Here is why I measure and weigh my food
1ZenGirl
Posts: 432 Member
Just a simple example.
I've been reading on here for a long time that weighing food is key to weight loss. I always took for granted what the pre-packaged labels said. But I've been testing it lately.
Today I opened a can of tuna that was "drained" tuna. It said I would yield 4oz of tuna for the can. Well when I weighed it it actually came out to 4.8 ounces! I was shocked! That may not seem like a lot but if you add it up over time it can mean so much.
Anyway, wanted to share!
I've been reading on here for a long time that weighing food is key to weight loss. I always took for granted what the pre-packaged labels said. But I've been testing it lately.
Today I opened a can of tuna that was "drained" tuna. It said I would yield 4oz of tuna for the can. Well when I weighed it it actually came out to 4.8 ounces! I was shocked! That may not seem like a lot but if you add it up over time it can mean so much.
Anyway, wanted to share!
0
Replies
-
Yep, packaging is often wrong. Sometimes it is wrong in your favor. I really like Amy's brand canned soups which are ~120-140 calories per serving. The cans show there are "about 2" servings per can but when I weigh them out it amounts to anywhere fromt 1.2-1.7 servings. So you could be eating the whole can and mark it as 280 calories when it's actually something like 220-260.
Little things like that add up if they happen all the time, that's why a lot of people on MFP assume people who aren't losing weight are logging incorrectly.0 -
Never really thought to check stuff like that - I'll start looking out for things like that in the future.0
-
Soup I typically get 1.7 to 1.9 servings instead of 2.
Granola or protein bars are typically 10% heavier. Breads, it depends, but I've seen them go up to 20% either way! Yogurt cups I don't bother weighing typically, but I think they are typically less than the 170g on the package.0 -
While I get your point, I'm puzzled by this assumption the weight is the gold standard by which we judge calorie content. I think both the tuna and the soup examples posted above are illustrative. Water is fairly heavy and has no calories. How do you know that the weight difference between 1 package and another is not simply due to water differences?
Chicken is another one that drives me crazy. The longer you cook a chicken breast, the drier (and thus lighter), it becomes. Does that mean it magically has fewer calories the longer I cook it? Certainly not, yet people on here insist all the time that you have to weigh your cooked chicken to be "accurate".
While I'm all for accuracy, short of a calorimeter, this is all just estimates anyway. Plus, I almost hate to open this can of worms, but our bodies are not just bomb calorimeters. How our bodies respond to the contents of a food can and do vary from the numbers a calorimeter provides.0 -
I eat tuna and weighed mine as well. Mine actually came out less than what was said to be in there. Mine was in water though so maybe that's why.
However I have noticed many things being off. Such as tortilla chips, other canned things, frozen things, etc. Measuring cups seem to be off on some things too.0 -
While I get your point, I'm puzzled by this assumption the weight is the gold standard by which we judge calorie content. I think both the tuna and the soup examples posted above are illustrative. Water is fairly heavy and has no calories. How do you know that the weight difference between 1 package and another is not simply due to water differences?
Chicken is another one that drives me crazy. The longer you cook a chicken breast, the drier (and thus lighter), it becomes. Does that mean it magically has fewer calories the longer I cook it? Certainly not, yet people on here insist all the time that you have to weigh your cooked chicken to be "accurate".
While I'm all for accuracy, short of a calorimeter, this is all just estimates anyway. Plus, I almost hate to open this can of worms, but our bodies are not just bomb calorimeters. How our bodies respond to the contents of a food can and do vary from the numbers a calorimeter provides.
It's not going to be 100% accurate or even 90% in some cases but it's still a better estimate than cubing that chicken or eyeballing it. The same variations apply after all. The longer you cook it, the less water, the less volume it will have, the more will fit into a cup and the smaller it will appear to the eye. It's just less inaccurate than other methods and that's about all mere mortals can do about it at this point.0 -
While I get your point, I'm puzzled by this assumption the weight is the gold standard by which we judge calorie content. I think both the tuna and the soup examples posted above are illustrative. Water is fairly heavy and has no calories. How do you know that the weight difference between 1 package and another is not simply due to water differences?
Chicken is another one that drives me crazy. The longer you cook a chicken breast, the drier (and thus lighter), it becomes. Does that mean it magically has fewer calories the longer I cook it? Certainly not, yet people on here insist all the time that you have to weigh your cooked chicken to be "accurate".
While I'm all for accuracy, short of a calorimeter, this is all just estimates anyway. Plus, I almost hate to open this can of worms, but our bodies are not just bomb calorimeters. How our bodies respond to the contents of a food can and do vary from the numbers a calorimeter provides.
I don't claim to be an expert. I'm an average person trying to lose weight. I certainly know I have so much to learn still and really appreciate your perspective! I guess I was just trying to illustrate that I am finding I can't always rely on what I assume I am putting in my mouth by reading labels. Of course there are many factors that go into weight loss. I was just focusing on this piece alone. Thank you for your comment!0 -
While I get your point, I'm puzzled by this assumption the weight is the gold standard by which we judge calorie content. I think both the tuna and the soup examples posted above are illustrative. Water is fairly heavy and has no calories. How do you know that the weight difference between 1 package and another is not simply due to water differences?
Chicken is another one that drives me crazy. The longer you cook a chicken breast, the drier (and thus lighter), it becomes. Does that mean it magically has fewer calories the longer I cook it? Certainly not, yet people on here insist all the time that you have to weigh your cooked chicken to be "accurate".
While I'm all for accuracy, short of a calorimeter, this is all just estimates anyway. Plus, I almost hate to open this can of worms, but our bodies are not just bomb calorimeters. How our bodies respond to the contents of a food can and do vary from the numbers a calorimeter provides.
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.0 -
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.
Raw is not any better... Many commercial chicken products these days are injected with "up to 10%" of a primarily saline based flavorizer. Thus the raw weight will vary too.
Look, my point is not to discourage anyone, in fact just the opposite. I think some people take the calorie counting thing too far when this is all just estimates. Stress probably had more of an effect of slowing weight loss than does the fact that your tuna has 1.2 servings vs 1 serving per package.
My point? One, don't assume that weight is the gold standard of calorie counting and two, keep in mind that all of this is just an estimate anyway. Sure measure and weigh things (I do it too), but worrying about minute details is probably counter productive.0 -
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.
Raw is not any better... Many commercial chicken products these days are injected with "up to 10%" of a primarily saline based flavorizer. Thus the raw weight will vary too.
Look, my point is not to discourage anyone, in fact just the opposite. I think some people take the calorie counting thing too far when this is all just estimates. Stress probably had more of an effect of slowing weight loss than does the fact that your tuna has 1.2 servings vs 1 serving per package.
My point? One, don't assume that weight is the gold standard of calorie counting and two, keep in mind that all of this is just an estimate anyway. Sure measure and weigh things (I do it too), but worrying about minute details is probably counter productive.
So you have specific information that the calorie count of raw chicken varies widely due to this saline injection? That's actually fairly interesting, care to share?
*Learning* about minute details is not necessarily counter productive, especially when your target deficit is small. I've been having a conversation with myself this morning about switching to black coffee to save myself 40 to 80 calories per day (creamer). Minute? Of course. Will spending a bit of time internally sorting that out be of help to me in the long run? Possibly!
Full disclosure: I usually accept the weight of canned and bagged products (except beans which I just realized the whole package was 16.2 oz not 16, but I digress). But then again, in other areas of logging I'm probably more conservative and it balances out. People have to figure out what works for them!0 -
My first thought was, "Yay, free tuna!"0
-
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.
Raw is not any better... Many commercial chicken products these days are injected with "up to 10%" of a primarily saline based flavorizer. Thus the raw weight will vary too.
Look, my point is not to discourage anyone, in fact just the opposite. I think some people take the calorie counting thing too far when this is all just estimates. Stress probably had more of an effect of slowing weight loss than does the fact that your tuna has 1.2 servings vs 1 serving per package.
My point? One, don't assume that weight is the gold standard of calorie counting and two, keep in mind that all of this is just an estimate anyway. Sure measure and weigh things (I do it too), but worrying about minute details is probably counter productive.
It's true that it's all an estimate, and this is minutia that we're worrying about, but the fact of the matter is that there are 15 threads a day where people claim to be eating "exactly 1200 a day and no weight loss" and part of the problem is that they are not accurate as they can be.0 -
My first thought was, "Yay, free tuna!"
HAHA awesome!0 -
Yes sometimes the packaging can be off. I weigh everything except yogurt, it's a pain in the butt for me so I do go buy the packaging label for that one though .0
-
My first thought was, "Yay, free tuna!"
This HAHAHA0 -
Yep, packaging is often wrong. Sometimes it is wrong in your favor. I really like Amy's brand canned soups which are ~120-140 calories per serving. The cans show there are "about 2" servings per can but when I weigh them out it amounts to anywhere fromt 1.2-1.7 servings. So you could be eating the whole can and mark it as 280 calories when it's actually something like 220-260.
Little things like that add up if they happen all the time, that's why a lot of people on MFP assume people who aren't losing weight are logging incorrectly.
I thought I was the only one that had this problem with Amy's!
The FDA actually doesn't require food packaging (serving sizes/servings per container) to be rather accurate, so I tend to measure things myself. Much easier.0 -
A food scale is a must.
My tortilla tilapia for dinner is supposed to be a serving of 140g ... it *actually* weighs 155g.
*edit, this was weighed raw, btw.0 -
It's a pain though. You can't know what's adding weight - is it the liquid, is it the yolk/white? (for eggs, which are often 55g and not 50g here). So just more total guesswork. Heck for tuna or other canned foods I never know if the liquid is included or not...
I guess it's all very much an estimate anyway.0 -
i don't even want to know how many calories i under/over estimated before my food scale. i bought it with intentions to use it for food that i'm preparing myself (chicken breast, rice, whatever) but was curious with pre-packaged foods too. most of the time i get less product than stated which isn't a total loss because that means more cals available on other food :laugh: i rarely get more product than stated but it's happened0
-
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.
Raw is not any better... Many commercial chicken products these days are injected with "up to 10%" of a primarily saline based flavorizer. Thus the raw weight will vary too.
Look, my point is not to discourage anyone, in fact just the opposite. I think some people take the calorie counting thing too far when this is all just estimates. Stress probably had more of an effect of slowing weight loss than does the fact that your tuna has 1.2 servings vs 1 serving per package.
My point? One, don't assume that weight is the gold standard of calorie counting and two, keep in mind that all of this is just an estimate anyway. Sure measure and weigh things (I do it too), but worrying about minute details is probably counter productive.
So you have specific information that the calorie count of raw chicken varies widely due to this saline injection? That's actually fairly interesting, care to share?
*Learning* about minute details is not necessarily counter productive, especially when your target deficit is small. I've been having a conversation with myself this morning about switching to black coffee to save myself 40 to 80 calories per day (creamer). Minute? Of course. Will spending a bit of time internally sorting that out be of help to me in the long run? Possibly!
Full disclosure: I usually accept the weight of canned and bagged products (except beans which I just realized the whole package was 16.2 oz not 16, but I digress). But then again, in other areas of logging I'm probably more conservative and it balances out. People have to figure out what works for them!
I think the point was that the saline injection affects the weight of the raw chicken therefore affecting the calorie count that you might find listed here in MFP for raw chicken. Example the chicken itself maybe 8 ounces but they might add 1 ounce of saline injection causing you to figure that you are eating 9 ounces of chicken when you are actually only eating 8 ounces.0 -
Where did you read this about chicken? All recommendations I've seen are to weigh raw, for precisely the reasons you've stated. The packager doesn't know how you plan on cooking the food so the calorie information provided is raw, not cooked. It's a similar answer given for rice, you add however much water you want while cooking, but should weigh raw because that's what's described on the box or bag.
Raw is not any better... Many commercial chicken products these days are injected with "up to 10%" of a primarily saline based flavorizer. Thus the raw weight will vary too.
Look, my point is not to discourage anyone, in fact just the opposite. I think some people take the calorie counting thing too far when this is all just estimates. Stress probably had more of an effect of slowing weight loss than does the fact that your tuna has 1.2 servings vs 1 serving per package.
My point? One, don't assume that weight is the gold standard of calorie counting and two, keep in mind that all of this is just an estimate anyway. Sure measure and weigh things (I do it too), but worrying about minute details is probably counter productive.
So you have specific information that the calorie count of raw chicken varies widely due to this saline injection? That's actually fairly interesting, care to share?
*Learning* about minute details is not necessarily counter productive, especially when your target deficit is small. I've been having a conversation with myself this morning about switching to black coffee to save myself 40 to 80 calories per day (creamer). Minute? Of course. Will spending a bit of time internally sorting that out be of help to me in the long run? Possibly!
Full disclosure: I usually accept the weight of canned and bagged products (except beans which I just realized the whole package was 16.2 oz not 16, but I digress). But then again, in other areas of logging I'm probably more conservative and it balances out. People have to figure out what works for them!
I think the point was that the saline injection affects the weight of the raw chicken therefore affecting the calorie count that you might find listed here in MFP for raw chicken. Example the chicken itself maybe 8 ounces but they might add 1 ounce of saline injection causing you to figure that you are eating 9 ounces of chicken when you are actually only eating 8 ounces.
Thanks! It does make sense. However, in a scientific process such as that used to determine calorie count , I would imagine there is some attempt to control for variables. There are some pretty amazing professionals on this site or at least people who do some awesome reading , so hey , I was just curious if there was info that the testing is done using 0% saline injected chicken only, without any attempt to control for this known variation in process. Or have they already controlled for it and the effect was more or less negligible. I know the chicken I eat sometimes says 130 calories per 4 oz or 160 calories. It may all be based on chicken thighs vs. tenderloins or something but who knows if this has something to do with it!
2. Just because a process has a built in error - and they all do - is no reason to compound it with operator error.
But finally, I do agree there's no reason to get neurotic about the whole thing. But then, your neurotic might be my "no biggie" and may help me be a bit more accurate in my logging0 -
I know what you mean, my canned crab says 100g drained...well it's usually between 80-90 grams..
I weigh prepackaged food all the time when I can...
it is huge...nope but when you need a few extra calories it matters...and if you watch macros it matters.
As for the meat there are entries for raw and cooked. I cook for multiple people so I can't weigh raw and be guaranteed I get that one so I always choose entries in the method that I cooked it. USDA website has all those calories.
I tested my yogurt...weighed the full container...107g...ate the "100g" of yogurt...empty container was 7g...so pretty good.
^^^^a little obessive I know but I only did it once...0 -
Regardless of your specific views on this topic - I think it is great that the OP has taken the time to re-iterate an important and basic point - "measure and weigh your food". YES, we are all estimating - just make it the best estimate you possibly can.
I had a similar epiphany about something "obvious" this morning - relating to the importance of "working out" in weight loss. This was considered this morning as I walked back from my cardio class after a 4-week absence (due to holidays, illness and business travel). I have put on 5lbs in that time and have been eating badly...
I felt this realisation was too, absurdly obvious to share, but now I will: I think we all know that for the majority of us "lighthearted" exercisers, where burning more than 400 cals an hour is a real achievement - food is the main issue, calorie-wise. However, apart from burning calories, I notice how much an exercise regime influences my whole relationship with food, including (and I realise this won't be the same for everyone):
1. I don't skip breakfast - having got faint in one of my morning classes once, I got told off by the teacher for not having eaten anything before going
2. A cliché perhaps - but I feel energised after exercise. I simply feel less hungry afterwards
3. As I get stronger, my focus shifts towards beating times, repetitions etc - I am less obsessed by the number on the scale, which boosts my motivation and confidence, which in turn lessens my emotional eating
4. And finally, having put in a great workout where I have sweated and battled every second of it - reaching for a thoughtless doughnut later in the day, which will un-do all that hard work, just loses its appeal - the pleasure payoff is no longer there (or at least, it is less and therefore easier to conquer)
So, that's it. I know it won't be very illuminating for many - but I know that I NEED fitness in my regime, because of its positive knock-on effects as much for its simple calorie burn....0 -
Regardless of your specific views on this topic - I think it is great that the OP has taken the time to re-iterate an important and basic point - "measure and weigh your food". YES, we are all estimating - just make it the best estimate you possibly can.
I had a similar epiphany about something "obvious" this morning - relating to the importance of "working out" in weight loss. This was considered this morning as I walked back from my cardio class after a 4-week absence (due to holidays, illness and business travel). I have put on 5lbs in that time and have been eating badly...
I felt this realisation was too, absurdly obvious to share, but now I will: I think we all know that for the majority of us "lighthearted" exercisers, where burning more than 400 cals an hour is a real achievement - food is the main issue, calorie-wise. However, apart from burning calories, I notice how much an exercise regime influences my whole relationship with food, including (and I realise this won't be the same for everyone):
1. I don't skip breakfast - having got faint in one of my morning classes once, I got told off by the teacher for not having eaten anything before going
2. A cliché perhaps - but I feel energised after exercise. I simply feel less hungry afterwards
3. As I get stronger, my focus shifts towards beating times, repetitions etc - I am less obsessed by the number on the scale, which boosts my motivation and confidence, which in turn lessens my emotional eating
4. And finally, having put in a great workout where I have sweated and battled every second of it - reaching for a thoughtless doughnut later in the day, which will un-do all that hard work, just loses its appeal - the pleasure payoff is no longer there (or at least, it is less and therefore easier to conquer)
So, that's it. I know it won't be very illuminating for many - but I know that I NEED fitness in my regime, because of its positive knock-on effects as much for its simple calorie burn....
Start a thread; may be obvious for most, but you be surprised.0 -
This may sound weird, but I have decided to not worry too much about weighing until I stop seeing results. I weigh only the things that I truly know I cannot estimate (like deli meat -- I have no idea what 1 oz of meat looks like). If there is a way to measure it in cups or tsp or whatever, then I do.
The main reason I do this is to stop myself from going crazy at the beginning. I know that later on, I might/will hit a plateau or a slowdown. At that point, being more accurate in my logging will be a "trick in my back pocket" that I can go to.0 -
Im very new ..joined in today itself and was going through the various posts..all I can say is that I'm really impressed by all the weight you people have lost. Hope I will be able to make it also.0
-
This was a recent topic that might interest you…
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1231191-do-yourself-a-favor
…and this video…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY.
Two bro tips….
1. I weigh my bowl and then add yogurt to reach the serving in oz. that I want.
2. Same for my bagel thin and almond butter!0 -
I am getting better at weighing items now, that I used to just measure with a tsp, cup etc... They are quite different sometimes. I wouldn't change what I'm doing for anything. It works for me, and after all, isn't that who I am doing this all for anyway?0
-
My first thought was, "Yay, free tuna!"
mine too.0 -
I have dates - package says 2 dates for 140 calories - yet when I weigh them and match the grams on the package I get either 3 or 4 dates. *kitten* are trying to cheat me out of my dates! And yes I will try various sizes of dates until I get to the exact grams listed as a serving.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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