This is why we always tell you to use grams and not cups!
Replies
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
True, but what I was pointing out was that the weight of one cup, for all of those people that insist that because the label also says 56g equals 1 cup, isn't always the case. They insist they can't be underestimating their calories because they used a level cup. But this shows that one level cup is NOT always the 56g that the package claims. It happens all the time.3 -
melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.
Do you love it? I was looking at that one but wondered whether the pull out would be more likely to break
0 -
I must confess my colleagues think that I am mad because I have a set of scale at my desk at work (measuring out oats for my breakfast) - insisting that I should just use a measuring cup. I might have to print out that photo and put it upon my wall to get people to stop with the comments.
Meanwhile, my wife makes a similar complaint, but that's more about the fact that I inist on weighing things when I am trying to lose weight, so it takes a little longer to make dinner (however I must confess that I never bother to weigh mushrooms, carrots, capsicum or broccoli).6 -
Great post OP. Weigh your food people!!4
-
It's the America's Test Kitchen top pick for digital food scales. I have the 11 pound one as well. The five pound capacity one is half the price.Wynterbourne wrote: »
The pull out doesn't seem at all fragile.melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.
Do you love it? I was looking at that one but wondered whether the pull out would be more likely to break
Now, can anyone tell me how to make grams the default when it turns on?1 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
This, exactly this.0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.
Do you love it? I was looking at that one but wondered whether the pull out would be more likely to break
Very much so. I've had it for a very long time and haven't had a problem yet.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
It's the America's Test Kitchen top pick for digital food scales. I have the 11 pound one as well. The five pound capacity one is half the price.Wynterbourne wrote: »
The pull out doesn't seem at all fragile.melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.
Do you love it? I was looking at that one but wondered whether the pull out would be more likely to break
Now, can anyone tell me how to make grams the default when it turns on?
Strange, for me it's always stayed with whatever it was set to when it turned off. I wonder if some of them were 'defective'.1 -
MarvelGrrl wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
This, exactly this.
Yes, I realize this, and as I stated before, that's not the point of this post. I just happened to use pasta for the example. As you can see by the photo, my package of pasta also listed cups, like many other foods do, and the point of the picture was that the serving size volume can't be trusted. Only trust and use the weight. I only used pasta as an example because it happened to be the most glaringly obvious example that I'd seen recently.6 -
melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »
Is that the oxo scale with the pull out display?
Yeppers. I got the one with an 11lb capacity. They also make a 5lb one.
Do you love it? I was looking at that one but wondered whether the pull out would be more likely to break
Oh, it's the best thing I have EVER bought. I'm so much more excited and eager to log recipes now. The small one I had before was so frustrating. The screen itself is sturdy feeling and I don't worry about it. I have only had to use it once so far because it's simply set up so well that I can see it under nearly every dish I own. I highly recommend it!1 -
Does the scale time out after a few minutes? The five pound scale is only ten more dollars than the one I want and a longer display would definitely be worth it.0
-
CooCooPuff wrote: »Does the scale time out after a few minutes? The five pound scale is only ten more dollars than the one I want and a longer display would definitely be worth it.
The one I have lasts 6 minutes, so it definitely stays active during my whole process of cooking. I adore it SO much. I wish the initial advise to people is "buy a damn good scale, it's an investment worth the bells and whistles" because the frustration over my cheap scale definitely kept me from being accurate because I hated to use it for anything but single ingredients. Even then it didn't seem consistent. I'm so happy, never been happier with dropping $50 at once. I'm frugal as heck!1 -
CooCooPuff wrote: »Does the scale time out after a few minutes? The five pound scale is only ten more dollars than the one I want and a longer display would definitely be worth it.
I just timed mine. Mine lasted three minutes. However, when I turned it back on the weight that had been displayed before it turned itself off reappeared.0 -
What I find interesting is that the cup amount (the 80g) is probably a more reasonable portion of pasta than 56g. UK packages of pasta mostly list 75g as a portion.
So I think that packaging is really giving you a correct and reasonable serving size of one cup but then (in my view deliberately) understating the calories.1 -
What I find interesting is that the cup amount (the 80g) is probably a more reasonable portion of pasta than 56g. UK packages of pasta mostly list 75g as a portion.
So I think that packaging is really giving you a correct and reasonable serving size of one cup but then (in my view deliberately) understating the calories.
Coincidentally, it's just been recently announced that our nutrition labels are getting an overhaul. Multiple articles have stated that a "more realistic" serving size is one of the changes that will be addressed.1 -
and that's why we keep banging on about the use of a food scale
and definately weigh when pasta is dry, just think about how much weight would be added with the water its cooked in! it aint rocket science folks.
2 -
I looked at a packet today to see what info we have on oour UK labels with regards to weights. And it seems it's usually the serving size (so 28g, or for bacon approx two grilled slices for a couple of examples) then the 100g values.
It's interesting to me how it varies!0 -
For you people suffering with skimpy 2 oz servings, come visit me in Canada and I'll make you 3 oz (85 g) of pasta.9
-
I work as a regulator in the UK food industry, and the regulations controlling what goes on a label (in the UK and EU) are about as woolly as you'd expect! There are certain things that are tightly controlled - ingredient lists, especially allergens, any nutritional content (percentages of fat, protein etc), and the quantities of everything per 100g, but things like serving sizes are determined by the manufacturer. Some, like pasta, rice etc, seem to settle on an industry wide 'accepted' amount, but this isn't prescriptive. The classic cases of pack sizes reducing, and the price staying the same, are a contributing factor in the whole 'what's a single serving?' issue.VintageFeline wrote: »I looked at a packet today to see what info we have on our UK labels with regards to weights. And it seems it's usually the serving size (so 28g, or for bacon approx two grilled slices for a couple of examples) then the 100g values.
It's interesting to me how it varies!
The fact that, in the UK, there is so much confusion over the various 'traffic light' labels - because there's not a standardised version, is pretty indicative of how confusing product labelling is. Even the government/NHS websites are resolutely unclear on serving sizes - they still continue to use the 'handful' amounts for fruit/veg quantities, which is (IMO) daft, or calculating bread in 'slices', when bread sizes vary wildly. It's really unhelpful!
0 -
I wonder if they're trying to use measures that enough of the population would find relatable and easy to implement. Seems like they should provide both the "handful" simplification and weights!dizzieblondeuk wrote: »
I work as a regulator in the UK food industry, and the regulations controlling what goes on a label (in the UK and EU) are about as woolly as you'd expect! There are certain things that are tightly controlled - ingredient lists, especially allergens, any nutritional content (percentages of fat, protein etc), and the quantities of everything per 100g, but things like serving sizes are determined by the manufacturer. Some, like pasta, rice etc, seem to settle on an industry wide 'accepted' amount, but this isn't prescriptive. The classic cases of pack sizes reducing, and the price staying the same, are a contributing factor in the whole 'what's a single serving?' issue.VintageFeline wrote: »I looked at a packet today to see what info we have on our UK labels with regards to weights. And it seems it's usually the serving size (so 28g, or for bacon approx two grilled slices for a couple of examples) then the 100g values.
It's interesting to me how it varies!
The fact that, in the UK, there is so much confusion over the various 'traffic light' labels - because there's not a standardised version, is pretty indicative of how confusing product labelling is. Even the government/NHS websites are resolutely unclear on serving sizes - they still continue to use the 'handful' amounts for fruit/veg quantities, which is (IMO) daft, or calculating bread in 'slices', when bread sizes vary wildly. It's really unhelpful!
0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
True, but what I was pointing out was that the weight of one cup, for all of those people that insist that because the label also says 56g equals 1 cup, isn't always the case. They insist they can't be underestimating their calories because they used a level cup. But this shows that one level cup is NOT always the 56g that the package claims. It happens all the time.
