Weighing in "cups"
Options
Replies
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
4 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »So a cup of rice, tells me the volume not the weight but food calories are a weight-based measurement. If Americans don't usethe metric system, use Ounces and Pounds which at least can be meaningfully converted.
Sure I could use a food scale, and sometimes I do, but usually I am measuring against something that the store has measured and labelled. Like the steak that I had yesterday. I trawled through a dozen "cup" based entries for steak. Ridiculous.
Wait? You don't use a food scale? Then how do you know what anything weighs to enter it in the first place?
Food packaging shows weight in most cases.
And??? That doesn't mean that's what the food weighs. It means that IF it weighs 100 grams, then it is 100 calories (made up numbers). But it isn't automatically 100 grams in weight.
Nope. Most food packaging shows the weight of the food. Some packaging also shows the nutrition per 100g but thattends to be processed food which I try not to eat for obvious reasons.
My protein bars show they are 62 grams. Guess how many are actually 62 grams when I weigh them?
You realize food labels are allowed to be off by 20%, right?
And the weight will extremely rarely be less than 62 grams as otherwise the customer might file a law suite for having been cheated....
(I once weighed a box of 24 protein bars. Not a one was under the weight listed. A few were the exact weight. Most where over...)
Yeah, they're never under.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
I place the empty cup on the scale, tare, scoop my cup, and weigh it. At least I know how many grams to enter into the recipe builder, even if it may or may not be off as per the recipe.
I've done that before. But typical example: I'm really bad at eyeballing. (Some mild spatial perception issues. I used to suck at those geometry problems where they show you a flattened box and want you to pick the image that shows what it looks like when it's assembled, too.) I know I want "around" a cup of grapes with yogurt and a granola bar breakfast. So I put an empty bowl on the scale, tare, fill my one cup measure with grapes, throw them in the bowl and log the weight. Which can vary by, let's say about 30 grams. (I think it's been anywhere from 155 to 190, but usually comes in between 160 and 180 depending on how big the grapes are, how much air is left in the cup, how high above the rim they go, etc.)
0 -
tcunbeliever wrote: »I find that if I put the unit I want in the search, I usually get what I want in the first couple entries.
so putting the bowl/plate on a food scale is too difficult of task? doesn't add more time, doesn't make it harder
1-bowl on scale
2-turn on scale
3-put food on bowl
4- stop when reached desired weight.6 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
I place the empty cup on the scale, tare, scoop my cup, and weigh it. At least I know how many grams to enter into the recipe builder, even if it may or may not be off as per the recipe.
I do the same. Scoop my cooked rice, put plate on scale, tare, weigh rice. This gives me a good visual of portion size.
I have no clue what 100gs of anything looks like, so when I'm out and can't use the pocket scale at least I have an estimate.1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
Yeah. I've slowly come over to weighing my dry ingredients for the most part. But there are times when I'm stressed/rushing/multitasking that I still use the cups.
I should probably point out that I came to MFP after having done about 3 or 4 iterations of Weight Watchers, starting in my teens when they were still doing "exchanges" instead of points. They (and the paperback calorie counting guides that used to be sold in the bookstores) generally used cups. Not to mention a lot of brands I'd never heard of and couldn't find in Canada, but that's another story... Bottom line, I came to MFP used to using imperial measures and for the first few months, that was good enough. Along the way, I started paying attention to people talking about using food scales for more than "1 4oz baked potato, 3oz tofu", but at the beginning? I was still disciplining myself to journal everything, which was, at least, old news. If I'd been of the mindset that I had to weigh everything down to the gram, I think I might have been a bit overwhelmed and given up early.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
Yeah. I've slowly come over to weighing my dry ingredients for the most part. But there are times when I'm stressed/rushing/multitasking that I still use the cups.
I should probably point out that I came to MFP after having done about 3 or 4 iterations of Weight Watchers, starting in my teens when they were still doing "exchanges" instead of points. They (and the paperback calorie counting guides that used to be sold in the bookstores) generally used cups. Not to mention a lot of brands I'd never heard of and couldn't find in Canada, but that's another story... Bottom line, I came to MFP used to using imperial measures and for the first few months, that was good enough. Along the way, I started paying attention to people talking about using food scales for more than "1 4oz baked potato, 3oz tofu", but at the beginning? I was still disciplining myself to journal everything, which was, at least, old news. If I'd been of the mindset that I had to weigh everything down to the gram, I think I might have been a bit overwhelmed and given up early.
That's a good point. I think WWs aim was to keep things simple and user friendly. Now more members are seeing the value in weighing.0 -
EddieKingsley wrote: »Can this site please stop using this ridiculous term. It is clearly meaningless and undermines the whole purpose of the site. Every item should be in metric or imperial measurements, nothing else.
Or am I missing something obvious?
I would love it if every entry or even most entries had a weight option on them.
I would love it if everyone knew how to work the drop-down box that loads more measurement options since so many people seem to miss it.
I would love it if the good USDA entries still sorted to the top of searches like they used to (I miss the asterisks).
I would love it if whole foods sorted to the top of basic searches.
I would love it if more people knew the tricks to find the USDA entries: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1
I would love it if everyone knew they could edit the database from a PC to help make it better.
I would love it if the ability to edit the database was added to the app so that more users can access it.
I would love it if we got rid of the green check mark system.
These are things that I think would have clear, measurable success in making the database more user-friendly. But to suggest that an entire measurement system used in the US be banned from the site, making it less accessible to newbies in the US who rarely own food scales, is over the top.
Show us on the doll where the US system hurt you.
It's okay. We know cups are ridiculous, too. But we all work around them instead of demanding the site cater to our personal wants.16 -
OP, When you look up a food item in the database, the "Serving Size" is a drop-down menu. If you select that instead of just tapping on the serving size shown, you will generally get a list of measures, often ounces, grams, 100 grams, piece, and sometimes weird liquid measures (ml for instance) for solids.
Just a note, MFP is a free app. It would not be free if the database managers had to vet every food entry for accuracy, taking into account that the same product sold in various countries could have different ingredients and serving sizes, and keeping up with thousands of new products on the market every day.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
Also, in recipes that require flour to be sifted before measuring you can skip that step if you weigh it instead. The sifting is to lighten it up after being packed in the bag or canister. I still sift if it is something that shouldn't be mixed much (like muffins) and I want all the leavening, salt, and spices to be well incorporated into the flour before adding to the dry ingredients.
OP, you are not going to get what you want because the database entries are user entered and the majority of MFP is US users. Many will include both the weight and the volume measurement since both are on the label but some won't if they don't use weight.
For non branded agricultural items (fruit, veggies, meat, grains, eggs, etc) search using USDA in the search terms. You will almost always get a long dropdown menu that includes 1 gram and 100 gram measurements and can be sure that the nutrition values are reasonably accurate. The USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture and they developed the database via extensive testing of large numbers of the same item. By testing large numbers, they get an average. Yes, 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in my town with all the rain we have had will have more water and fewer calories than 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in a different state but the USDA gathered Gala apples from all over and tested the bunch to get an average, which is the best we can do.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
Also, in recipes that require flour to be sifted before measuring you can skip that step if you weigh it instead. The sifting is to lighten it up after being packed in the bag or canister. I still sift if it is something that shouldn't be mixed much (like muffins) and I want all the leavening, salt, and spices to be well incorporated into the flour before adding to the dry ingredients.
OP, you are not going to get what you want because the database entries are user entered and the majority of MFP is US users. Many will include both the weight and the volume measurement since both are on the label but some won't if they don't use weight.
For non branded agricultural items (fruit, veggies, meat, grains, eggs, etc) search using USDA in the search terms. You will almost always get a long dropdown menu that includes 1 gram and 100 gram measurements and can be sure that the nutrition values are reasonably accurate. The USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture and they developed the database via extensive testing of large numbers of the same item. By testing large numbers, they get an average. Yes, 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in my town with all the rain we have had will have more water and fewer calories than 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in a different state but the USDA gathered Gala apples from all over and tested the bunch to get an average, which is the best we can do.
Jinx!0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Most North American cookbooks use cups and tablespoons. Sometimes ounces and pounds. Almost never grams. I usually do work out the conversions now, but I sure didn't when I started and I think it would have been too much hassle back then.
And I tend to buy a lot of foods in bulk. Sometimes a recipe just calls for a cup of flour or soaking 1.5 cups of dry beans and I don't bother running back to google "How many grams in 1.5 cups dry navy beans" etc. I just grab my measuring cup and scoop.
A few of the more science-y US recipe sources have embraced gram measurements for ingredients (Alton Brown, Cook's Illustrated) but it's still relatively rare. In a very finicky baking recipe it certainly can make a difference. Flour is particularly hard to measure accurately in cups. How loose/packed it is, humidity, and measuring method all change it slightly.
Also, in recipes that require flour to be sifted before measuring you can skip that step if you weigh it instead. The sifting is to lighten it up after being packed in the bag or canister. I still sift if it is something that shouldn't be mixed much (like muffins) and I want all the leavening, salt, and spices to be well incorporated into the flour before adding to the dry ingredients.
OP, you are not going to get what you want because the database entries are user entered and the majority of MFP is US users. Many will include both the weight and the volume measurement since both are on the label but some won't if they don't use weight.
For non branded agricultural items (fruit, veggies, meat, grains, eggs, etc) search using USDA in the search terms. You will almost always get a long dropdown menu that includes 1 gram and 100 gram measurements and can be sure that the nutrition values are reasonably accurate. The USDA is the United States Department of Agriculture and they developed the database via extensive testing of large numbers of the same item. By testing large numbers, they get an average. Yes, 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in my town with all the rain we have had will have more water and fewer calories than 100 grams of a Gala apple grown in a different state but the USDA gathered Gala apples from all over and tested the bunch to get an average, which is the best we can do.
Jinx!
Right back atcha0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »Can this site please stop using this ridiculous term. It is clearly meaningless and undermines the whole purpose of the site. Every item should be in metric or imperial measurements, nothing else.
Or am I missing something obvious?
I would love it if every entry or even most entries had a weight option on them.
I would love it if everyone knew how to work the drop-down box that loads more measurement options since so many people seem to miss it.
I would love it if the good USDA entries still sorted to the top of searches like they used to (I miss the asterisks).
I would love it if whole foods sorted to the top of basic searches.
I would love it if more people knew the tricks to find the USDA entries: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1
I would love it if everyone knew they could edit the database from a PC to help make it better.
I would love it if the ability to edit the database was added to the app so that more users can access it.
I would love it if we got rid of the green check mark system.
These are things that I think would have clear, measurable success in making the database more user-friendly. But to suggest that an entire measurement system used in the US be banned from the site, making it less accessible to newbies in the US who rarely own food scales, is over the top.
Show us on the doll where the US system hurt you.
It's okay. We know cups are ridiculous, too. But we all work around them instead of demanding the site cater to our personal wants.
Especially since this is a US based site.3 -
-
cerise_noir wrote: »
I could use a fifth.4 -
When I first started I just used a CONVERSION website. https://www.thecalculatorsite.com/cooking/cups-grams.php
Type "Cups to Grams" in your browser search bar. Lots of quick easy conversion tools online. I wanted grams, too...now I have all my foods entered that way so I don't have to do it very often. It's only a hassle until you get set up here. Most of us use the same foods over and over.
2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »Can this site please stop using this ridiculous term. It is clearly meaningless and undermines the whole purpose of the site. Every item should be in metric or imperial measurements, nothing else.
Or am I missing something obvious?
I would love it if every entry or even most entries had a weight option on them.
I would love it if everyone knew how to work the drop-down box that loads more measurement options since so many people seem to miss it.
I would love it if the good USDA entries still sorted to the top of searches like they used to (I miss the asterisks).
I would love it if whole foods sorted to the top of basic searches.
I would love it if more people knew the tricks to find the USDA entries: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1
I would love it if everyone knew they could edit the database from a PC to help make it better.
I would love it if the ability to edit the database was added to the app so that more users can access it.
I would love it if we got rid of the green check mark system.
These are things that I think would have clear, measurable success in making the database more user-friendly. But to suggest that an entire measurement system used in the US be banned from the site, making it less accessible to newbies in the US who rarely own food scales, is over the top.
Show us on the doll where the US system hurt you.
It's okay. We know cups are ridiculous, too. But we all work around them instead of demanding the site cater to our personal wants.
There are free to low cost competitor apps that do this. Plug in item name, toggle in unit of measurement, then number like 1 cup or 100 grams, etc. Proof that MFP can do this. It's just time and money.0 -
I like the way you think, my friend!nutmegoreo wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
I could use a fifth.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »I could go for a dram right now!
I could use a fifth.
I walked 2837 smoots this morning.
2 -
EddieKingsley wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »EddieKingsley wrote: »IMHO the site should regulate the available measuring systems so that the information on the site is meaningful. How big is the measuring cup? Does a cup of x weigh the same as a cup of y? And so on. Sometimes there seem to be 10 of these nonsense "cup" entries for 1 usable entry. What's the point of sharing information that can't be used by others?
I take it you're not from the US...a measuring cup is a standard tool in the US. Yes, weight is more accurate, but many labels in the US use cups as a unit of measure and since the database is populated by users looking at the food label, then there will obviously be entries with "cups"
Here is what measuring cups look like...
...em that's 4 measuring cups? You're right I'm not from the US.
Yes. Standard sizes in a set are 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, and 1 cup. They are designed for dry ingredient measurements. We have different cups for measuring wet. Most every kitchen has a set of both.
..and most sets also have 1/8 c as well.
Historically, most recipes & food measurements are in volume... Weight scales weren't exactly commonplace. They're cheap now, but most people (unless they are dieters or perhaps fudge/wine makers/etc) still don't have them in their house.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions