Is weighing food really necessary?
Replies
-
I think it's a YMMV thing. For an obese person starting out, it may not be necessary. But for someone who's down to losing 10-20 pounds, it may make a significant difference. The tendency to underestimate calories is very human, because most everyone likes food and wants to eat as much of it as we can, lol. My husband was making fun of me for weighing my oyster crackers last night, but what he handed to me as one serving was actually three servings, 120 calories more. That kind of thing can add up, especially when you've only got 1,200 calories for the whole day.6
-
Of course it's not necessary. Many people lose weight without ever using a food scale.
But if you reach a point where you're not losing the way you want it can be a very helpful tool.6 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »Of course it's not necessary. Many people lose weight without ever using a food scale.
But if you reach a point where you're not losing the way you want it can be a very helpful tool.
I feel like this post needs a bit more context.
Based on the OP's stats, she cannot actually lose 2lbs per week without dangerously under eating/over exercising. Regardless on if she weighed every crumb.
So, when someone is expecting results they actually aren't capable of, they will never be losing the way they want without knowing the actual real expectations of their weight loss for their current stats.
So first step is to find out if your goal is achievable, since despite 2lbs per week being listed in the drop down options, its not really an actual goal for everyone. Then weigh food if your loss without weighing hasn't been what your real expectations are supposed to be.
Weighing should be used for more refined accuracy for actual obtainable weight loss goals per week.3 -
When I started using MFP early in 2016, I did not have a scale. I read scary stories here of cup measures being inaccurate, so I hacked a solution. If I wanted 1/2 cup of something, I used the 1/3 cup measure. I figured if 1/3 was actually giving me more than 1/3, it was likely giving me close to 1/2.6
-
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »ladyhusker39 wrote: »Of course it's not necessary. Many people lose weight without ever using a food scale.
But if you reach a point where you're not losing the way you want it can be a very helpful tool.
I feel like this post needs a bit more context.
Based on the OP's stats, she cannot actually lose 2lbs per week without dangerously under eating/over exercising. Regardless on if she weighed every crumb.
So, when someone is expecting results they actually aren't capable of, they will never be losing the way they want without knowing the actual real expectations of their weight loss for their current stats.
So first step is to find out if your goal is achievable, since despite 2lbs per week being listed in the drop down options, its not really an actual goal for everyone. Then weigh food if your loss without weighing hasn't been what your real expectations are supposed to be.
Weighing should be used for more refined accuracy for actual obtainable weight loss goals per week.
OP asked if weighing food is necessary. I answered that question.4 -
Yes.. but if you keep reading you would also see that the reason she wasn't getting the results she was expecting is because she did not know that she did not have the weight to lose in order to lose 2lbs per week, she was expecting that amount of loss and thought weighing her food would get her those results, in which, it still would not.6
-
Seperate from your do you need to weigh food question-karialiwest wrote: ».
I'm 5'4 and 166 at the moment looking to get to 140. MFP has set me at 1200 to lose 2lbs a week but I eat a little more or less depending on how I feel that day.
MFP gave you 1200 because it is the minimum recommendation the site will give. With your stats to lose 2 lbs per week you would need to eat less than 1200... an unhealthy and unsustainable amount. As others have said 2 lbs a week is not a reasonable expectation.
With your stats you will probably lose more like 1 lb a week eating 1200 calories a day. That is a fine rate of loss for someone with less than 50 lbs to lose.
3 -
It makes a big difference when you weigh certain foods like potatoes, rice, beans, meat and nut butters, things like that. There is a big variation in the weight of those foods if you use a measuring spoon or cup. If you lose without it though like another poster said than you don't need to.0
-
I started with essentially the same stats as you, i'm at 5'4 and bounce between 120-125 now. I started without a scale and lost pretty consistently at 1-1.5 lbs/week without a scale but still measuring everything the best I could. (I usually aimed to eat between 1200 and 1400). Once I got to 140 the loss slowed down and I got the food scale and the extra accuracy helped me to keep losing.
When you have more weight to lose you have more room for error, so I'd say you're fine without the food scale until your weight slows down, then it would be a good idea to get one to tighten up your accuracy. Most food servings will probably be less when you weight them vs when you try to measure them but you might be surprised by some things. I discovered that was wildly underestimating peanut butter, but that I was also really over estimating the amount of my cheese servings.
1 -
karialiwest wrote: »Has anyone lost weight without constantly weighing and measuring food? I started logging a month ago but my food diary is most likely wildly inaccurate. Obviously I'm eating less than I used to because I'm still losing weight but is it sustainable without weighing everything? I've read through a couple of discussions and I'm starting to feel like if I don't measure all my food I'm doomed for all eternity.
