"Why should I use a food scale?"
yellingkimber
Posts: 229 Member
So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
93
Replies
-
yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It's usually 15 grams after it's cooked. The package usually says 2 pan fried slices.9 -
Had the same thing happen with one cereal. I was eating close to 50% more calories than I thought using cups. I stopped eating the cereal out of spite.
On the bacon, though. That is a bit different as it is one of the foods where the calorie count changes with cooking. So it kinda depends on what the package is telling you, but in most cases the serving size is based on the cooked weight, which can be half the raw weight depending on how it is cooked.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Had the same thing happen with one cereal. I was eating close to 50% more calories than I thought using cups. I stopped eating the cereal out of spite.
On the bacon, though. That is a bit different as it is one of the foods where the calorie count changes with cooking. So it kinda depends on what the package is telling you, but in most cases the serving size is based on the cooked weight, which can be half the raw weight depending on how it is cooked.
This particular package stipulates both raw and cooked and I was going by the raw weight - I should have mentioned that!
On the bright side, I realized that I was totally scamming myself out of peanut butter and could eat way more than I was eyeing as a "tablespoon".17 -
Oh yeah. The scale is a very "educational" tool. Just because it's habit to overeat pastas, rice, etc and they are calorific!5
-
Yep, pasta is a frequent offender when it comes to getting more calories when using volume instead of weight. I made this picture when the subject came up a while back:
18 -
Thank you for this thread! Just ordered a scale off Amazon for $10+ free shipping, it really opened my eyes to see the difference in weights versus cups in the pics,eeks!19
-
Chef_Barbell wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It's usually 15 grams after it's cooked. The package usually says 2 pan fried slices.
I don't trust bacon packaging at all. First, 'pan fried' really doesn't mean anything because it won't weigh the same if it's crispy or not, then even when it's crispy, it's typically 30% heavier than what it should be for me. So my 2 slices weigh more than the 3 slices one serving is supposed to be, for example. Or 'how to eat 80 extra calories without noticing'.
Or those Lenny & Larry cookies that are often 135g instead of 114g. That's like 70 extra calories or something...2 -
I think it should be 3/4 cup cooked, not dry and hard.0
-
I think it should be 3/4 cup cooked, not dry and hard.
That wouldn't be consistently accurate as the cooked weight will vary depending on how long it was cooked. The longer it's cooked, the more water it absorbs, the heavier the final cooked weight will be. The calories of the dry weight never change.12 -
I think it should be 3/4 cup cooked, not dry and hard.
"All of our nutritional information is based on an uncooked measurement since some pastas will double or even triple in volume."
-Ronzoni's website. Usually if a label for pasta doesn't specify, they mean the dry weight.17 -
I was having hot chocolate tonight. The instructions said "add 5 heaped teaspoons (28gr)". In reality 2 heaped teaspoons were 28gr.
5 were more like 60gr...
10 -
-
gebeziseva wrote: »I was having hot chocolate tonight. The instructions said "add 5 heaped teaspoons (28gr)". In reality 2 heaped teaspoons were 28gr.
5 were more like 60gr...
Yikes! That's a huge discrepancy.1 -
"1 cup of pasta" also depends massively on the shape of the pasta. 1 cup of macaroni weighs a whole lot more than 1 cup of rigatoni (big tubes with lots of empty space inside). I've never understood how we could expect "1 cup of pasta" to mean anything.10
-
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
In the UK the label specifies if the calories are for raw ("as sold") or cooked and it specifies if cooked - how exactly. Usually labels say "for 100gr cooked as per instructions". For example for pasta it states to "use 80gr per portion" and how long to boil it and the calories are given for "one portion cooked as per instructions".
For meat the calories are usually given for "100gr oven baked" or "pan fried" depending on the type of meat and they always add "as per instructions" where they specify the time and if oil is included for pan frying for example. I've been counting calories for more than a year now and I've found my counting to be dead accurate so I trust the labels completely.
From what I've read in these forums, the US labels don't necessarily specify these things so I'd assume raw unless otherwise stated.
ETA:
When I say I trust labels, that is to mean the ones given in grams. The volumes for solids are always way off. I ignore them completely.4 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.17 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
you would be surprised,oatmeal is another one that when weighed compared to measured is an eye opener.5 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
Regardless of whether or not you consider the calories "clean" it doesn't change the fact that in my picture, if I used the cup measurement instead of the 56g measurement, I would be eating 289 calories while logging 200 calories. A calorie surplus is a calorie surplus. You don't magically not gain just because it was from what you consider a "clean" source.21 -
just had this with my bread, 40g is the 1 slice serving....every single slice in the pack weighed 65-68 g13
-
When I was transitioning from measuring to weighing, I made the silly mistake of putting the measuring cup on the scale, then zeroing out, and then filling the cup, adjusting, and so forth. And I used a measuring spoon when I weighed my almond butter, which was really hard to scape out! Sigh. So many unnecessary dishes to wash! I had to laugh at myself when I realized I could just use a regular dish and spoon.
Better yet, someone offered this tip: Put the whole container of food on the scale, zero out, take out a serving, then record the resulting negative weight. This has saved me so much time!14 -
yellingkimber wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.
I'm saying that a calorie dense food is scientifically speaking more calorically dense than a carb. That's just science. It's weird to me for someone to classify a carb as "calorific" since they ARE NOT calorically dense. They are less then half the calories per gram as fat. So I'd worry more about measuring peanuts than measuring rice. Unless, of course, you're going to cover the rice in butter3 -
No, no, my comment wasn't towards you! I weigh everything. I was just saying that rice is not a "calorific food." I agree with what you're saying though I do sometimes cheat with lettuce( that is that I eyeball it instead of weighing it) lol; I'm pretty rigid with everything else .Wynterbourne wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
Regardless of whether or not you consider the calories "clean" it doesn't change the fact that in my picture, if I used the cup measurement instead of the 56g measurement, I would be eating 289 calories while logging 200 calories. A calorie surplus is a calorie surplus. You don't magically not gain just because it was from what you consider a "clean" source.0 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.
I'm saying that a calorie dense food is scientifically speaking more calorically dense than a carb. That's just science. It's weird to me for someone to classify a carb as "calorific" since they ARE NOT calorically dense. They are less then half the calories per gram as fat. So I'd worry more about measuring peanuts than measuring rice. Unless, of course, you're going to cover the rice in butter
Rice is something that can add quite a bit to your calorie total if you aren't mindful. Some people may have 2-3 times what's considered a single serving if they eyeball rather than weigh. That's not insignificant.12 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.
I'm saying that a calorie dense food is scientifically speaking more calorically dense than a carb. That's just science. It's weird to me for someone to classify a carb as "calorific" since they ARE NOT calorically dense. They are less then half the calories per gram as fat. So I'd worry more about measuring peanuts than measuring rice. Unless, of course, you're going to cover the rice in butter
point is all those calories you dont count do add up,and if you dont include/weigh them you could be eating more calories than you think you are.if you are only accurate on some of the weights of things and not on others it can throw a deficit off by a lot for many people.when I used a measuring cup to measure my food,I was eating more than I thought and started gaining some of the weight I lost at first back, once I started weighing all my food I started losing again.
I mean if what you are doing is working for you then fine,but once you get down to say a lower weight thats closer to goal or you have little to lose it pays to be more accurate and account for everything. so say you are in a 250 calorie deficit, and you dont weigh certain things,its possible that you could be eating that 250 calories and not realize it because you arent eating the proper portion,you are eating more. so that can make or break your deficit.8 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.
I'm saying that a calorie dense food is scientifically speaking more calorically dense than a carb. That's just science. It's weird to me for someone to classify a carb as "calorific" since they ARE NOT calorically dense. They are less then half the calories per gram as fat. So I'd worry more about measuring peanuts than measuring rice. Unless, of course, you're going to cover the rice in butter
point is all those calories you dont count do add up,and if you dont include/weigh them you could be eating more calories than you think you are.if you are only accurate on some of the weights of things and not on others it can throw a deficit off by a lot for many people.when I used a measuring cup to measure my food,I was eating more than I thought and started gaining some of the weight I lost at first back, once I started weighing all my food I started losing again.
I mean if what you are doing is working for you then fine,but once you get down to say a lower weight thats closer to goal or you have little to lose it pays to be more accurate and account for everything. so say you are in a 250 calorie deficit, and you dont weigh certain things,its possible that you could be eating that 250 calories and not realize it because you arent eating the proper portion,you are eating more. so that can make or break your deficit.
As previously stated "I weigh everything. I was just saying that rice is not a "calorific food." I agree with what you're saying though I do sometimes cheat with lettuce( that is that I eyeball it instead of weighing it) lol; I'm pretty rigid with everything else ." I'm not denying that weighing is superior by far. I simply disagreed with the word "calorific" being associated with a carb.
And I'm actually at a healthy bmi and always have been. Many people are eating more than they think. That wasn't the point of what I was saying
1 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
A calorie is a calorie no matter the source.
I'm saying that a calorie dense food is scientifically speaking more calorically dense than a carb. That's just science. It's weird to me for someone to classify a carb as "calorific" since they ARE NOT calorically dense. They are less then half the calories per gram as fat. So I'd worry more about measuring peanuts than measuring rice. Unless, of course, you're going to cover the rice in butter
point is all those calories you dont count do add up,and if you dont include/weigh them you could be eating more calories than you think you are.if you are only accurate on some of the weights of things and not on others it can throw a deficit off by a lot for many people.when I used a measuring cup to measure my food,I was eating more than I thought and started gaining some of the weight I lost at first back, once I started weighing all my food I started losing again.
I mean if what you are doing is working for you then fine,but once you get down to say a lower weight thats closer to goal or you have little to lose it pays to be more accurate and account for everything. so say you are in a 250 calorie deficit, and you dont weigh certain things,its possible that you could be eating that 250 calories and not realize it because you arent eating the proper portion,you are eating more. so that can make or break your deficit.
As previously stated "I weigh everything. I was just saying that rice is not a "calorific food." I agree with what you're saying though I do sometimes cheat with lettuce( that is that I eyeball it instead of weighing it) lol; I'm pretty rigid with everything else ." I'm not denying that weighing is superior by far. I simply disagreed with the word "calorific" being associated with a carb.
And I'm actually at a healthy bmi and always have been. Many people are eating more than they think. That wasn't the point of what I was saying
But people not at a healthy weight will read your post about "clean" carbs not being calorific and as important to weigh as meat and will feel justified in eyeballing thier rice and pasta and will be back in a few weeks asking why they are not losing weight
As the OP and the photos show weighing is important for all solids9 -
This makes me very very sad..0
-
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »I'd consider fatty foods much more caloric and essential to way out then clean carbs such as rice
And that is how to end up eating way more calories than you think.
I had always been taught to avoid fatty foods such as avocados, so I assumed they were high in calories. Well, 100g of avocado is about 160 kcal (1.6 kcal per g).
100g of dry rice is 365 calories 3.65 kcal per g). Do you weigh out your rice before you cook it? Because going a few grams over on your rice is going to cause a lot more uncounted calories than going a few grams over on your avocado.
And let's not even get started on bread (about 100 kcal per slice). I had fatty tuna-mayo with fatty avocado for lunch yesterday, and yet my calorie count came to less than if I'd had almost anything in a sandwich.
I think that this idea that fatty foods have more calories is the legacy of the 'fat is bad' belief in my parents' generation. It's only since I've been measuring properly and recording on MFP that I've begun to realise that in fact it's always carbs ('clean' or not) that make the calories mount up.10 -
RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »I'd consider fatty foods much more caloric and essential to way out then clean carbs such as rice
And that is how to end up eating way more calories than you think.
I had always been taught to avoid fatty foods such as avocados, so I assumed they were high in calories. Well, 100g of avocado is about 160 kcal (1.6 kcal per g).
100g of dry rice is 365 calories 3.65 kcal per g). Do you weigh out your rice before you cook it? Because going a few grams over on your rice is going to cause a lot more uncounted calories than going a few grams over on your avocado.
And let's not even get started on bread (about 100 kcal per slice). I had fatty tuna-mayo with fatty avocado for lunch yesterday, and yet my calorie count came to less than if I'd had almost anything in a sandwich.
I think that this idea that fatty foods have more calories is the legacy of the 'fat is bad' belief in my parents' generation. It's only since I've been measuring properly and recording on MFP that I've begun to realise that in fact it's always carbs ('clean' or not) that make the calories mount up.
Yeah I laugh at 'carbs don't need to be weighed as much' too. So easy to have 1.5 serving of pasta (or more) instead of 1 if you're not weighing. And yeah... you can easily have 1/2 of your sandwich calories coming from bread!5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions