).

BWBTrish

the OP is told by other members in another posting of her, to weigh her food and get a food scale.

But i guess we get to post pictures of portions of food she want to eat. So she can log it accurately. Because apparently she dont get a scale and it is our responsibility to show her portion sizes.

salmaelbardissy

460mustang wrote: »

thanks alott

salmaelbardissy

TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »

the OP is told by other members in another posting of her, to weigh her food and get a food scale.

But i guess we get to post pictures of portions of food she want to eat. So she can log it accurately. Because apparently she dont get a scale and it is our responsibility to show her portion sizes.

salmaelbardissy

salmaelbardissy wrote: »

TheOwlhouseDesigns wrote: »

the OP is told by other members in another posting of her, to weigh her food and get a food scale.

But i guess we get to post pictures of portions of food she want to eat. So she can log it accurately. Because apparently she dont get a scale and it is our responsibility to show her portion sizes.

maasha81

Now I want ice cold watermelon with some feta cheese and touch of mint leaves