Is this just normal for colder weather?

Ian_Stuart

So you are saying set the goals to the rest day calories, and then just eat back the exercise cals, and that should be good?

Yes. Heybales? Sound about right to you?
Of course, the right way to calibrate is to measure over time and use a moving average of your weight to see if you need to shave calories or add some: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/FatUncleRob/view/using-a-moving-or-rolling-average-to-track-weight-257660

heybales

Someone here will remember where it is and link to the weighing versus measuring video, but for just one example

40 gr of dry oatmeal is a serving. the box says that's ½ cup. but when i put ½ cup of dry oatmeal on the scale it weighs 60 gr. That's 50% more calories than I'd record if I were doing it by cup measures and not by weight.

If you find that vid, please post it as I just was so baffled by this that I had to go and weigh my oatmeal! LOL Then, I had my husband do it. We both did it several times and I never went more than 3g over the 40 for half a cup. So... I don't necessarily think the big issue with items like oatmeal is that a measuring cup is inaccurate, but more the person measuring. People have a VERY hard time leveling off the measuring spoons/cups accurately. I could see it being an issue with larger sized items (certain cereals, etc.), but for things like oatmeal and rice, you're talking a gram or two here or there. And honestly, that should NOT be that big of a deal! Maybe over the course of an entire day it might add a few extra cals, but I just don't think it's anything to become obsessive over. With that said :blushing: I do pretty much weigh everything. Mostly because for me, it's easier than dirtying up a dad-gum measuring cup! LOL So, I'd be very interested in seeing the vid. I wonder if I can find it....

My protein powder was the opposite direction.

I used their included scoop, leveled off, not fluffy and not banged down tight either - 38 grams was short by 12 gr, for the amount of protein I was to be getting, that's decent amount left off.

You are right on rice, but anything that can have air, like many measure fruits and vegetables, and fruit can add up when off and not packed the same as estimate.

Also depends on the product. Almost always sold by weight, but volume looks better to consumer, so some way to inflate it and make it look better is tried.

SLLRunner

Here is the calculator that I use:
http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/
Most people qualify as sedentary unless you work construction or something.

I believe the bold part is incorrect information. I would say most people qualify as lightly active or active, and otherwise would be sedentary if they sit and stare at the TV and do nothing all day long.

heybales

So you are saying set the goals to the rest day calories, and then just eat back the exercise cals, and that should be good?

Yes. Heybales? Sound about right to you?
Of course, the right way to calibrate is to measure over time and use a moving average of your weight to see if you need to shave calories or add some: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/FatUncleRob/view/using-a-moving-or-rolling-average-to-track-weight-257660

Yep.

That is the nice way of using a TDEE calc that uses % off (10, 15, 20) rather than MFP block calories off (250, 500, ect).

You can start at same basic non-exercise level but with a more reasonable % off, but then do MFP style eating back exercise calories.

Just make sure you take the same % off the exercise calories. Because if it had been included in the TDEE with deficit, it would have gotten it remove there.

In other words:
exercise included TDEE - 10% = (non-exercise TDEE - 10%) + (exercise - 10%)

Sarah,
For 5 lbs, it would be safer at 10% too.

The other nicer thing, if daily life really isn't sedentary, like most mothers find Lightly Active is true, then you are starting at a better base.
Sedentary is really 45 hrs sitting weekly for job and commute, and lots of sitting on the weekend, outside the formal exercise.

You'll find many with FitBit's or BodyMedia's that found even before they got inspired to move more, their non-exercise days maintenance was higher than MFP sedentary level already. And that was with sedentary desk jobs.

You with 2 kids - lightly active.

Ian_Stuart

I believe the bold part is incorrect information. I would say most people qualify as lightly active or active, and otherwise would be sedentary if they sit and stare at the TV and do nothing all day long.

I thought exactly the same thing and initially select lightly active, and I began slowly creeping up in weight. Apparently sedentary is calibrated to account for working a desk job, driving, basic walking around, etc... Unless you are a nurse or teacher where you are on your feet for many hours, I wouldn't go much above sedentary. try it for a while and see if you are losing/gaining at the weight you are supposed to be and calibrate as necessary.

Here are the descriptions that I used to decide:

Activity Level: Choose from the following options.
Sedentary - desk job, mostly typing, minimal movement. 95% of us have this job (and dread it)
Lightly Active - walking around a good amount (about half the day), meetings, socializing
(retail jobs, barista)
Moderately Active - walking/socializing constantly in a fast paced environment (aka waiting tables, delivering mail, etc.)
Very Active - walking and heavy lifting; very labor intensive (construction workers, lumberjacks..this is probably not you)
Extremely Active - professional athlete, dancer, etc. (save this unless you are Lance Armstrong)

Edit: I wanted to add to this that I agree in retrospect that a stay at home mom probably qualifies as lightly active. I didn't give that enough thought.

SLLRunner

If I select sendentary, it gives me 1277 cals for a rest day and 1916 cals for a workout day.

I'm 5'7 1/2" if that matters.

1277 is too few calories for someone your height even on a rest day. You could spread the calories out more evenly so you get enough fuel. It's the end week average that counts. You could be overestimating burned calories as well, or simply be off on some intake calorie estimations. Believe me, it's easy to do.

I would not advise setting your activity level to sedentary unless you are sitting on the sofa all day starting at the TV all day long and doing very little.

SarahBeth0625

You with 2 kids - lightly active.

3 kids. And yeah, if I add up all my exercise, it is 1 hour of strength training 3 times a week, and 36 minutes of hard cardio 3 times a week. Desk job during the day. But I always do workout 6 days a week at the gym, so figured I wasn't in the sedentary category at all....

SarahBeth0625

If I select sendentary, it gives me 1277 cals for a rest day and 1916 cals for a workout day.

I'm 5'7 1/2" if that matters.

1277 is too few calories for someone your height even on a rest day. You could spread the calories out more evenly so you get enough fuel. It's the end week average that counts. You could be overestimating burned calories as well, or simply be off on some intake calorie estimations. Believe me, it's easy to do.

I would not advise setting your activity level to sedentary unless you are sitting on the sofa all day starting at the TV all day long and doing very little.

Agreed. And for the first time in 6 months, I watched *a* show last night. LOL! I really don't watch t.v.. But definitely, my work job is fairly sedentary, although I do some walking. I do get my workouts in 6 days a week, though, as mentioned.

When I first joined MFP, I did the 1200 calorie thing for about a month before I was wondering why I was always hungry... didn't take me long to customize my goals to a higher caloric intake.

SLLRunner

I believe the bold part is incorrect information. I would say most people qualify as lightly active or active, and otherwise would be sedentary if they sit and stare at the TV and do nothing all day long.

I thought exactly the same thing and initially select lightly active, and I began slowly creeping up in weight. Apparently sedentary is calibrated to account for working a desk job, driving, basic walking around, etc... Unless you are a nurse or teacher where you are on your feet for many hours, I wouldn't go much above sedentary. try it for a while and see if you are losing/gaining at the weight you are supposed to be and calibrate as necessary.

Here are the descriptions that I used to decide:

Activity Level: Choose from the following options.
Sedentary - desk job, mostly typing, minimal movement. 95% of us have this job (and dread it)
Lightly Active - walking around a good amount (about half the day), meetings, socializing
(retail jobs, barista)
Moderately Active - walking/socializing constantly in a fast paced environment (aka waiting tables, delivering mail, etc.)
Very Active - walking and heavy lifting; very labor intensive (construction workers, lumberjacks..this is probably not you)
Extremely Active - professional athlete, dancer, etc. (save this unless you are Lance Armstrong)

Edit: I wanted to add to this that I agree in retrospect that a stay at home mom probably qualifies as lightly active. I didn't give that enough thought.

That's interesting. I am a paralegal with a desk job and I have my activity level set to lightly active, and I have been losing weight just fine. I exercise each day and eat back my exercise calories (a good portion) and eat between 1,750 and 2,000 per day and I'm losing my .5 pounds per week (only five more to go!).

I guess it could be different for each person depending on a variety of factors.

