Does this spaghetti portion size add up?

neldabg

I got bored eating rice, lentils, and quinoa as lunch/dinner for the past several weeks and decided to change things up today with some pasta. I weighed my spaghetti dry (twice, in fact) to match the serving size on the box, put it in my rice cooker, and when it cooked, I was surprised to see how much there was to eat. The spaghetti filled up my whole plate (9 inch diameter)! I thought one dry serving of spaghetti is supposed to result in one cup of cooked spaghetti? What I got looked bigger than a cup. I did weigh everything, including the sauce, but just in case, what are some common errors that I might've committed in weighing out the pasta?

The plan:


The meal:

ValerieMartini2Olives

Pasta/rice/quinoa absorb a LOT of water. A cup dry will NOT give you a cup cooked.

earlnabby

No errors. Long, thin pasta will take up more space than short thick pasta because there is more air in between the noodles. Also, the longer you cook it, the more water it will absorb so if you went further than al dente, you would see more volume on your plate.

pondee629

I found out, when I started weighing my food, that my eye would constantly under estimate the portion size. Got to eat more when weighing than just eyeballing it. Of course, that explained why I was getting dizzy before the scale arrived.

Eating under maintenace is not starvation. You can be under maintenance and be reasonably satisfied. As you continue, you'll discover the things that satisfy (both calorically and taste wise). You'll gravatate toward these things and a new life style is born.

jemhh

Spaghetti spreads out a lot. I've weighed 2 oz dry, boiled just that, and then put it in a measuring cup. It fills what I would call a scant 1 cup measuring cup, meaning that it barely comes up to the top and certainly is not heaping or falling over the sides. When I put it on a plate, it looks like a large amount. Your measurements are likely correct.

zoeysasha37

jemhh wrote: »

Spaghetti spreads out a lot. I've weighed 2 oz dry, boiled just that, and then put it in a measuring cup. It fills what I would call a scant 1 cup measuring cup, meaning that it barely comes up to the top and certainly is not heaping or falling over the sides. When I put it on a plate, it looks like a large amount. Your measurements are likely correct.

Same here. It often looks like its more after its cooked.

patrikc333

pasta dry weigh is always different from cooked weigh

always calculate from dry

neldabg

Thanks for the reassurance guys! ^^

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I never understand the people who complain about pasta servings. I hardly ever eat a whole serving and I've weighed and double checked everything too. The pasta seems fine. I'd double check the shrimp though. It seems a tad low to me. I use this entry, which is an official entry.... shrimp, cooked, moist heat. Other than that and without having the packaging sitting in front of me, it looks fine.

Yeah. I find that most brands of shrimp that have more calories per 3 oz serving than this brand of shrimp, so I did find the calories low myself, but the package from the shrimp reads as follows:


I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of the same foods.

earlnabby

neldabg wrote: »

Thanks for the reassurance guys! ^^

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I never understand the people who complain about pasta servings. I hardly ever eat a whole serving and I've weighed and double checked everything too. The pasta seems fine. I'd double check the shrimp though. It seems a tad low to me. I use this entry, which is an official entry.... shrimp, cooked, moist heat. Other than that and without having the packaging sitting in front of me, it looks fine.

Yeah. I find that most brands of shrimp that have more calories per 3 oz serving than this brand of shrimp, so I did find the calories low myself, but the package from the shrimp reads as follows:


I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of these same foods.

I often go with the USDA entries in the database rather than package information, assuming it is a food that has nothing added.

Clarewho

I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of the same foods.

I'd assume for frozen seafood it depends how much water is in it? But it's only a guess

neldabg

earlnabby wrote: »

neldabg wrote: »

Thanks for the reassurance guys! ^^

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I never understand the people who complain about pasta servings. I hardly ever eat a whole serving and I've weighed and double checked everything too. The pasta seems fine. I'd double check the shrimp though. It seems a tad low to me. I use this entry, which is an official entry.... shrimp, cooked, moist heat. Other than that and without having the packaging sitting in front of me, it looks fine.

Yeah. I find that most brands of shrimp that have more calories per 3 oz serving than this brand of shrimp, so I did find the calories low myself, but the package from the shrimp reads as follows:


I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of these same foods.

I often go with the USDA entries in the database rather than package information, assuming it is a food that has nothing added.

That sounds like a good measure to go by. I'll start doing that for my unprocessed, "pure" foods from now on.

Clarewho wrote: »

I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of the same foods.

I'd assume for frozen seafood it depends how much water is in it? But it's only a guess

That's actually a really good guess. ^^ I forget about water weight in food sometimes.

neldabg

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

neldabg wrote: »

earlnabby wrote: »

neldabg wrote: »

Thanks for the reassurance guys! ^^

HappyCampr1 wrote: »

I never understand the people who complain about pasta servings. I hardly ever eat a whole serving and I've weighed and double checked everything too. The pasta seems fine. I'd double check the shrimp though. It seems a tad low to me. I use this entry, which is an official entry.... shrimp, cooked, moist heat. Other than that and without having the packaging sitting in front of me, it looks fine.

Yeah. I find that most brands of shrimp that have more calories per 3 oz serving than this brand of shrimp, so I did find the calories low myself, but the package from the shrimp reads as follows:


I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of these same foods.

I often go with the USDA entries in the database rather than package information, assuming it is a food that has nothing added.

That sounds like a good measure to go by. I'll start doing that for my unprocessed, "pure" foods from now on.

Clarewho wrote: »

I've always wondered how/why different brands can come up with different calorie values for the exact same unprocessed foods. I don't do so, but sometimes I wonder if I should overestimate when I find lower calorie versions of the same foods.

I'd assume for frozen seafood it depends how much water is in it? But it's only a guess

That's actually a really good guess. ^^ I forget about water weight in food sometimes.

This is true. If something comes packaged frozen, then the weight on the package is for the frozen version. If you're going to weigh it after thawing, you'll have to use a different entry. This one says cooked weight, so I'm assuming it's frozen and already cooked which is why it would say that. If this is the case, just weigh this before using in a recipe or thawing out your portion.

Yep. You've assumed correctly. These are pre-cooked, frozen shrimp. I always weigh these shrimp frozen, but I've been weighing other frozen meat in their thawed state to make it easier to cut the meat apart into portions. After reading all of the responses here though, I'll be sure to either just weigh frozen or look up thawed calorie entries. Accuracy is crucial as I get closer and closer to my goal weight. Thank you!

dalielahdawn

Sort of off topic... Your lunch looks yum! And for only 345 calories.... I'm in! Thanks the idea ;-)

neldabg

dalielahdawn wrote: »

Sort of off topic... Your lunch looks yum! And for only 345 calories.... I'm in! Thanks the idea ;-)

I imagined this meal would taste good, and it was tastier than I even imagined. I'm planning to eat it again on Friday. I've gotten so much better at scouting out low calorie, filling meals since I started eating at a deficit 6 months ago. Perhaps the sodium (780mg) and carb (53g) count isn't ideal, but for 35 g of protein, 26% of iron AND the high volume of food to eat, it makes a great post-workout lunch. I'm glad I helped. ^_^