I'm 5'4 and 166 at the moment looking to get to 140. MFP has set me at 1200 to lose 2lbs a week but I eat a little more or less depending on how I feel that day.
If you are struggling and say things like "I'm eating 1,200 calories per day and exercising but not losing weight" then yeah...
That said, I never weighed everything...I didn't weigh out slices of bread or other prepackaged stuff like slices of bacon, etc...I just went off of the package. Stuff like oatmeal and other grains, legumes, etc that were uniform in size is usually just measured. Typically I weighed out things like meat, nuts, nut butters, etc.
I weighed and measured mostly so that I could eat up to what I was allowed rather than the other way around. I didn't want to log 6 ounces of steak but just estimate that and really only be eating 3 or 4 ounces...'cuz I want all of the steak if I'm logging it.2 -
I don't believe it's necessary for everyone. But it's a learning tool. It's taught me what serving sizes should look like - where measuring cups/spoons never did. So when I'm somewhere that I don't have a scale, I can eyeball more accurately. When I started to loose I didn't want to mess around and I didn't want to add time to my weight loss, so I wanted to be as accurate as I could be.
I'm in maintainance now after losing 20lbs. I still use my scale to check myself. Usually I'm right on, but sometimes if I'm not paying attention I'm majorly off.1 -
At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."1
-
At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.
But did anyone actually care if they gained or lost weight way back when?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.
But did anyone actually care if they gained or lost weight way back when?
I would imagine shame for how you look is as old as we've made it to be when we first started shaming each other on pointless view points of perfection1 -
Before the mid-nineteenth century, I can't answer. But the Victorian period gave us the corset. Not sure if kitchen scales were used extensively at the time (for trade, sure. For everyday use in the home? I dunno). But thin was definitely "in" then.0
-
Here is the general guideline for what to set your calories goals to. You have 26 lb loss as your goal:
If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.
That said, since you're set to 1,200 cals and not weighing your food, you're probably eating more than 1,200 without realizing it, evening out to the deficit you should be at, which is probably around 1,300-1,500 to lose 1 lb/week.0 -
I think that person's point was whether or not people care about losing weight, people have been losing weight since the beginning of time. So do animals. Calories in vs Calories out is just science - whether measured or not, some people have to focus on super strictly and weigh their mustard and some people cut out soda and lose 20 lbs.0
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »Before the mid-nineteenth century, I can't answer. But the Victorian period gave us the corset. Not sure if kitchen scales were used extensively at the time (for trade, sure. For everyday use in the home? I dunno). But thin was definitely "in" then.
The idea of counting calories didn't exist in the Victorian era. There were "reducing diets" but the science behind them was pretty wonky.
If you read Victorian era recipes, they often have vague measurements such as "piece of butter the size of a hen's egg." The idea of standardized measurements in cook books didn't really catch on until about the turn of the century, and the whole modernize your kitchen movement dates to the 1940s. My mom (who is 80) can remember her grandmother cooking on an iron stove out in the country, because it was how she had learned and she wasn't comfortable with a gas stove.
However, home scales were pretty common from the 1950's forward - I think seventy years is a long time!2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.
But did anyone actually care if they gained or lost weight way back when?
We've had "ideal beauty standards" and views on more desirable/less desirable body shapes just this side of forever. The standards change constantly, but to think that nobody cared before the last 100 years or so is ridiculous.
My point still stands: weight loss is possible without a food scale, and therefore a food scale is not a necessary piece of equipment for weight loss to happen.0 -
Package says 40g but also 1/2 cup dry. This is both measured out.
40gm 150 calories
1/2 cup 51gms 191.25 calories
If you want to lose weight and/or get healthier, then no. Not necessary. However if you're counting calories or rely on any significant degree of accuracy, then absolutely because of the post above.0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Before the mid-nineteenth century, I can't answer. But the Victorian period gave us the corset. Not sure if kitchen scales were used extensively at the time (for trade, sure. For everyday use in the home? I dunno). But thin was definitely "in" then.
Unless you were a guy...being very fat was a status symbol0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.
I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point...hell, I haven't logged in years, though I do still weigh some things out...my point was simply that they've been around quite awhile...I wasn't really comparing them relative to all of time. When someone says something is relatively recent I tend to think the last 10-15 years...maybe 20 tops.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Before the mid-nineteenth century, I can't answer. But the Victorian period gave us the corset. Not sure if kitchen scales were used extensively at the time (for trade, sure. For everyday use in the home? I dunno). But thin was definitely "in" then.
