Serving sizes

leclairsuz
leclairsuz Posts: 1 Member
in Getting Started
How can I enter 1/2 serving in food dairy?
Smallest option was 1 serving. Thanks!!

Replies

  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.
  • LyndaBSS
    LyndaBSS Posts: 6,964 Member
    Check the drop down option in the serving size to see if other measurements are available.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    edited October 2019
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Danp wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.

    I think maybe you're misunderstanding. If my package says a serving is 56g, and I find a database entry for the item that has all the correct info as per my package EXCEPT it only allows for a serving size of "1 serving" I can still accurately use that entry. I know the data is correct for 56g, I weigh out 28g and log 0.5 servings. It will give me the exact same nutrition info as an entry that says 56g instead of 1 serving.

    I use a salad dressing entry that has the serving size as 2 TBL. My bottle says 2 TBL or 28g. I weigh out my serving, figure out my multiplier based on the grams, and then log that multiplier as the number of servings. If you looked at my diary you wouldn't know I weighed out 21g, because I'd log 0.75 of 2 TBL, but I did weigh it out and my log is accurate.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.

    I think maybe you're misunderstanding. If my package says a serving is 56g, and I find a database entry for the item that has all the correct info as per my package EXCEPT it only allows for a serving size of "1 serving" I can still accurately use that entry. I know the data is correct for 56g, I weigh out 28g and log 0.5 servings. It will give me the exact same nutrition info as an entry that says 56g instead of 1 serving.

    I use a salad dressing entry that has the serving size as 2 TBL. My bottle says 2 TBL or 28g. I weigh out my serving, figure out my multiplier based on the grams, and then log that multiplier as the number of servings. If you looked at my diary you wouldn't know I weighed out 21g, because I'd log 0.75 of 2 TBL, but I did weigh it out and my log is accurate.

    Yes, that's correct but either way the crucial step is weighing the serving rather than eyeballing 'about half'.

    Sticking with the 56g example, if you weighed out 28g you could log it as 0.5 serve or 28g and get the same result. Then if the actual serving in the package was, lets say the 64g you could weigh out another 28g log another 0.5 serve and toss out the the other 9g or you could just use the more precise 1g increment and log each half of the package as 32g (or 30/34 or 25/39 or so on).

    I mean, if you're weighing the serving anyway why not use the more accurate and precise measurement?
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Danp wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.

    I think maybe you're misunderstanding. If my package says a serving is 56g, and I find a database entry for the item that has all the correct info as per my package EXCEPT it only allows for a serving size of "1 serving" I can still accurately use that entry. I know the data is correct for 56g, I weigh out 28g and log 0.5 servings. It will give me the exact same nutrition info as an entry that says 56g instead of 1 serving.

    I use a salad dressing entry that has the serving size as 2 TBL. My bottle says 2 TBL or 28g. I weigh out my serving, figure out my multiplier based on the grams, and then log that multiplier as the number of servings. If you looked at my diary you wouldn't know I weighed out 21g, because I'd log 0.75 of 2 TBL, but I did weigh it out and my log is accurate.

    I mean, if you're weighing the serving anyway why not use the more accurate and precise measurement?

    Because it's the only otherwise accurate entry I found and I'm too lazy to create my own.

    I did use the most accurate and precise measurement, you just can't see it in my diary. After 4 years of logging, I'd rather put my limited energy into weighing the portion and knowing it fits my calories than into recreating an otherwise accurate entry so my diary looks better.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    You don't have to sell me on the idea of minimal effort. I absolutely advocate the methodology that if you can get what you want easily then why make it more difficult.

    I'm just trying to head off the future post where this person comes back distraught because they're not seeing results only to have you, me and dozens of other people tell them to stop using volume measurements and servings and that they need make sure they're logging accurately by weighing and logging using grams.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,076 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.

    I think maybe you're misunderstanding. If my package says a serving is 56g, and I find a database entry for the item that has all the correct info as per my package EXCEPT it only allows for a serving size of "1 serving" I can still accurately use that entry. I know the data is correct for 56g, I weigh out 28g and log 0.5 servings. It will give me the exact same nutrition info as an entry that says 56g instead of 1 serving.

    I use a salad dressing entry that has the serving size as 2 TBL. My bottle says 2 TBL or 28g. I weigh out my serving, figure out my multiplier based on the grams, and then log that multiplier as the number of servings. If you looked at my diary you wouldn't know I weighed out 21g, because I'd log 0.75 of 2 TBL, but I did weigh it out and my log is accurate.

    Yes, this ^^ is what I was saying.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,076 Member
    Danp wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Danp wrote: »
    Yes, but you shouldn't if you can avoid it.

    "Servings" for the most part aren't going to give you an accurate calorie reading, even less so than volume measurements like cups and spoons.

    If you can you're better off putting that "1/2 serving" on a kitchen scale and logging the actual weight by the gram.

    If there's an accurate database entry using the nutrition label from a package that specifies the weight of a serving in grams, but the person who created the entry for MFP just typed 'serving' in as the serving unit, that doesn't somehow make the database information invalid.

    And if the weight in grams on the package label was 56 g, and someone weighs out 28 g, that also does not make logging 0.5 servings wrong.

    No, but the serving size on packets don't need to be accurate. They're allowed to be something like 20% off in either direction so if you're looking to log accurately you'd still weigh the food and use the gram entry not the 'serve' entry.

    Further 'half' is the epitome of eyeballing. So now you're eyeballing a 'half serve' of an item that could be way off to begin with. So even if the DB entry is super accurate. 'Half a Serve' isn't.

    so that 56g package might actually be 64g and then the person eyeballs half and breaks off and eats 38g while logging calories for 28g.

    I think maybe you're misunderstanding. If my package says a serving is 56g, and I find a database entry for the item that has all the correct info as per my package EXCEPT it only allows for a serving size of "1 serving" I can still accurately use that entry. I know the data is correct for 56g, I weigh out 28g and log 0.5 servings. It will give me the exact same nutrition info as an entry that says 56g instead of 1 serving.

    I use a salad dressing entry that has the serving size as 2 TBL. My bottle says 2 TBL or 28g. I weigh out my serving, figure out my multiplier based on the grams, and then log that multiplier as the number of servings. If you looked at my diary you wouldn't know I weighed out 21g, because I'd log 0.75 of 2 TBL, but I did weigh it out and my log is accurate.

    Yes, that's correct but either way the crucial step is weighing the serving rather than eyeballing 'about half'.


    Nobody said anything about eyeing "about half."
    Sticking with the 56g example, if you weighed out 28g you could log it as 0.5 serve or 28g and get the same result. Then if the actual serving in the package was, lets say the 64g you could weigh out another 28g log another 0.5 serve and toss out the the other 9g or you could just use the more precise 1g increment and log each half of the package as 32g (or 30/34 or 25/39 or so on).

    Or I could use the other 9 g another time and log it as 0.16 servings.
    I mean, if you're weighing the serving anyway why not use the more accurate and precise measurement?


    There's nothing about using an entry denominated in grams that has the exact same nutrition information as the "1 serving" entry that is any more accurate and precise. If the database entry said 56 g instead of 1 serving, I would still have to type .16 in the number of servings field.
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    There's nothing about using an entry denominated in grams that has the exact same nutrition information as the "1 serving" entry that is any more accurate and precise. If the database entry said 56 g instead of 1 serving, I would still have to type .16 in the number of servings field.

    Is that so?

    The package says 1 serving (80g) = 320cal, however the package actually weighs 94g

    I weigh out half the packet and log 47g for 188cal. Accurate, and most importantly simple as I just need to use the number shown on the scale.

    But I guess technically you're right. I could log that as as "0.5875 servers" and get the same precision and accuracy but let's not bring calculators into this...

Categories