Oh, of course. But I have no idea where people were getting the cooked idea from. It said on the label a serving size was dry.0 -
Colorscheme wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
True, but what I was pointing out was that the weight of one cup, for all of those people that insist that because the label also says 56g equals 1 cup, isn't always the case. They insist they can't be underestimating their calories because they used a level cup. But this shows that one level cup is NOT always the 56g that the package claims. It happens all the time.
Oh, of course. But I have no idea where people were getting the cooked idea from. It said on the label a serving size was dry.
It's because it's pretty much on every 'serving size' list out there that one serving of pasta is one cup cooked (which is really not accurate either). So I was just mentioning that it makes no sense that the label would mention one cup dry in the first place.0 -
This is why I no longer eat back exercise calories.. by the time you factor in my human error in counting..the mfp errors in estimating exercise calories burned..and the fact that nutrition labels and restaurant claims of calories are legally allowed to be 20% off… you can diet forever without losing! Therefore I exercise and don't eat those calories back..knowing I'm most likely overeating even though I'm counting.4
-
Colorscheme wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Colorscheme wrote: »Virtually every pasta has a 2 oz/56 grams serving size dry.
True, but what I was pointing out was that the weight of one cup, for all of those people that insist that because the label also says 56g equals 1 cup, isn't always the case. They insist they can't be underestimating their calories because they used a level cup. But this shows that one level cup is NOT always the 56g that the package claims. It happens all the time.
Oh, of course. But I have no idea where people were getting the cooked idea from. It said on the label a serving size was dry.
It's because it's pretty much on every 'serving size' list out there that one serving of pasta is one cup cooked (which is really not accurate either). So I was just mentioning that it makes no sense that the label would mention one cup dry in the first place.
I've only ever seen dry serving sizes on labels, never cooked.0 -
I think it's only the USA (correct me if I'm wrong) that uses cups. It's a little frustrating when I'm looking up receipies online and it will tell me one cup of something. Just tell me in grams and/or ml (not oz!!)
You Americans are weird with your farenheit temperatures, gallons, ounces and cups of stuff1 -
louisepaul16 wrote: »I think it's only the USA (correct me if I'm wrong) that uses cups. It's a little frustrating when I'm looking up receipies online and it will tell me one cup of something. Just tell me in grams and/or ml (not oz!!)
You Americans are weird with your farenheit temperatures, gallons, ounces and cups of stuff
North america in general does I think...in Canada we use cups/tbsp etc on some of the labels1 -
louisepaul16 wrote: »I think it's only the USA (correct me if I'm wrong) that uses cups. It's a little frustrating when I'm looking up receipies online and it will tell me one cup of something. Just tell me in grams and/or ml (not oz!!)
You Americans are weird with your farenheit temperatures, gallons, ounces and cups of stuff
North america in general does I think...in Canada we use cups/tbsp etc on some of the labels
Ah ok. Canadians too then.
0 -
I was sure I'd seen cups on Trader Joe's pasta labels and when I searched Google images for "trader joe's pasta nutrition" sure enough I see a whole range, including cups in various quantities, some say cooked and some do not say.0
-
louisepaul16 wrote: »I think it's only the USA (correct me if I'm wrong) that uses cups. It's a little frustrating when I'm looking up receipies online and it will tell me one cup of something. Just tell me in grams and/or ml (not oz!!)
You Americans are weird with your farenheit temperatures, gallons, ounces and cups of stuff
I was forced against my will, back in 1982, to learn the Metric system, because "within the next 10 years, everything will be converted to metric," my 7th grade science teacher told me. I'm still waiting for that. I actually prefer the metric system, and prefer grams / mL over oz (esp. since there are weight ounces and fluid ounces...oy) and cups. I'm OK with spoon measurements, for the most part, but sheesh. I'm an American and I hate our system.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions