Fruit tip - wish I'd realized this sooner!!
Replies
-
-
ShannonMpls wrote: »I personally think it's funny people think it's stressful to weigh your food...I mean really...
It turns out that not everyone thinks, behaves, or reacts just like you.
It also turns out that all nutrition information - from labels on packages to USDA data - is merely an estimate. So while you may think you are 100% accurately logging because you use a scale for everything, it's still not precise unless you are laboratory-testing all your food. Weighing and measuring the ingredients in a recipe, then weighing the results, still doesn't ensure that each portion has the exact same number of calories. Last night I made a chicken and rajma masala. I weighed the ingredients but eyeballed the portions. Even if I had weighed the portions, and they all weighed the same in grams, some portions had more chicken, or more kidney beans, or more sauce. As a result, each portion has a different caloric makeup.
My point in all of this is not to say it's crazy to weigh everything. It is not, as long as you are happy to weigh everything. (Note though, that not everyone thinks like you and that's okay too).
My point is that even as precise as you try to be, everything is still an estimate. I see waaaaay too many people join up here, but then quickly become overwhelmed with weighing and TDEE and heart rate monitors and macros and give up. Which is sad, because it doesn't have to be that complicated.
That's why I stress that one shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. If, at some point, one's weight loss is not as predicted, weighing food and logging more precisely is certainly a good plan.
In the words of Dr Yoni Freedhoff, I endeavor to live the healthiest life I can *enjoy*. That means I weigh a lot of stuff, but I eyeball quite a bit too. This is my medium. My body's weight and composition tell me everything I need to know. This method certainly worked for me; I'm down 130+ pounds and I've been maintaining for 2 years....happily, easily, healthfully.
Well said! (*)
0 -
I personally think it's funny people think it's stressful to weigh your food...I mean really...I put a plate on the scale turn it on start putting food on it...it's not like I freak if I go over the 150grams of chicken I logged...I just remove a peice or change my log.
I started because I should have been losing 1lb a week and I wasn't...I was losing 1/2lb...
I do it out of habit now...not a big deal.
I don't find weighing stressful - I just don't do it precisely because I don't need to - what I am doing with weighing calorie dense things like cheese and approximating things like fruit and eggs, is working fine for me.
- It's not broke so I don't need to fix it.
0 -
I've seen people on MFP who weigh a tablespoon of peanut butter. I'm all about portions but I wouldn't want to stress THAT MUCH!
Actually, peanut butter is one of those things I do usually weigh, for two reasons:
1. It's calorie-dense, so small errors make a big difference. If what I think it 2 tablespoons (one serving) is really 2.5 tablespoons, that's about a 50 calorie error.
2. Weighing peanut butter is actually easier than measuring it with a tablespoon, IMHO. Put your slice of bread (or bagel, or apple, etc.) on the scale, tare it, then add peanut butter with a knife until you get however many grams you want. Trying to do that with a measuring spoon is a mess, and I never can get it all out either.
0 -
I guess that everything is an estimate anyway, so why even bother counting calories if you think this way? At least when I weigh my food I know I'm closer to a 20% margin or error than 40%.
I think that 99% of the people I've seen on MFP who lost weight without weighing their food had either a bigger deficit than they needed, or didn't eat back their exercise calories. The other 1% I guess have amazing eyeballing skills. But I guess you do whatever works for you.0 -
For those on Team Weigh Everything:
Is there a secret or hint to logging food to find the basic, simple entry where you have multiple options for serving size? You know, those magical entries where you can choose s/m/l OR 1 cup OR 100 grams or 1 ounce?
I haven't found that secret and, really, weighing stuff is easy. Sifting through 8 entries to find one that actually lists a weight as a measurement... that'll make you insane.
Frankly, I think mfp desperately needs to clean out the closet and delete the multiple upon multiple entries for items that are totally unhelpful and correspond to absolutely nothing in real life. That this isn't at all a priority is bizarre to me, since the entire program is based on accurate recordings of calorie intake. Entering avocado based on some random entry listing "three slices" as the serving size is not the path to success.0 -
jessica43062 wrote: »Is there a secret or hint to logging food to find the basic, simple entry where you have multiple options for serving size? You know, those magical entries where you can choose s/m/l OR 1 cup OR 100 grams or 1 ounce?
Yes! Search for the database entry without the asterisk - though this only shows on the desktop version.
The easiest way to find the "clean" entries is by searching for the food item plus raw.
So:
bananas raw
avocados raw
red peppers raw
chicken breast raw
This also works if you're measuring a cooked version, though that's harder. For instance, there isn't a default entry for steamed broccoli but there is for boiled broccoli (with and without salt). For that, just search for "broccoli cooked" or "chicken roasted".
Eventually you'll easily be able to tell which is the default entry - which has numerous serving options, some more helpful than others - and which is user-submitted.
The other nice thing about using default entries is that they include potassium, if that sort of thing matters.
0 -
I guess that everything is an estimate anyway, so why even bother counting calories if you think this way?
Sigh. This is exactly what I mean by "don't let perfect be the enemy of good." If you can't be perfect, throw in the towel?
The "you must weigh everything or you will fail!" dogma is tired and encourages the attitude that one must be perfect to succeed.
As for me? Far from perfect, but I still succeeded. That's why my advice is to choose for yourself how "accurate" you strive to be and go at it. If you want to weigh EVERYTHING, then do it. If you are having success eyeballing, awesome (and I know MANY people who have been successful without a food scale, by the way). For me, this means I weigh quite a bit of what I eat, even now - 2 years into maintenance - especially if they are calorie dense foods like peanut butter, nuts, mayo, cheese. But unless it's super convenient for me, I don't bother weighing spinach or - this one is new to me because I had no idea people did it - an egg. I'm pretty good at estimating the half and half I put in my coffee every morning. I also sometimes take an apple to work whole and don't weigh it because I am not a person willing to have a food scale at work to make sure I'm not eating 15 more calories than I've logged. This also means that I eyeball portions of the recipes I make, even if I weigh the ingredients. And - surprise!! - it's worked just fine.But I guess you do whatever works for you.
Exactly. It's the "weigh everything or be fat" folks who can't seem to grasp this.
0 -
jessica43062 wrote: »For those on Team Weigh Everything:
Is there a secret or hint to logging food to find the basic, simple entry where you have multiple options for serving size? You know, those magical entries where you can choose s/m/l OR 1 cup OR 100 grams or 1 ounce?
I haven't found that secret and, really, weighing stuff is easy. Sifting through 8 entries to find one that actually lists a weight as a measurement... that'll make you insane.
Frankly, I think mfp desperately needs to clean out the closet and delete the multiple upon multiple entries for items that are totally unhelpful and correspond to absolutely nothing in real life. That this isn't at all a priority is bizarre to me, since the entire program is based on accurate recordings of calorie intake. Entering avocado based on some random entry listing "three slices" as the serving size is not the path to success.
For packaged items, I just divide what I weighed by the serving size and use that. For fruits/vegetables/meats/eggs, I find the MFP entries (those without an asterisk) and set it for 100 grams.0 -
ShannonMpls wrote: »I personally think it's funny people think it's stressful to weigh your food...I mean really...
It turns out that not everyone thinks, behaves, or reacts just like you.
It also turns out that all nutrition information - from labels on packages to USDA data - is merely an estimate. So while you may think you are 100% accurately logging because you use a scale for everything, it's still not precise unless you are laboratory-testing all your food. Weighing and measuring the ingredients in a recipe, then weighing the results, still doesn't ensure that each portion has the exact same number of calories. Last night I made a chicken and rajma masala. I weighed the ingredients but eyeballed the portions. Even if I had weighed the portions, and they all weighed the same in grams, some portions had more chicken, or more kidney beans, or more sauce. As a result, each portion has a different caloric makeup.
