Poll on Food Scale

I use a scale as often as I can. I wont do it for things like bread, bars, and other pre-portioned things.
But things like cereal, pasta, and fruit - 1 cup can be totally off in either direction, whereas 100g of it will always be accurate.

I swear by my food scale, it's only a simple one that measures the weight and I do weigh EVERYTHING, this made a big difference, I found my guessing at the right amount was WAY off on foods like cereal, vegetables, fruit. So I have a simple counter scale, battery operated with a removable dish and weigh everything - salad, meat, fruit, snacks, cereal etc. I also measure my liquids in a jug like my milk. I believe they are great for weight loss. I have lost nearly 40lbs and started in January this year, lost a bit every week and don't exercise at all due to a back injury. I don't think I would have had as much success without the scales.

I don't have one because they cost money.

From what I've heard, they're extremely helpful, but it is possible to be successful without using one. I overestimate calories when I log, focus on eating only when I'm truly hungry (and stopping before I get full!), and stay active (regular running + strength training + long walks and hikes). I keep an eye on my measurements and try not to stress too much. It's worked out well for me.

chew on this.....

in the order they happened

1) got fed up of being fat
2) started eating smaller portions without a food scale, you know b/c im serious now
3) bought a food scale
4) weighed my food on scale and said dayum, i've been underfeeding myself for weeks

my food scale ensures i maximize the amount of food i am allotted every day

Hah! Totally true.
Before I bought a food scale, the serving size for my ground beef in my spaghetti said 4oz of ground beef = 1 serving, and the WHOLE time.. Literally, I'd eat half a cup of ground beef thinking its 4oz.. It was only 2oz the whole time -.-
So I definitely was underfeeding my body thinking I was eating the right amount and logging it as 4oz but it was only 2.
Food scales are also good for everything. If you don't have a food scale, then honestly, you can't log accurately.

I know this has been asked a million times before and I have spent quite a bit of the day reading the forums on food scales etc...however, how many of you use one? Do you find it absolutely necessary? Why not just read the food label?
If you use one, does the scale have the calorie, fat, carb, option etc?

If you do not use one--why not?

I'm still on the fence about a food scale...just not sure it's worth the time or really going to make that huge of a difference. I have been looking at a scale that also displays the calories, carbs, and fats based on the weight of the scale (not sure if I even need that).

Sorry for sounding a little naive, but after a day of researching this I'm still just not sure about it...Thanks for the advice!

Let me give you an example of why it's important.

When we started losing weight and trying to make our lifestyle better, I started using a food scale just so I could get an idea on portions when we cooked. I buy 10 lb bags of potatoes and we go through quite a few (5 kids, 2 adults, plus a in home daycare.) One day I decided I was going to make a baked potato. So I flip the bag over and read it...

Medium Potato (148g) - 110 calories
Potassium - 620mg
Total Carb - 26g
Protein - 3g

To myself, I go-- that's not bad... lets fish a 150 out, throw some greek yogurt on it, and a bit of cheese, make me a nice 400 calorie bump that I needed.

I weighed every single potato in the bag. The smallest was 195g. The largest was nearly 400g. I've since went through 4 total bags of potatoes, the smallest in all the bags was 187g. So if you were going by the nutrition label on the bag, you would make the assumption that the potatoes in the bag ranged, small medium large... but by their standard, they're all large. There are no medium or small.

What you do to calculate (based on the original bag numbers) the accurate ammount is:

(calories on bag) / (weight on bag) * (real weight) = real calories... same formula works for most other values, so--
(potassium on bag) / (weight on bag) * (real weight) = real potassium.

So lets review this one bag of potatoes, bag lists "medium" as 148g:
Bag says:
Medium Potato (148g) - 110 calories
Potassium - 620mg
Total Carb - 26g
Protein - 3g

In reality the SMALLEST potato is, 190g:
110 cal / 148 * 190 = 141 calories
620mg / 148 * 190 = 795mg potassium
26g / 148 * 190 = 33g of carbs
3g / 148 * 190 = 3.85g of protein

In reality the LARGEST potato is, 400g:
110 cal / 148 * 400 = 297 calories
620mg / 148 * 400 = 1676 potassium
26g / 148 * 400 = 70g of carbs
3g / 148 * 400 = 8.1g of protein

Those numbers are HUGELY different (That's a 31-187 calorie difference from the bag label). now to be fair... I've only seen this kind of discrepancy on fresh fruits, veggies, and berries. Canned food is ~usually~ +/- 5%. The scale is also spectacular for weighing out meats and such to get the right amounts (we buy 5lbs at a time, it's hard to judge 4oz of 5lb without a scale) and of course other things that aren't conveniently labeled. Fresh beans or broccoli or peas or whatever... makes it easy to get calorie values. Also makes cooking a breeze! I have a recipe for curried chickpeas and onions and we usually split it three ways... but rarely do we use exactly same amounts to make it (onion size varies, veggies vary in quantity, etc) by weight its easy to determine the calories... otherwise it would be a completely crap shoot.

Using a food scale has shown me exactly how much food a portion means... and what foods are extremely calorically dense and which are relatively calorically light and that's something I didn't previously judge well. YMMV but IMO you should absolutely have a food scale and use it regularly.

Edit: For what it's worth the scale I own is here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002SVNEWA/ I love it. It works well, it's cheap, and has tare so i can use whatever container i like without having to subtract the bowl weights manually. It's more than adequate imo.