Pasta and other dumb questions

attorneyevans

I've noticed that nutrition labels on food have all different types of measurement methods.

I've figured most out but have some basic questions.

For example when calculating pasta does one measure the amount dry or cooked? I am assuming dry?

Specific question. So I am eating for a dinner a cup and a half of high protein pasta (dry measure); Some boxes list amounts in grams but I've determined that 56gr is about 3/4 cup therefore I make twice that for dinner. Ok that's not a question.

I'm generally confused about when things are measured by volume or space that they fill in a measuring 'cup' ( I have a two-cup measuring cup) and when they are measure by units of weight like ounces? My measuring cup has both cups and corresponding ounces. My confusion lies in the fact that one cup of 'anything' isn't necessarily 8 ounces of that same 'thing'. A cup of pasta surely doesn't weight as much as 8 ounces of water or... liquid mercury. So am I over thinking this?

oolou

The general recommendation is to weigh your food rather than use cups. A food scale can be cheaply bought and will make calculating your calories a lot easier.

Editme12

From what I've noticed, most boxes list a serving of pasta, dry, in grams.

What I do, is decide how many servings I want to cook (say I put three servings of dried pasta), then I cook it. I drain the excess water. I put a bowl on a scale, tare it, then put in the pasta. Take that number, divide it by three, now I know how many grams is a serving of this cooked pasta, and I can decide how many servings I want to eat.

attorneyevans

Thank you! Would I weight dry pasta or cooked pasta?

attorneyevans

weigh

amusedmonkey

The confusion lies in that the ounces on the cup are fluid ounces. They are a measure of volume. The ounces on the scale are weight ounces, they are a measure of weight. The only substance that has the same volume and weight ounces is water. Other non-viscous liquids like juice can be close enough that you could say with a reasonable confidence that 8 fl ounce of juice weighs 8 ounces. The imperial system is archaic, so it can be confusing sometimes.

Now for the pasta, yes, it's best to weigh it dry. It is also best to log it by weight, not by cup. Speaking of pasta, take a look at this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10543923/why-should-i-use-a-food-scale

attorneyevans

I the nutritional info on the box for example giving dry food data or cooked food data?

attorneyevans

Is

Editme12

I weigh both. I weigh it dry first, so I know exactly how much I'm putting in the pot. Pasta absorbs water, so I weigh it again after.

attorneyevans

But do you need to weigh it after if it's only water?

SueSueDio

attorneyevans wrote: »

I the nutritional info on the box for example giving dry food data or cooked food data?

I believe it usually refers to the dry weight, but it may specify somewhere on your packaging.

Editme12

I like pasta. Most boxes I've seen list two things: a weight for dry pasta (grams) and a volume for cooked pasta (cups). The problem is like you said, cups isn't a reliable measure. What I jam into a measuring cup may be different than you. But weight is weight.

deannalfisher

attorneyevans wrote: »

I the nutritional info on the box for example giving dry food data or cooked food data?

its giving you the info for the dry weigh if cooked in just water - sometimes there will be if prepared a certain way (i.e. cereal normally has cereal and then calories with milk factored in)

angelique_redhead

2 ounces of dry pasta is a serving when cooked. Enjoy!

pinuplove

attorneyevans wrote: »

But do you need to weigh it after if it's only water?

No. If you've weighed it dry, and recorded the nutritional info as dry in your diary, there is no reason to weigh it again unless you're trying to divide multiple servings from one pot.

attorneyevans

Wow, I read that thread. Very helpful thank you. I'm also sad that that nice bowl of pasta won't be so big tonight. I'll start weighing.

Editme12

In your original post you said "I make twice that for dinner." So, if a serving is 56 grams dry, doubled that would be 112. Weigh it out on a scale, then cook it. You don't need to weigh it again if you plan on eating everything you cook. However, if you plan on making extra, like cooking for multiple people, or if you plan on having leftovers, you would use the method I suggested earlier, to determine accurately how much pasta you are eating.

pinuplove

attorneyevans wrote: »

Wow, I read that thread. Very helpful thank you. I'm also sad that that nice bowl of pasta won't be so big tonight. I'll start weighing.

Pasta is typically one of the more eye-opening foods for what a proper serving size REALLY is Others (for me) include rice, ice cream, and peanut butter!

rileysowner

Unless otherwise stated, the nutritional information is for the product as it is packaged. Thus, for dry pasta it is for dry unless it specifically says cooked in the nutritional information. Weigh the pasta uncooked and make enough for your meal. Or, if you want to make more, weight it uncooked, cook it, and then weigh it. Then you have all you need to do the calculations to equate the cooked weight of that batch to the uncooked weight.

attorneyevans

Thanks!

richardgavel

Always assume the nutrition information is based on doing Nothing to the food inside, unless it specifically says otherwise. Not boiling not cooking not adding anything (like milk) to it.

attorneyevans

REALLY appreciate all the feedback!!! Thank you!

Luisc82787

for me that works is weighing my carbs in grams and my proteins in ounces. seems to help me!

lemurcat12

Luisc82787 wrote: »

for me that works is weighing my carbs in grams and my proteins in ounces. seems to help me!

Why not weigh them all in grams?

ccsernica

amusedmonkey wrote: »

The confusion lies in that the ounces on the cup are fluid ounces. They are a measure of volume. The ounces on the scale are weight ounces, they are a measure of weight. The only substance that has the same volume and weight ounces is water. Other non-viscous liquids like juice can be close enough that you could say with a reasonable confidence that 8 fl ounce of juice weighs 8 ounces. The imperial system is archaic, so it can be confusing sometimes.

Except what you're describing isn't the Imperial system, it's the American system. The two systems are nearly identical, but measurement of fluid volume is the one area where they differ significantly. American fluid ounces are larger than Imperial fluid ounces; an Imperial fluid ounce therefore weighs less than an avoirdupois ounce.

However, Imperial pints are larger. There are 20 oz to a pint in the Imperial system, but only 16 to a pint in the American. So the saying, "A pint's a pound the whole world round" only applies to American pints. An Imperial pint weighs about 1.25 lbs. Since units larger than pints are based on multiples of pints, all of those differ between the two systems as well, by about 20%.

amusedmonkey

ccsernica wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

The confusion lies in that the ounces on the cup are fluid ounces. They are a measure of volume. The ounces on the scale are weight ounces, they are a measure of weight. The only substance that has the same volume and weight ounces is water. Other non-viscous liquids like juice can be close enough that you could say with a reasonable confidence that 8 fl ounce of juice weighs 8 ounces. The imperial system is archaic, so it can be confusing sometimes.

Except what you're describing isn't the Imperial system, it's the American system. The two systems are nearly identical, but measurement of fluid volume is the one area where they differ significantly. American fluid ounces are larger than Imperial fluid ounces; an Imperial fluid ounce therefore weighs less than an avoirdupois ounce.

However, Imperial pints are larger. There are 20 oz to a pint in the Imperial system, but only 16 to a pint in the American. So the saying, "A pint's a pound the whole world round" only applies to American pints. An Imperial pint weighs about 1.25 lbs. Since units larger than pints are based on multiples of pints, all of those differ between the two systems as well, by about 20%.

Yeah.. It all gets confusing with all the different systems out there. I grew up with the metric system which is simple and consistent all over the world, so it's doubly confusing to me.