My point in all of this is not to say it's crazy to weigh everything. It is not, as long as you are happy to weigh everything. (Note though, that not everyone thinks like you and that's okay too).
My point is that even as precise as you try to be, everything is still an estimate. I see waaaaay too many people join up here, but then quickly become overwhelmed with weighing and TDEE and heart rate monitors and macros and give up. Which is sad, because it doesn't have to be that complicated.
That's why I stress that one shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. If, at some point, one's weight loss is not as predicted, weighing food and logging more precisely is certainly a good plan.
In the words of Dr Yoni Freedhoff, I endeavor to live the healthiest life I can *enjoy*. That means I weigh a lot of stuff, but I eyeball quite a bit too. This is my medium. My body's weight and composition tell me everything I need to know. This method certainly worked for me; I'm down 130+ pounds and I've been maintaining for 2 years....happily, easily, healthfully.
Ah hello where did I say you "HAD" to weigh....
I will be as percise as I can be...why because that is what works for me...not only in weight loss but in life...call it my type A personality or maybe my military background...doesn't matter...
And it's a good thing that all sorts of different ways of counting calories works for people and not everyone has to follow my lead or yours...
I personally know though from life and these forums that most people don't do well until they get a handle on what a serving size is and they can't do that without weighing for a while.0 -
I had no idea people weighed their eggs. I usually use egg whites, which I weigh if they are from a carton. I would have to say I agree with Shannon. Weigh as much as you must to be successful. For me that definitely means weighing peanut butter, nuts and cereal.0
-
So, maybe a stupid question but do you weigh your fruit after you peel/core them or before?0
-
I weigh almost nothing and lose fine. Anyone can learn from their scale and then use what they learned to be a decent estimator. Visual cues based on everyday items helps (deck of cards, fingertip, thumb, tennis ball, etc.)
I honestly suspect that there is more measurement error amongst calorie counters from entirely forgetting to log some foods than from under-estimating their portion sizes. Though I guess if you weigh every.single.ingredient of every single food item you prepare and eat, that necessitates good notes which solves both problems.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I weigh almost nothing and lose fine. Anyone can learn from their scale and then use what they learned to be a decent estimator. Visual cues based on everyday items helps (deck of cards, fingertip, thumb, tennis ball, etc.)
I honestly suspect that there is more measurement error amongst calorie counters from entirely forgetting to log some foods than from under-estimating their portion sizes. Though I guess if you weigh every.single.ingredient of every single food item you prepare and eat, that necessitates good notes which solves both problems.
Yes you can learn to estimate...if you use a scale at first...
and yes I agree "forgetting to log" is as big of a problem as portion size...not bigger but probably equal.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
Yeah but I don't eat all the eggs in the carton. There's 4 of us.
Yogurts I agree, there is always less, but I don't bother weighing them unless it's a big container.
You don't even need to average the carton. Just weigh a few eggs, and if you usually buy the same brand and size, you will find most are only 1-3 grams off to either side. 90% of the eggs I have are around 47g with a few at 45-49g. Yolk are almost always 18g, rarely 17 or 19.
Maybe because I buy mine from a farm, but they vary way more than that. Sometimes I might do three if I have really small ones, and two larger ones could easily be 120 g as opposed to the more typical 100. I'm sure it would average out well enough and I can now estimate from the size of the egg, but since I usually have omelets I weigh them.
My fruit is more often than not bigger than the estimates I've seen in the database, although it depends on the fruit. At this point I can estimate pretty well for the fruits I eat a lot.
0 -
jessica43062 wrote: »Weighing for the win.
I think the random measurements on this site are the most amateurish part. I get really frustrated when I look for a fruit or vegetable and have to search through numerous options to find one with a standardized unit (1 oz, 1 gram, anything!). The first entry for grape tomatoes has only one option: 1 cup. How not-at-all useful for grape tomatoes. Same for the listings with small/medium/large and no weights included to back it up.
Go for the no asterisk ones, which are usually more reliable anyway.
Peaches raw (for example) is the trick, use the plural and raw.
0 -
MsHarryWinston wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
I guess it depends how sure you need to be.
I think if you are losing weight/ maintaining weight/ gaining weight ( whichever you are trying to do) at a steady and successful rate then the level of weighing you are doing is good enough.
I freely admit I do not weigh eggs or fruit or vegetables - every banana is just a small banana ( I buy small ones so they fit in my lunchbox) but my weight is doing what I want it to, so all is good.
However if one is not losing/maintaining/ gaining as one expects then tightening up measurements is a good step.
I agree with this. Every time I've tried to lose weight I've never weighed a thing. I've used cup measurements and always lost. Even when I worked for a weight loss company I didn't weigh!
I think if you aren't seeing results then for sure weigh!
I've started to weigh as of this week. Am I seeing results without it? You bet! But... I just want to try it *shrug*. I want to be even more accurate with calorie dense foods. It's not a requirement for me because I can do well without it. But I do agree that it gives a person their BEST chance. I want the extra confidence that comes from super accuracy.
Yeah, I agree with this.
I don't think weighing is necessary, but I find it takes less time than trying to measure or thinking about whether some item is small or medium. Sometime I estimate cups for greens (always if they are mixed), but even with spinach it takes no extra time to pop it on the scale before adding it to an omelet, etc, so I usually do. It would be more work to start thinking about which items should be weighed.
0 -
always be weighing.0
-
It won't work if you buy from a farm but aren't the grades and sizes of eggs on store-bought ones based on their weights?lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
Yeah but I don't eat all the eggs in the carton. There's 4 of us.
Yogurts I agree, there is always less, but I don't bother weighing them unless it's a big container.
You don't even need to average the carton. Just weigh a few eggs, and if you usually buy the same brand and size, you will find most are only 1-3 grams off to either side. 90% of the eggs I have are around 47g with a few at 45-49g. Yolk are almost always 18g, rarely 17 or 19.
Maybe because I buy mine from a farm, but they vary way more than that. Sometimes I might do three if I have really small ones, and two larger ones could easily be 120 g as opposed to the more typical 100. I'm sure it would average out well enough and I can now estimate from the size of the egg, but since I usually have omelets I weigh them.
My fruit is more often than not bigger than the estimates I've seen in the database, although it depends on the fruit. At this point I can estimate pretty well for the fruits I eat a lot.
I just log all my eggs as 'large', though I noticed recently that my cage-free carton has 'large' eggs which are much smaller than my 'jumbo' eggs carton I bought in a rush, and they're almost 20 calories different in the database, which was more than I would've guessed.
0 -
I guess egg 'grade' is related to appearance, not weight. This is pretty interesting-
http://www.incredibleegg.org/egg-facts/eggcyclopedia/b/buying0 -
ShannonMpls wrote: »I personally think it's funny people think it's stressful to weigh your food...I mean really...
It turns out that not everyone thinks, behaves, or reacts just like you.
It also turns out that all nutrition information - from labels on packages to USDA data - is merely an estimate. So while you may think you are 100% accurately logging because you use a scale for everything, it's still not precise unless you are laboratory-testing all your food. Weighing and measuring the ingredients in a recipe, then weighing the results, still doesn't ensure that each portion has the exact same number of calories. Last night I made a chicken and rajma masala. I weighed the ingredients but eyeballed the portions. Even if I had weighed the portions, and they all weighed the same in grams, some portions had more chicken, or more kidney beans, or more sauce. As a result, each portion has a different caloric makeup.
My point in all of this is not to say it's crazy to weigh everything. It is not, as long as you are happy to weigh everything. (Note though, that not everyone thinks like you and that's okay too).
My point is that even as precise as you try to be, everything is still an estimate. I see waaaaay too many people join up here, but then quickly become overwhelmed with weighing and TDEE and heart rate monitors and macros and give up. Which is sad, because it doesn't have to be that complicated.
That's why I stress that one shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. If, at some point, one's weight loss is not as predicted, weighing food and logging more precisely is certainly a good plan.
In the words of Dr Yoni Freedhoff, I endeavor to live the healthiest life I can *enjoy*. That means I weigh a lot of stuff, but I eyeball quite a bit too. This is my medium. My body's weight and composition tell me everything I need to know. This method certainly worked for me; I'm down 130+ pounds and I've been maintaining for 2 years....happily, easily, healthfully.
Wow. Excellent post0 -
Not the same thing.0
-
Also hard to do with fruit or eggs. Weighing is generally less work, IMO.0
-
ShannonMpls wrote: »I personally think it's funny people think it's stressful to weigh your food...I mean really...
It turns out that not everyone thinks, behaves, or reacts just like you.
It also turns out that all nutrition information - from labels on packages to USDA data - is merely an estimate. So while you may think you are 100% accurately logging because you use a scale for everything, it's still not precise unless you are laboratory-testing all your food. Weighing and measuring the ingredients in a recipe, then weighing the results, still doesn't ensure that each portion has the exact same number of calories. Last night I made a chicken and rajma masala. I weighed the ingredients but eyeballed the portions. Even if I had weighed the portions, and they all weighed the same in grams, some portions had more chicken, or more kidney beans, or more sauce. As a result, each portion has a different caloric makeup.
My point in all of this is not to say it's crazy to weigh everything. It is not, as long as you are happy to weigh everything. (Note though, that not everyone thinks like you and that's okay too).
My point is that even as precise as you try to be, everything is still an estimate. I see waaaaay too many people join up here, but then quickly become overwhelmed with weighing and TDEE and heart rate monitors and macros and give up. Which is sad, because it doesn't have to be that complicated.
That's why I stress that one shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. If, at some point, one's weight loss is not as predicted, weighing food and logging more precisely is certainly a good plan.
In the words of Dr Yoni Freedhoff, I endeavor to live the healthiest life I can *enjoy*. That means I weigh a lot of stuff, but I eyeball quite a bit too. This is my medium. My body's weight and composition tell me everything I need to know. This method certainly worked for me; I'm down 130+ pounds and I've been maintaining for 2 years....happily, easily, healthfully.
Wonderful post.0 -
Yes. And the best way to go about without a food scale is too always over-estimate the calories in all foods.
Safer. since losing weight is usually the goal for most.0 -
Yes. And the best way to go about without a food scale is too always over-estimate the calories in all foods.
Safer. since losing weight is usually the goal for most.
Yes that works too. Personally I'd rather know if I can eat more instead of wondering if I overestimated my lunch because I'm hungry....
For recipes, well, I don't make that many of those anyway.
0 -
*Shrug*
Anyone that has a large enough deficit, is making an honest effort to estimate everything accurately (not over or under), and is pretty good at estimating volumes can go the no weighing route without a problem.
Anyone that doesn't match those criteria ought to be weighing.
If you're someone that is having hunger issues or is trying to bulk, you definitely ought to be weighing. Make sure you're eating everything that is available to you and not leaving anything on the table. Weighing helps correct chronic under-estimations as well as chronic over-estimations.0 -
I poured some granola in a bowl this morning and thought, "Maybe I'll weigh it, for once. I'd like to call it 1/2 cup since I know it's calorie-laden but it's probably closer to a cup. What is the serving size on the box? 3/4 cup-- 55g." I weighed out what I'd poured... 55g. Weird. I probably would've logged it as 3/4 cup and been dead on, or as 1c. and overestimated. I guess that's why estimating works for me.
Really the old visualization tricks work pretty well. I wish I had a good link of them. WW has some good ones. Here's some from Food Network.
http://www.foodnetwork.com/healthy/photos/tips-for-portion-control.html
0 -
if I don't weigh, I don't lose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions