"Why should I use a food scale?"
Replies
-
Traveler120 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.
ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....
4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday
Sad!
Meh. I routinely go to bed at 9:30, even on the weekends. And I like it. Using a food scale doesn't even rank on the sadness scale of my life :laugh:
I would cry for you, but it would ruin my beer.3 -
-
LadyLilion wrote: »
Don't forget evaporation!
But please, don't cry for me. I'm happy in my pathetic little life. Really, I am! Thrilled. S..s..so happy...
5 -
LadyLilion wrote: »
It's beer. As such it comes from the Gods and shall not be questioned.
As a mere mortal I relinquish myself to its goodness and purity.5 -
For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.
When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........
I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.
Pasta is 56g per serving.
Not in Canada.2 -
For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.
When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........
I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.
Pasta is 56g per serving.
Not in Canada.
yeah - apparently Canadians want more pasta per serving. (I'm in BC)
4 -
For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.
When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........
I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.
Pasta is 56g per serving.
Not in Canada.
yeah - apparently Canadians want more pasta per serving. (I'm in BC)
I *knew* there was a reasonable explanation for my attraction to Canadian men! I obviously need to marry one and emigrate there so I can eat more pasta. Don't tell my husband (actually, he already knows).6 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »I weigh things like, meats/rice/pasta/nuts/oils/potatoes/fruits...but NEVER bread, eggs or bacon.... I did today, and this is what I found..
Bread according to the package weighs 26g, but it actually weighed 32g
Bacon according to the package weighs 15g, but it actually weighed 18g
I don't have the answer here, but some of the weight of bread could be water. If you allowed a slice to completely dry out, you could weigh it and use the calories in flour. I usually go by the package and I consistently lose weight. Although: I don't eat a lot of bread!
Bacon is a good thing to weigh. The cooked weight varies a lot! I think it adds a lot of flavor even in small quantities. If you want a really low calorie alternative, try Canadian bacon.2 -
For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.
When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........
I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.
Pasta is 56g per serving.
Not in Canada.
Not in my kitchen either.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.
When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........
I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.
Pasta is 56g per serving.
Not in Canada.
Not in my kitchen either.
Well mine either, lol.0 -
So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
Why wouldn't one assume it had the same macro distribution as the 15 grams does? This won't be totally accurate (some strips have more fat than others), but I can't see this being a significant issue for most people. It's unlikely that the three extra grams would be all protein, all fat, or all water.
This has an air of ad absurdum.13 -
no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...4 -
-
no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...
This...1 -
@TimothyFish: You are raising issues but offering no answers.
The question is: what habits should you adopt to achieve the required accuracy? Certainly, there is no easy way to be entirely precise nor do you need to be.
For example: My maintenance-level estimate is ~2000kcals, and I am currently eating at a 500kcal or 25% deficit. I would be happy with a +/- 10% daily error in measured calories (i.e., 1500 +/- 150kcals per day), particularly if it averaged out over several days.
You can certainly get there through a combination of weighing and volume-measuring your foods. Here's some easy advice: When possible, weigh the stuff that's lumpy and measure the stuff that's smooth, focusing on the stuff that has high calorie density. Don't get overly worried about it, meaning don't take a scale to a restaurant. You definitely get better at eyeballing over time, but it never hurts to check yourself once in a while.5 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
It does not bother me.
Because it's bacon.
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
Why wouldn't one assume it had the same macro distribution as the 15 grams does? This won't be totally accurate (some strips have more fat than others), but I can't see this being a significant issue for most people. It's unlikely that the three extra grams would be all protein, all fat, or all water.
This has an air of ad absurdum.
One wouldn't assume that because you can't look at a piece of bacon and decide which part of it is the 15g and which part is the 3g. According to the package, once it is cooked, we can expect the bacon to weigh 15g. Of course it won't weigh exactly 15g, but why? Is it because we didn't cook it the right amount of time? Is it because it had more meat than typical? Is it because it had more fat than typical? Is it because they sliced it a different thickness? Is it because of the amount of water in it? Though we don't know the answer to that question, the answer could mean a significant difference in calories per gram.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
Why wouldn't one assume it had the same macro distribution as the 15 grams does? This won't be totally accurate (some strips have more fat than others), but I can't see this being a significant issue for most people. It's unlikely that the three extra grams would be all protein, all fat, or all water.
This has an air of ad absurdum.
I second the ad absurdum at this point. And think I may know two people on these message boards who appear to be related, unbeknownst to them...10 -
Traveler120 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.
ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....
4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday
Sad!
How is this sad? Is it sad to balance a checkbook as well?
Yes, if the only way to keep from financial ruin is by obsessively checking my account every single time I buy a candy bar!
2 -
no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...
And yet, people start getting upset when someone points out that both scales and measuring cups are inaccurate methods.
Personally, I'm not recommending anything concerning how people figure out how many calories are in the food they eat. Weighing your food does get you near the correct number, but the simple fact is that so does using measuring cups. I find all this talk about how much more accurate weighing ones food is to be tedious, especially when the people who talk about never show how much more accurate it is. They both have enough inaccuracy for people to gain weight. At some point, people have to deal with that inaccuracy. And if your method for dealing with the inaccuracy is sound, then accuracy becomes much less important.1 -
TimothyFish wrote: »no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...
And yet, people start getting upset when someone points out that both scales and measuring cups are inaccurate methods.
Personally, I'm not recommending anything concerning how people figure out how many calories are in the food they eat. Weighing your food does get you near the correct number, but the simple fact is that so does using measuring cups. I find all this talk about how much more accurate weighing ones food is to be tedious, especially when the people who talk about never show how much more accurate it is. They both have enough inaccuracy for people to gain weight. At some point, people have to deal with that inaccuracy. And if your method for dealing with the inaccuracy is sound, then accuracy becomes much less important.
We get it. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it.
The talk might be tedious to you, but there have been people in this thread that have benefitted from the message I've spread and that's good enough for me. 18 -
TimothyFish wrote: »no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...
And yet, people start getting upset when someone points out that both scales and measuring cups are inaccurate methods.
Personally, I'm not recommending anything concerning how people figure out how many calories are in the food they eat. Weighing your food does get you near the correct number, but the simple fact is that so does using measuring cups. I find all this talk about how much more accurate weighing ones food is to be tedious, especially when the people who talk about never show how much more accurate it is. They both have enough inaccuracy for people to gain weight. At some point, people have to deal with that inaccuracy. And if your method for dealing with the inaccuracy is sound, then accuracy becomes much less important.
And you know what? There are no laws regarding the accuracy or consistency of measuring cups. If you went to a bunch of stores and bought twenty measuring cups, filled them with water, and poured that water into scientific beakers you'd probably end up with ten to fifteen different volumes of water. However, a gram is a gram. It doesn't change. You consistently get a much greater accuracy with weight. My method has helped me achieve a 130lb weight loss so far. I'm more than pleased with that result and think I'll stick with it regardless of any issues that anyone else may have with it.9 -
TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
Apparently, if you're American, you should assume it's fat because the *cooked weight* is off by 3 grams - meaning you didn't cook it long enough to cook out enough fat.
If you're Canadian and dealing with a raw weight, you'd assume same macro distribution as the rest of the bacon.4 -
New DIGITAL food scale coming this week!!7
-
TimothyFish wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »So, here's a question for you guys who are weighing your bacon:
If a piece of bacon that the package says should be about 15g weighs in at 18g, are those extra 3g grams of fat? (Meaning it is actually 107 calories instead of 80.) Protein? (Meaning it is actually 92 calories instead of 80.) Or water? (In which case the weight difference is meaningless.) Does it bother you that the calorie count indicated by the scale could be off as much as 1/3 of the calories in the bacon? If not, why not?
Why wouldn't one assume it had the same macro distribution as the 15 grams does? This won't be totally accurate (some strips have more fat than others), but I can't see this being a significant issue for most people. It's unlikely that the three extra grams would be all protein, all fat, or all water.
This has an air of ad absurdum.
One wouldn't assume that because you can't look at a piece of bacon and decide which part of it is the 15g and which part is the 3g. According to the package, once it is cooked, we can expect the bacon to weigh 15g. Of course it won't weigh exactly 15g, but why? Is it because we didn't cook it the right amount of time? Is it because it had more meat than typical? Is it because it had more fat than typical? Is it because they sliced it a different thickness? Is it because of the amount of water in it? Though we don't know the answer to that question, the answer could mean a significant difference in calories per gram.
Did you read the post you were replying to? There is no "15 g of bacon as labelled and then 3 grams of unknown origin", there's just a 18g piece of bacon consisting of the same macro ratio as the 15 gram one they used for the label, only with 1/5 extra. It's not going to be just fat, or just meat or just water.
Also I advise you to read up on the law of large numbers.9 -
I use a lot of food scaling. I had some serious problems with health before, so I need only the healthy food. I bought a slow cooker and 5 dozens of plastic food containers, it's cheap if you buy them in one deal: http://allinpackaging.co.uk/food-packaging/ Every day I prepare fresh food before I go to the work and take it in a food container with me. I cook rice, vegetable, fish, chicken. And no matter how busy is my day, I always have an hour or half to eat my lunch. Because I know that influence to my health, mood and productivity.3
-
TimothyFish wrote: »no because all food labels can be off by 20% per the law.
There is no way to be totally 100% accurate outside a lab setting but at least with a food scale you are getting closer than eyeballing or guessing or even with "cup" measurements and for some that is enough to make them feel more comfortable with reporting the calories...
and I think that is the point of the food scale weather you get it or not...
it's not for you to decide or understand just accept that some want to use a food scale and will recommend it...others like yourself don't care one way or the other and use different methods and recommend that...
And yet, people start getting upset when someone points out that both scales and measuring cups are inaccurate methods.
Personally, I'm not recommending anything concerning how people figure out how many calories are in the food they eat. Weighing your food does get you near the correct number, but the simple fact is that so does using measuring cups. I find all this talk about how much more accurate weighing ones food is to be tedious, especially when the people who talk about never show how much more accurate it is. They both have enough inaccuracy for people to gain weight. At some point, people have to deal with that inaccuracy. And if your method for dealing with the inaccuracy is sound, then accuracy becomes much less important.
The scale is more accurate in solids than cups...it has been shown in more than just this thread.
Given a choice of most accurate the scale is at the top and you know that...you are being pedantic and you know it.
for example....
Jun 2013 I logged my food by measuring cups and spoons...had my calories set to lose 1lb a week...ate up to that plus exercise calories lost 1/2 a week consistently.
Aug 2013 tried to figure out TDEE and found out due to logging inaccuracies due to using cups I couldn't so I bought a food scale.
Used it consistently for 4 weeks...and ate my exercise calories back...all of them. Lost 1lb a week.
to me that shows that a food scale for solids is way more accurate for me than cups/spoons and eyeballing.
You missed my point that out of all the ways of measuring calories outside a lab setting a food scale is the most accurate...and that gives people comfort.
And if you find it tedious don't join the conversation...
5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.
ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....
4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday
Sad!
How is this sad? Is it sad to balance a checkbook as well?
Yes, if the only way to keep from financial ruin is by obsessively checking my account every single time I buy a candy bar!
This is hyperbole.
Log the expense, balance the book - move on.
The issue is not with accounting.5 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.
ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....
4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday
Sad!
How is this sad? Is it sad to balance a checkbook as well?
Yes, if the only way to keep from financial ruin is by obsessively checking my account every single time I buy a candy bar!
Yeah... a candy bar compared to an average income is about as much as a diet soda, close to 0.4
This discussion has been closed.
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