123im4u2c

Hi, First of all your weight is never constant, it fluctuates through out the day! 2nd a word of advice is... don't be hooked at the hip to your scale. Bad habit to get into. I only weigh myself once every week or two, I can pretty much tell by how my clothes feel! I don't stress myself. You maybe eating the way you Normally do, and remember muscle DOES weigh more than fat! Use your BMI readings and Body fat readings as guide lines only! Don't be a slave to ant one thing! Actually the latest report is that working out in lower temps helps you body to burn calories you take in, it's like turning up a furnace to keep warm! If any of us are going to look for consistency, it should only be that you keep with your routine! You're doing fine, but remember it's easier to eat more in cold weather too, and it's not like the summer when we have all that great fresh fruit to gnosh on!:drinker:

SarahBeth0625

Hi, First of all your weight is never constant, it fluctuates through out the day! 2nd a word of advice is... don't be hooked at the hip to your scale. Bad habit to get into. I only weigh myself once every week or two, I can pretty much tell by how my clothes feel! I don't stress myself. You maybe eating the way you Normally do, and remember muscle DOES weigh more than fat! Use your BMI readings and Body fat readings as guide lines only! Don't be a slave to ant one thing! Actually the latest report is that working out in lower temps helps you body to burn calories you take in, it's like turning up a furnace to keep warm! If any of us are going to look for consistency, it should only be that you keep with your routine! You're doing fine, but remember it's easier to eat more in cold weather too, and it's not like the summer when we have all that great fresh fruit to gnosh on!:drinker:

Thanks!! I actually was weighing myself 3 times a day: first thing in the morning, after work, and before bed. I know I always weigh 3 pounds more at night than the morning. I am now weighing 3-4 lbs more in the morning with the respective upping of 3 lbs at night, so I was just trying to decipher if it was all bloat or an actual gain. I really am stressing myself out over this but I am afraid of getting into a steady gain and I don't want that. Thank you, though!!

heybales

3 kids. And yeah, if I add up all my exercise, it is 1 hour of strength training 3 times a week, and 36 minutes of hard cardio 3 times a week. Desk job during the day. But I always do workout 6 days a week at the gym, so figured I wasn't in the sedentary category at all....

Well, 2 different things actually.

With eat back method, you do pick a daily activity level without exercise, with 3 kids you'd be Lightly Active even without exercise.
You would then add exercise to that level, whether you did TDEE levels or MFP levels.

Like if you were doing MFP total settings, you'd truthfully be Lightly Active. Take your 250 cal deficit for 1/2 lb weekly goal loss.
And then log and eat back exercise calories.

Doing TDEE deficit method, you'd be lightly active for daily life, then exercise would bump you a level. So normally with that amount of exercise, you'd be Moderately active if you didn't want to eat exercise calories back. But that needs to be bumped up because your daily life is not sedentary. You'd be at Very Active level, rounded down. Then you'd take off 10% and eat that daily.

Doing the combo method you are looking at, you'd still be lightly active level to start with, then take 10% off that non-exercise TDEE.
Then eat back exercise calories with same 10% off.

So 3 methods, all probably ending about the same.
MFP and combo are closest with exercise eatback. Combo method using a % off rather than 250 calories off.
TDEE deficit method is honest full schedule with % off.

Depends on if you want to eat the exact same amount daily to be better able to prepare, and you like the goal of exercise was planned, better do it.
Or you like the reward system of eating more when you do more, and that's enough encouragement to do the workouts. But even if you miss it, you get a deficit that day.

SarahBeth0625

Well, 2 different things actually.

With eat back method, you do pick a daily activity level without exercise, with 3 kids you'd be Lightly Active even without exercise.
You would then add exercise to that level, whether you did TDEE levels or MFP levels.

Like if you were doing MFP total settings, you'd truthfully be Lightly Active. Take your 250 cal deficit for 1/2 lb weekly goal loss.
And then log and eat back exercise calories.

Doing TDEE deficit method, you'd be lightly active for daily life, then exercise would bump you a level. So normally with that amount of exercise, you'd be Moderately active if you didn't want to eat exercise calories back. But that needs to be bumped up because your daily life is not sedentary. You'd be at Very Active level, rounded down. Then you'd take off 10% and eat that daily.

Doing the combo method you are looking at, you'd still be lightly active level to start with, then take 10% off that non-exercise TDEE.
Then eat back exercise calories with same 10% off.

So 3 methods, all probably ending about the same.
MFP and combo are closest with exercise eatback. Combo method using a % off rather than 250 calories off.
TDEE deficit method is honest full schedule with % off.

Depends on if you want to eat the exact same amount daily to be better able to prepare, and you like the goal of exercise was planned, better do it.
Or you like the reward system of eating more when you do more, and that's enough encouragement to do the workouts. But even if you miss it, you get a deficit that day.

Thank you! I will look at this tomorrow. I never miss a day except my rest day on Fridays. I'm a reliable and stubborn old bat. LOL! Typically, I just tend to eat less on my day off because I am not as hungry. I am a ferocious animal on the days I do workout. I just was unclear on whether I was supposed to eat back my exercise cals or not so there was some uncertainty in there. I like the method of using a calculator and throwing that number in here as my daily goal. It seems simpler than using MFP's settings, and it was a favorite of my friends to use the Scooby calculator. I would say lightly active makes sense as it's not like I'm at the gym for 2-3 hours or something.

heybales

Thank you! I will look at this tomorrow. I never miss a day except my rest day on Fridays. I'm a reliable and stubborn old bat. LOL! Typically, I just tend to eat less on my day off because I am not as hungry. I am a ferocious animal on the days I do workout. I just was unclear on whether I was supposed to eat back my exercise cals or not so there was some uncertainty in there. I like the method of using a calculator and throwing that number in here as my daily goal. It seems simpler than using MFP's settings, and it was a favorite of my friends to use the Scooby calculator. I would say lightly active makes sense as it's not like I'm at the gym for 2-3 hours or something.

Still misunderstanding if you like the single goal method.

Look at those TDEE levels. Lightly Active is 1 to 3 hours of exercise per WEEK. Not per day.

And you are already Lightly Active with 3 kids and being a mom, never mind the desk job. And not including any exercise.
If you weren't a mom and busy automatically, your exercise would be in Moderately Active 4 to 6 hrs weekly level.
But add the 2 facts together, you get Very Active.

If you want the single goal method, do yourself a favor and look at what's happening, get best estimates, use a better activity calc than 5 rough levels, and get recommended deficit based on what you'll do and amount to lose, and track progress of weight and inches, which is more important if you want exercise to have positive effect. This spreadsheet.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/813720-spreadsheet-bmr-tdee-deficit-macro-calcs-hrm-zones

Don't imagine you are helping yourself by grossly underestimating activity and the perhaps grossly overestimating food, "just in case".

Are you doing those workouts for body improvement, or weight loss? They are separate, you gotta understand that.

Diet is for weight loss, done right hopefully just fat loss. Done wrong includes muscle mass loss.
Exercise is for heart health and body improvement, done right it helps with just fat loss, done wrong muscle loss. Yep.

If you are just wanting to spin your wheels in exercise so you can eat more, that's valid too. But if you are wanting the body improvements that can come from it, you need to give your body something to work with. Otherwise just wasted time and effort and frankly a great stress on your body. Stress from all things, frequent intense exercise, diet, life, food sensitivities, lack of sleep, ect - all fight against fat loss.

TDEE Deficit method is simpler, but you still have to understand the concept and principles and get yourself setup right, or you can get the exact same negative effects as doing MFP incorrectly.

Both are tools, if you don't understand a tool and use it wrong, you usually will get hurt, sooner or later.

Koldnomore

Someone here will remember where it is and link to the weighing versus measuring video, but for just one example

40 gr of dry oatmeal is a serving. the box says that's ½ cup. but when i put ½ cup of dry oatmeal on the scale it weighs 60 gr. That's 50% more calories than I'd record if I were doing it by cup measures and not by weight.

If you find that vid, please post it as I just was so baffled by this that I had to go and weigh my oatmeal! LOL Then, I had my husband do it. We both did it several times and I never went more than 3g over the 40 for half a cup. So... I don't necessarily think the big issue with items like oatmeal is that a measuring cup is inaccurate, but more the person measuring. People have a VERY hard time leveling off the measuring spoons/cups accurately. I could see it being an issue with larger sized items (certain cereals, etc.), but for things like oatmeal and rice, you're talking a gram or two here or there. And honestly, that should NOT be that big of a deal! Maybe over the course of an entire day it might add a few extra cals, but I just don't think it's anything to become obsessive over. With that said :blushing: I do pretty much weigh everything. Mostly because for me, it's easier than dirtying up a dad-gum measuring cup! LOL So, I'd be very interested in seeing the vid. I wonder if I can find it....

The You tube video on the differences between weighing and measuring food is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

jonnythan

Overestimating calorie burn due to lifting while wearing an HRM.

Not weighing food, and not even using volume measurements but instead eyeballing it.

Pretty good recipe for both overestimating calorie expenditure and underestimating calorie intake.

foodiscomplicated

[/quote]
[/quote]There is no eating right or wrong, there is only eating and within a calorie deficit if you want to lose weight. [/quote]
[/quote]
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I know you mean well but this is specious advice. Eat food, not too much and mostly plants. (Michael Pollan)

PRMinx

@heybales: Ok! Then I don't think we were actually saying different things. It doesn't sound like she needs to calculate anything above sedentary, but she was taking a sedentary TDEE and adding additional calories for what sounded like basic activities that are already included in that 1.25 multiplier, which I assumed was the reason she was gaining despite eating at what MFP claimed was a deficit. Actual exercise or other "abnormal" activity should definitely be logged and accounted for, especially if nursing.

My second response might address your other concern. The calculator that I linked includes "workout day" calories to offset a heavy strength training routine, because the actual calories burned during strength training is notoriously hard to calculate and changes as you build muscle. I would recommend ignoring that, eating at the calorie deficit for rest days (plus MFP activity calories) until you reach your calorie goal and then switching to eating at TDEE plus whatever extra calories MFP assigns for activities.

So you are saying set the goals to the rest day calories, and then just eat back the exercise cals, and that should be good?

This is what I do. I'm on sedentary and my rest day goal is 1300 calories. When I workout, I usually burn about 375 (cardio and lifting heavy) and I usually eat those back. I'm not as much of a stickler to it as you seem to be, but I have to dropped to a very comfortable weight and I've maintained it here despite days when I go over or feel lazy. My tracker says only 5 points, but I was at 145ish before I started with the tracker.

Edit to add: I have to change my goal. I'm not trying to get to 125 now. It wouldn't be sustainable for me with the lifestyle I enjoy. I'm happy where I am for the most part (maybe lose 2-3 more).

SarahBeth0625

I'm not a super active mom, though.. I mean, I am at work all day Monday through Friday 8-4, I get home, make supper, go workout, come home, read books, then bed, then I'm on my couch on my computer until I go to bed.

I am definitely working out for body improvement. I honestly think if I cut just 200-300 cals a day from what I was at, I will be about golden.

As for the HRM, on the days I do cardio (usually elliptical), I am burning anywhere from 350 - 375 calories in 36 mins. On the days I do cardio + strength training, I am logging about 400 - 475 calories.

So far, the system has done me well, but I think that the -400 calories I was putting in for nursing (and eating those) was probably what needed to be adjusted.

And yes, I get the "light" category. I figured moderate was fitting and that's the TDEE level I had picked from the start when computing calories. It had given me right around 2000 calories a day to maintain. I guess to put it simply, instead of maintaining now, I am maybe looking to cut 5%?

jonnythan

As for the HRM, on the days I do cardio (usually elliptical), I am burning anywhere from 350 - 375 calories in 36 mins. On the days I do cardio + strength training, I am logging about 400 - 475 calories.

Those numbers perfectly illustrate the problem using an HRM for calorie expenditure, particularly while lifting.

Burning 800+ calories an hour is very, very difficult. And you will NOT be burning anything remotely close to that while lifting weights. Heart rate goes up significantly during weight training, but calorie burn doesn't go nearly as high as heart rate would indicate. I believe the HRM manufacturers even say specifically not to use them while weight training.

HRMs are only somewhat accurate for steady-state cardio, and even then only when your VO2max is close to what the HRM manufacturer programmed it for.

As noted above, your lack of success can, IMO, be rather well attributed to over-estimating calorie burn and under-estimating calorie intake. My suggestion would be to take off the HRM while lifting and to meticulously weigh everything you eat instead of eyeballing it by volume.

SarahBeth0625

As for the HRM, on the days I do cardio (usually elliptical), I am burning anywhere from 350 - 375 calories in 36 mins. On the days I do cardio + strength training, I am logging about 400 - 475 calories.

Those numbers perfectly illustrate the problem using an HRM for calorie expenditure, particularly while lifting.

Burning 800+ calories an hour is very, very difficult. And you will NOT be burning anything remotely close to that while lifting weights. Heart rate goes up significantly during weight training, but calorie burn doesn't go nearly as high as heart rate would indicate. I believe the HRM manufacturers even say specifically not to use them while weight training.

HRMs are only somewhat accurate for steady-state cardio, and even then only when your VO2max is close to what the HRM manufacturer programmed it for.

As noted above, your lack of success can, IMO, be rather well attributed to over-estimating calorie burn and under-estimating calorie intake. My suggestion would be to take off the HRM while lifting and to meticulously weigh everything you eat instead of eyeballing it by volume.

Yeah, I probably will just not wear the HRM during strength training. It makes sense that it would be off. I have seen so many friends burn upwards of 800-1000 calories in a strength training session, so I figured my numbers weren't too bad. And that amount I gave you... that is for one hour. But yeah, I can take it off. I don't know if I will weigh food just yet. I am going to try cutting calories first and if that does the trick, it will make it easier.

Jewlz280

Someone here will remember where it is and link to the weighing versus measuring video, but for just one example

40 gr of dry oatmeal is a serving. the box says that's ½ cup. but when i put ½ cup of dry oatmeal on the scale it weighs 60 gr. That's 50% more calories than I'd record if I were doing it by cup measures and not by weight.

If you find that vid, please post it as I just was so baffled by this that I had to go and weigh my oatmeal! LOL Then, I had my husband do it. We both did it several times and I never went more than 3g over the 40 for half a cup. So... I don't necessarily think the big issue with items like oatmeal is that a measuring cup is inaccurate, but more the person measuring. People have a VERY hard time leveling off the measuring spoons/cups accurately. I could see it being an issue with larger sized items (certain cereals, etc.), but for things like oatmeal and rice, you're talking a gram or two here or there. And honestly, that should NOT be that big of a deal! Maybe over the course of an entire day it might add a few extra cals, but I just don't think it's anything to become obsessive over. With that said :blushing: I do pretty much weigh everything. Mostly because for me, it's easier than dirtying up a dad-gum measuring cup! LOL So, I'd be very interested in seeing the vid. I wonder if I can find it....

The You tube video on the differences between weighing and measuring food is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY

Thanks! It got late last night and I never went looking. As I thought, a lot of the folks were using 'heaping' scoops instead of taking a butter knife or some other straight utensil and leveling off. I always shake mine off right at or right under just because I've always worried about being too generous or over. But I still like my scale. I actually find it easier most of the time. I can slap my bread on there, zero out, and then add my pb and go. No dirtying a measuring spoon or a little bowl or anything. Works fine for me. For some things I would probably still use cups/spoons, but for calorie dense items, I just feel like measuring is better and many times like I said, easier.

Someone here will remember where it is and link to the weighing versus measuring video, but for just one example

40 gr of dry oatmeal is a serving. the box says that's ½ cup. but when i put ½ cup of dry oatmeal on the scale it weighs 60 gr. That's 50% more calories than I'd record if I were doing it by cup measures and not by weight.

If you find that vid, please post it as I just was so baffled by this that I had to go and weigh my oatmeal! LOL Then, I had my husband do it. We both did it several times and I never went more than 3g over the 40 for half a cup. So... I don't necessarily think the big issue with items like oatmeal is that a measuring cup is inaccurate, but more the person measuring. People have a VERY hard time leveling off the measuring spoons/cups accurately. I could see it being an issue with larger sized items (certain cereals, etc.), but for things like oatmeal and rice, you're talking a gram or two here or there. And honestly, that should NOT be that big of a deal! Maybe over the course of an entire day it might add a few extra cals, but I just don't think it's anything to become obsessive over. With that said :blushing: I do pretty much weigh everything. Mostly because for me, it's easier than dirtying up a dad-gum measuring cup! LOL So, I'd be very interested in seeing the vid. I wonder if I can find it....

My protein powder was the opposite direction.

I used their included scoop, leveled off, not fluffy and not banged down tight either - 38 grams was short by 12 gr, for the amount of protein I was to be getting, that's decent amount left off.

You are right on rice, but anything that can have air, like many measure fruits and vegetables, and fruit can add up when off and not packed the same as estimate.

Also depends on the product. Almost always sold by weight, but volume looks better to consumer, so some way to inflate it and make it look better is tried.

Yes! I checked our protein powder yesterday and it was the same. One level scoop was off by something like 8 no matter how we scooped it. So for the future, I will be weighing it -- again because it is so calorie dense. Someone else said cottage cheese was the same. One thing I've started weighing instead of counting was chips just for this reason. We had some multi-grain ones from Costco and the package said a serving was like 11, I think. But when I weighed, I think I got 15! I'm like a kid with a toy, I love my gadget (food scale)! Although, I believe mine is starting to fail. It's started to flicker and act wonky once in a while so I end up double and triple checking to be sure.