The idea of counting calories didn't exist in the Victorian era. There were "reducing diets" but the science behind them was pretty wonky.
If you read Victorian era recipes, they often have vague measurements such as "piece of butter the size of a hen's egg." The idea of standardized measurements in cook books didn't really catch on until about the turn of the century, and the whole modernize your kitchen movement dates to the 1940s. My mom (who is 80) can remember her grandmother cooking on an iron stove out in the country, because it was how she had learned and she wasn't comfortable with a gas stove.
However, home scales were pretty common from the 1950's forward - I think seventy years is a long time!
Yeah, I was just answering @glassyo's question about whether anyone cared about weight loss or gain until recently. The first time I'm aware of thin being an ideal was in the Victorian period, but I'm no historian and it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that it goes back earlier.
But as for what the conventional wisdom was on how to lose weight, that's something I'd have to do a bit of research on.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »At-home food scales are a relatively recent invention, but people somehow managed to lose weight before they were a thing. I like mine; I think it makes things easier and I really hate washing measuring cups/spoons all the time, but a food scale is in no way "necessary."
No way...my grandma had one when I was a little kid...it wasn't digital, but it was a scale...she used it mostly for baking where more precision is required than regular cooking.
When compared against the thousands of years of human history, they're recent. People gained and lost way before they were introduced, so it's definitely possible to lose weight without one.
But did anyone actually care if they gained or lost weight way back when?
We've had "ideal beauty standards" and views on more desirable/less desirable body shapes just this side of forever. The standards change constantly, but to think that nobody cared before the last 100 years or so is ridiculous.
My point still stands: weight loss is possible without a food scale, and therefore a food scale is not a necessary piece of equipment for weight loss to happen.
In Sparta, you could be exiled if you were overweight. So yeah, weight has been an issue for people for pretty much just this side of forever, as stated.0 -
karialiwest wrote: »Has anyone lost weight without constantly weighing and measuring food? I started logging a month ago but my food diary is most likely wildly inaccurate. Obviously I'm eating less than I used to because I'm still losing weight but is it sustainable without weighing everything? I've read through a couple of discussions and I'm starting to feel like if I don't measure all my food I'm doomed for all eternity.
I'm 5'4 and 166 at the moment looking to get to 140. MFP has set me at 1200 to lose 2lbs a week but I eat a little more or less depending on how I feel that day.
You might be fine depending on what you are eating and your skill at eyeballing quantities. If you are losing weight as you are going now, then it's fine for the time being. If not, I would suggest weighing your food before, for instance, coming back on here and adding to the "I only eat 1200 calories a day-why am I not losing weight" giant pile of threads.
At 166 lbs, 1200 net calories probably corresponds to less than 2 lb/wk (the actual estimated loss would have been in red bold on the screen when it set the goal - 1200 is the bare minimum floor number MFP will give). Whatever estimated loss that corresponds to may or may not be realistic/healthy - if you don't have much to lose, you probably don't want to aim for more that 0.5 lb/wk..you will be hungry and losing more muscle than is preferable.0 -
Here's a fun article on women's ideal shape in the 1600's 1700's and during the 19th/20th century:
http://www.revelist.com/body-positive/ideal-body-type-1600s-now/10378
eta: Great Britain and USA1 -
I have been doing this healthier lifestyle thing for just over a year now. I have lost 75lbs and don't own a food scale. In the beginning (first couple months) I did measure out a cup of Greek yogurt or a tablespoon of olive oil or hummus. But other than that I did not weigh/measure anything I pretty much eyeballed it. I also did not eat back all, if any of my exercise calories and always left a couple hundred calories on the table just because I was not weighing/measuring and wanted to make sure that I was leaving room for error. I know a lot of people weigh/measure everything that goes into their mouths and are very successful as well. It's a matter of personal preference for most and for me personally, I knew if I had to do that I would not stick to it because it would feel like a chore to me. However, if I was struggling to lose the weight, I would probably would have started weighing to get a better handle on what a portion size looks like. Good luck!0
-
My Rudolph's Bavarian sandwich bread has 110 cals per slice of 40g. Most of the slices are 60-64g which means each one is actually 187 cals. That's 150 calorie difference just in just 2 slices of the sandwich bread, never mind what else I put in it. that's a pretty big margin of error if your deficit is 500/day. Rest assured by not weighing you'll be proud OP of an "I'm not losing on 1200 calories" post in the near future.1
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