Weighing food vs measuring food...
Replies
-
I eyeball it. But I've been cooking for a long time so my eyeballs are pretty accurate.2
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.1 -
I was just recently in wal greens, they have the perfect soultion, they have a set of looks like tupperware it is colored coded, and I think it was neat, cause it will ensure you have all the colors on one plate, I am going to get mines today... because I have gained back all 14 pounds that I lost so I am doing something way wrong..0
-
If you want accuracy and less mess then use the scale. If you like lots of dishes and a rough estimating of what you're eating then use the measuring cups.0
-
Yea definitely use the scale for stricter accuracy. It took some getting used to, but now I even weigh peanut butter instead of taking out two tablespoons...you'd be surprised at the difference
0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
I have long been bothered by this example of why to use a food scale, and I think I've finally figured out why it bugs me so much. We all know and, I think, can agree that the package labeling can be suspect and 'off', but how do we know for sure which part of the labeling/packaging is wrong?
Everyone seems to want to assume that the grams is correct, and the measure of 1 cup on the label is somehow wrong...but at the risk of heresy, who's to say the cup measurement isn't right and the grams is what is wrong on the labeling? Maybe the 56 grams is actually much less than 200 calories, and it should be labeled 81 grams to equal 200 calories instead? Anyway, that is probably a better topic discussed in the debate forums rather than hijacking this thread, but I feel like it needs to be put out there as food for thought. The challenge is we really don't know which one is correct in this case, and which one is going to be the bad measure of the food for the product label.
Also, not all packaging is so far off as this example...I've been having a fun experiment measuring stuff on my scale, and I find that thus far, most of my prepackaged food is weighing less than the single serving size rather than more. I did find one item out of about 5 single serving items weighed thus far where the package serving was more. In all cases, the single serving package was 'off', but in most cases it was in my favor of I'm overestimating my calories by going with a serving size which would create a larger deficit than what I'm logging. Maybe I'm just lucky. Does that mean you blindly trust all the packaging? No! It is a good habit to weigh everything, but it's just not as dire as some of these outlier examples that get posted.
I have to agree with the consensus that once you start using a scale, it does make some measurements easier, and I tend toward using the scale more regularly now. But I still don't buy into the general attitude that I have seen here that measuring cups and spoons are so bad (of course, you have to how use them properly, and what to use them for). Are some things better measured by weight? Of course. But measuring cups and spoons have their place in the kitchen as valid measures of appropriate food (else, we might as well throw out all our recipes that use them).3 -
I use either/or depending on the particular food item.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
Yeah but... that one cup is 289 calories. Cooked pasta is supposedly 200 calories a cup... hence why eyeballing doesn't cut it.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
I have long been bothered by this example of why to use a food scale, and I think I've finally figured out why it bugs me so much. We all know and, I think, can agree that the package labeling can be suspect and 'off', but how do we know for sure which part of the labeling/packaging is wrong?
Everyone seems to want to assume that the grams is correct, and the measure of 1 cup on the label is somehow wrong...but at the risk of heresy, who's to say the cup measurement isn't right and the grams is what is wrong on the labeling? Maybe the 56 grams is actually much less than 200 calories, and it should be labeled 81 grams to equal 200 calories instead? Anyway, that is probably a better topic discussed in the debate forums rather than hijacking this thread, but I feel like it needs to be put out there as food for thought. The challenge is we really don't know which one is correct in this case, and which one is going to be the bad measure of the food for the product label.
Also, not all packaging is so far off as this example...I've been having a fun experiment measuring stuff on my scale, and I find that thus far, most of my prepackaged food is weighing less than the single serving size rather than more. I did find one item out of about 5 single serving items weighed thus far where the package serving was more. In all cases, the single serving package was 'off', but in most cases it was in my favor of I'm overestimating my calories by going with a serving size which would create a larger deficit than what I'm logging. Maybe I'm just lucky. Does that mean you blindly trust all the packaging? No! It is a good habit to weigh everything, but it's just not as dire as some of these outlier examples that get posted.
I have to agree with the consensus that once you start using a scale, it does make some measurements easier, and I tend toward using the scale more regularly now. But I still don't buy into the general attitude that I have seen here that measuring cups and spoons are so bad (of course, you have to how use them properly, and what to use them for). Are some things better measured by weight? Of course. But measuring cups and spoons have their place in the kitchen as valid measures of appropriate food (else, we might as well throw out all our recipes that use them).
Because weight is always the same. 56g (in this example) is always 56g. Nothing will change that. It is consistent and immutable. However, I can rearrange, shake, crush, using smaller pieces, etc of those noodles (or other item) and get them to "fill" the cup. I can make a dozen different volumes of the same exact item appear to equal one cup. There is no consistency. That's why weight is the measurement you assume is correct.
8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
Yeah but... that one cup is 289 calories. Cooked pasta is supposedly 200 calories a cup... hence why eyeballing doesn't cut it.
That measurement on the package of noodles say 1cup (56g) dry equals 200 calories. That's not for cooked. And both those images contain dry pasta. If one measurement was supposed to be cooked and one dry it would indicate that on the package. I've seen it once or twice.2 -
I find it easier to use a food scale when I'm logging. I started estimating and measuring but had a scale anyway (I used to bake and used it for that) and found it was easier for me not to bother with trying to estimate, just to pop things on the scale as part of the cooking process.
I never cook to recipes and therefore almost never use measuring cups or tsp/Tsp anyway -- the one main exception is occasionally with oil. I'll estimate greens if the scale isn't convenient (or anything if it's not available, like if I am not home).0 -
Someone questioned whether the mass or volume measurement marking on USDA labels is accurate. Mass. Always mass.
So if the package says 3/4 cup (47 g) = 160 Cal ((Wheat Chex)), they mean a 47 gram serving of Wheat Chex has 160 calories, and that its volume is *approximately* 3/4 of a cup.
Nutrition information is scientific data and that's never, ever EVER going to hold a standard using US Standard Units. Not even in the USA.3 -
I lost the first 60 lbs without weighing. I didn't want to weigh. If you dig through my posts, I justify somewhere (reasonably) this decision. It's not essential, especially if you're meticulous about your consistency in logging & measurement, and accept a certain margin of error, and are willing to cut back on calories if not getting the weight loss you want.
Then I bought a food scale. I didn't buy it for my efforts to lose weight; I bought it because I bake a lot and my bread was failing miserably. Loaf after loaf came out oddly. One of the tips I received was to weigh ingredients because bread is super-duper touchy about proportions and it's just easy as heck to mess it up with to much salt or too much sugar or not enough yeast or..(you get the idea). So I bought a scale.
Then I started weighing my food. I discovered the following.
1. Bread comes out perfectly every time when you weigh.
2. Baking is a GAZILLION times quicker and easier
3. You go through fewer utinsels/dishes weighing
4. Logging weights takes a little longer. I now jot down stuff on a notepad to transfer to my phone so my food doesn't get cold.
5. Volume measurements are usually too large.
The validity of the photographic evidence was questioned above, so I decided to provide some of my own. All photographs were taken a few minutes ago on my cell phone in my badly-lit kitchen.
*The label on the chocolate chips should read "15 grams vs 12 chips". Pictured on the left are 15 grams, on the right 12 chips*
4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
I actually find that you can use a measuring cup of cooked pasta and log it as raw, it fixes that discrepancy0 -
Those noodles are raw...if they were cooked they would fill the cup at the proper calorie level.0
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
Yeah but... that one cup is 289 calories. Cooked pasta is supposedly 200 calories a cup... hence why eyeballing doesn't cut it.
That measurement on the package of noodles say 1cup (56g) dry equals 200 calories. That's not for cooked. And both those images contain dry pasta. If one measurement was supposed to be cooked and one dry it would indicate that on the package. I've seen it once or twice.
Oh! Haha, you beat me to it.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
Yeah but... that one cup is 289 calories. Cooked pasta is supposedly 200 calories a cup... hence why eyeballing doesn't cut it.
That measurement on the package of noodles say 1cup (56g) dry equals 200 calories. That's not for cooked. And both those images contain dry pasta. If one measurement was supposed to be cooked and one dry it would indicate that on the package. I've seen it once or twice.
Oh! Haha, you beat me to it.
I know the pasta was raw in that picture because it was my pasta in my measuring cup on my scale in my kitchen taken with my camera.
@Need2Exerc1se to say that someone should weigh it if they are incapable of knowing what a full measuring cup looks like tells me that you completely missed what information was trying to be relayed with the image I made.1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Weigh.
LOL Agree it might be a good idea to weigh if you can't see that one of those cups is not full.
Yeah but... that one cup is 289 calories. Cooked pasta is supposedly 200 calories a cup... hence why eyeballing doesn't cut it.
That measurement on the package of noodles say 1cup (56g) dry equals 200 calories. That's not for cooked. And both those images contain dry pasta. If one measurement was supposed to be cooked and one dry it would indicate that on the package. I've seen it once or twice.
Oh! Haha, you beat me to it.
I know the pasta was raw in that picture because it was my pasta in my measuring cup on my scale in my kitchen taken with my camera.
@Need2Exerc1se to say that someone should weigh it if they are incapable of knowing what a full measuring cup looks like tells me that you completely missed what information was trying to be relayed with the image I made.
I thought they were saying that the package said that there were a 56 grams in a full cup but 56 grams only filled it 3/4 of the way...I'm late to the party anyhoo, and I have no skin in the game, I just remembered the conversation about the pasta being uncooked from before
1 -
Weigh with food scale 100% of the food that enters my mouth. At least for a solid 6 months so I can get the hang of how much I'm supposed to be eating for my size.1
-
Over 6 years ago I lost weight just using measuring cups. I didn't own a scale and I did fine, but I only had 10lbs to lose.
I got a scale at a friend's suggestion when I was already in maintenance. I do not know why I got it because I don't bake but I did and I am now using it but not all the time. I got to be very good at estimating when I eat out and I don't weigh my food when I am not at home (I don't log it either), and I don't weigh 100% of the food that I eat at home. A slice of bread gets logged like that not in grams; and large egg is just a large egg, not logged in grams, etc. You get the drift.
It all depends in your relationship with food. If you like to eat a lot, then weigh it until you became familiar with the proper portions/amounts until you learn to judge without a prop. Or you can weigh your food for ever, it is just up to you and what works better to achieve your goals.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions