Gram Confusion

teecatin
teecatin Posts: 8 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I am relatively new to MyFitnessPal. I'm trying to measure accurately and came to the conclusion that I would be much better off thinking in terms of grams rather than cups. Recently I purchased a kitchen scale (Taylor Biggest Loser from Bed Bath and Beyond). It seems to be accurate. I've set the unit of measurement to grams and I do understand how to offset the weight of my container.

I just cooked one packet of Kashi 7 Whole Grain Pilaf. There are three packets in the box, each 6.5 ounces (184g). Total net weight is 19.5 oz (553g). I assume this is dry weight and is listed on the front of the box.

The nutrition label shows the following:
Serving Size 1/2 Cup Cooked (140g/4.9 oz.)
Servings Per Container About 12

Since there are three packets per box and 12 servings per container, this would mean 4 servings per packet.

Before I bought the scale, I was measuring my portion as 1/2 cup from a dry measuring cup. I realized that was incorrect, so today, after cooking, I measured 140 grams (given as cooked serving size) and it filled almost an entire cup. The problem is what remained was at most two additional servings when there should have been enough for three additional servings. I don't understand where I miscalculated, since the nutritional data clearly states 140 grams is the cooked cup serving size. Please help me understand.

Replies

  • Llamapants86
    Llamapants86 Posts: 1,221 Member
    The problem with cooked weight is that there are a lot of variables. Primarily cooking time. If you cook it a little longer, more water evaporates out and the whole thing weighs a little less. I would say that if you want to weigh out cooked, weigh the whole thing cooked and then take a quarter of it.
  • JTick
    JTick Posts: 2,131 Member
    Did the box list dry weight at all? If not, I (personally) would weigh the whole amount cooked, and then portion out what you want and calculate the calories. Rice and such should be weighed raw/dry due to cooking variance, and that's rather not smart on the manufacturer's part to not list the dry serving weight.
  • teecatin
    teecatin Posts: 8 Member
    Thank you both so much!! I have learned a really valuable lesson. In the future, I will weigh the entire cooked amount (1packet) and divide by 4 and not trust the cooked serving size portion.

    The only dry ingredient measurements shown were on the front of the box:
    1 packet is 6.5 oz (184 grams).
    I box (3 packets) is 19.5 oz. (553 grams)
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    No, use the packet info. There is *never* the stated amount of servings in a container... it's always more or less. If it says a serving is 140g cooked, then use that.
  • skullshank
    skullshank Posts: 4,323 Member
    when in doubt, always go for cinnamon.

    dammit.....this isnt about grahams is it?
    tumblr_lowu74PQVa1qfaf3r.gif
  • shireeniebeanie
    shireeniebeanie Posts: 293 Member
    Sounds like a complaint to Kashi! Maybe they'll send you a couple of coupons.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Senile grandmas
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,010 Member
    weight/portion out uncooked and then cook. Or if you know you are making 4 servings.....weight the total amount cooked and then separate out how much you want to eat.
  • JTick
    JTick Posts: 2,131 Member
    No, use the packet info. There is *never* the stated amount of servings in a container... it's always more or less. If it says a serving is 140g cooked, then use that.

    So how do you recommend the OP adjust for variances in cooking?
  • teecatin
    teecatin Posts: 8 Member
    No, use the packet info. There is *never* the stated amount of servings in a container... it's always more or less. If it says a serving is 140g cooked, then use that.

    So how do you recommend the OP adjust for variances in cooking?

    I agree with JTick's point. The grains (pilaf) I cooked this morning, cooked up much more quickly than the package directions had indicated. I added a little more water, but it was absorbed almost immediately. I would say I overcooked them, at least in comparison to what Kashi intended. So, as Llamapants86 mentioned in the first reply to my post, I cooked the grains too long (or in my case at too high a temperature), more water evaporated compared to the label standard, and the whole thing (the full packet cooked) weighed less than the 560 gm (140 gm per serving x 4 servings per packet) indicated on the package for cooked weight. I was able to go back and calculate the total weight in grams of my cooked packet, because I actually weighed the balance as I was putting it away in two containers for later use. The total weight of my cooked packet was only 450 gm, not 560 gm. That means each of my four equal cooked servings should have weighed 112.5 grams, not 140 grams.

    Now what I would like to know is, if I had correctly measured my serving at 112.5 grams, adjusting for the 'overcooking', would it still have been correct to use the calorie and nutrient data as indicated on the label, since I was adjusting for the extra water evaporation and still eating 1/4 of the packet of grains — or would the nutritional information be skewed by my mistake? I want to say the nutritional label information would still be correct, but I'm not sure.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,089 Member
    The problem is that it says "about" 12 servings in the container -- in my experience, "about 12" on a package label could be anywhere from 11 to 13 in reality. Shouldn't make that much difference when you're talking about that high a number, but I don't think it's going to be more accurate to assume that 1/4 of the cooked weight of one pouch is a serving than just weighing out the 140 g cooked product that the label says is a serving, even given the variations in cooking (I'm assuming you used the amount of water the package directions called for).

    Do the cooking directions happen to say something like each pouch makes four 1/2-cup servings (rather than "about" four 1/2 cup servings)? If it did, then I would say you'd be safe weighing the whole cooked amount and dividing by four.

    This really seems like poor labeling by the manufacturer, not to list the serving size by dry weight.
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    I never go by serving size of anything. If I make for instance rice, I measure on the scale what looks like the appropriate amount for me that day to eat (depending on how hungry I am), then enter that weight into the log. I always enter the weight prior to preparation (frying/boiling/whatever).
  • IHateThinkingOfAUsername
    IHateThinkingOfAUsername Posts: 568 Member
    Dunno if this would work but working backwards:
    1 serving size cooked weights 140g and has 170cals.
    According to the packet this serving size is made up of 1 part grain, 2 parts water.
    So the serving size of uncooked grain would be 140/3= 46.7g = 170cals. (Or 1g =3.64cal)

    This assumes there is no evaporation - but a quick play around with numbers would lead to a smaller calorie per gram of uncooked grain:
    Suppose the evaporation is 0.5 of the water part, then the cooked serving size is made up of 1 part grain, 1.5 parts absorbed water.
    So the serving size of uncooked grain would be 140/5*2= 56g = 170cals (or 1g = 3.03cal)

    LTDR = I'd take 1g uncooked = 4cal (Just to be on the safe side).

    *edit just to check - 184g of dried grains = 4 servings (of 46g each) which according to the packet would be 170cal each, by 1g uncooked = 4cal this would come out at 184cal per serving, which is close enough to the manufactuers claims for me to be happy with this.
    PS Did I make this overly hard? Lol.
  • JTick
    JTick Posts: 2,131 Member
    No, use the packet info. There is *never* the stated amount of servings in a container... it's always more or less. If it says a serving is 140g cooked, then use that.

    So how do you recommend the OP adjust for variances in cooking?

    I agree with JTick's point. The grains (pilaf) I cooked this morning, cooked up much more quickly than the package directions had indicated. I added a little more water, but it was absorbed almost immediately. I would say I overcooked them, at least in comparison to what Kashi intended. So, as Llamapants86 mentioned in the first reply to my post, I cooked the grains too long (or in my case at too high a temperature), more water evaporated compared to the label standard, and the whole thing (the full packet cooked) weighed less than the 560 gm (140 gm per serving x 4 servings per packet) indicated on the package for cooked weight. I was able to go back and calculate the total weight in grams of my cooked packet, because I actually weighed the balance as I was putting it away in two containers for later use. The total weight of my cooked packet was only 450 gm, not 560 gm. That means each of my four equal cooked servings should have weighed 112.5 grams, not 140 grams.

    Now what I would like to know is, if I had correctly measured my serving at 112.5 grams, adjusting for the 'overcooking', would it still have been correct to use the calorie and nutrient data as indicated on the label, since I was adjusting for the extra water evaporation and still eating 1/4 of the packet of grains — or would the nutritional information be skewed by my mistake? I want to say the nutritional label information would still be correct, but I'm not sure.

    At this point, I feel like it would almost be easier to just buy a brand of food that lists the dry weight. :laugh:
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    No, use the packet info. There is *never* the stated amount of servings in a container... it's always more or less. If it says a serving is 140g cooked, then use that.

    So how do you recommend the OP adjust for variances in cooking?

    I agree with JTick's point. The grains (pilaf) I cooked this morning, cooked up much more quickly than the package directions had indicated. I added a little more water, but it was absorbed almost immediately. I would say I overcooked them, at least in comparison to what Kashi intended. So, as Llamapants86 mentioned in the first reply to my post, I cooked the grains too long (or in my case at too high a temperature), more water evaporated compared to the label standard, and the whole thing (the full packet cooked) weighed less than the 560 gm (140 gm per serving x 4 servings per packet) indicated on the package for cooked weight. I was able to go back and calculate the total weight in grams of my cooked packet, because I actually weighed the balance as I was putting it away in two containers for later use. The total weight of my cooked packet was only 450 gm, not 560 gm. That means each of my four equal cooked servings should have weighed 112.5 grams, not 140 grams.

    Now what I would like to know is, if I had correctly measured my serving at 112.5 grams, adjusting for the 'overcooking', would it still have been correct to use the calorie and nutrient data as indicated on the label, since I was adjusting for the extra water evaporation and still eating 1/4 of the packet of grains — or would the nutritional information be skewed by my mistake? I want to say the nutritional label information would still be correct, but I'm not sure.

    At this point, I feel like it would almost be easier to just buy a brand of food that lists the dry weight. :laugh:

    Always is. But most of those products have the same nutrition info so I'd use the dry weight of some similar brand.
  • AglaeaC
    AglaeaC Posts: 1,974 Member
    At this point, I feel like it would almost be easier to just buy a brand of food that lists the dry weight. :laugh:

    Always is. But most of those products have the same nutrition info so I'd use the dry weight of some similar brand.
    This. It will still be much more accurate than when we log based on estimates (if we've eaten something that someone else cooked).
  • teecatin
    teecatin Posts: 8 Member
    Dunno if this would work but working backwards:
    1 serving size cooked weights 140g and has 170cals.
    According to the packet this serving size is made up of 1 part grain, 2 parts water.
    So the serving size of uncooked grain would be 140/3= 46.7g = 170cals. (Or 1g =3.64cal)

    This assumes there is no evaporation - but a quick play around with numbers would lead to a smaller calorie per gram of uncooked grain:
    Suppose the evaporation is 0.5 of the water part, then the cooked serving size is made up of 1 part grain, 1.5 parts absorbed water.
    So the serving size of uncooked grain would be 140/5*2= 56g = 170cals (or 1g = 3.03cal)

    LTDR = I'd take 1g uncooked = 4cal (Just to be on the safe side).

    *edit just to check - 184g of dried grains = 4 servings (of 46g each) which according to the packet would be 170cal each, by 1g uncooked = 4cal this would come out at 184cal per serving, which is close enough to the manufactuers claims for me to be happy with this.
    PS Did I make this overly hard? Lol.

    Wow!! Thank you for those excellent calculations. I had to read through them a few times, but no, you definitely didn't make it overly hard (this from a rather rusty math major).

    I spoke with someone in Kashi's Consumer Relations department today. Unfortunately her comments now add to my confusion, and I must have managed to equally confuse her, because she opted to escalate the whole matter to their nutritionist. The callback is supposed to come within 72 hours. I will definitely post back after that conversation.

    After verifying the UPC code for Kashi 7 Whole Grain Pilaf against her documentation, the person in Consumer Relations told me that a serving would be 70 grams dry uncooked, since a cooked serving is 140 gm and the product weight doubles when cooked.

    From the front of the box, a packet is 184 gm, so with 4 servings per packet, wouldn't that mean a serving is 46 gm of uncooked product, consistent with the calculations in the post above?

    I also wanted to mention, relating to the reply above discussing "servings per container" and use of the prefix "about" that the Kashi label does, in fact, say "about 12". I actually missed this twice when checking. I checked other items in my pantry and found about half of them include "about" and half do not.

    I found this on the FDA site under nutritional labeling for food manufacturers:
    For packages containing from two to five servings, round the number of servings to the nearest 0.5 serving. Examples: “2 servings,” “2.5 servings,” “3 servings,” “3.5 servings,” “4 servings,” “4.5 servings,” and “5 servings.” For packages containing five or more servings, round the number of servings to the nearest whole serving. Examples: “5 servings,” “6 servings,” “7 servings.” Rounding should be indicated by the term “about” (e.g., “about 6 servings”). 21 CFR 101.9(b)(8

Categories