Eyes opened, weigh your food!

2»

Replies

  • Keladelphia
    Keladelphia Posts: 820 Member
    When I first started using a scale instead of measuring cups/spoons it was like a slap to the face. With all of my measuring I was still eating around 1.25-1.5 more than I thought I was. I dont use it as much now since i've gotten relatively good at eyeballing things (except for things like meat, cheese, nut butters, oils etc) but it was a total game changer for me in terms of helping to reach my weightloss goal.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    spoonyspork wrote: »
    My most eye-opening thing after getting a scale was that I was eating way LESS pasta than I thought! Weighed out the first time after cooked, just going with what I'd normally scoop out for my portion. I was shocked to see I seemed to be eating 3x more than a serving of cooked pasta. Next time I weighed it out dry first, and after cooking it was like 2x more than my usual portion.

    I'd actually been pretty accurate with eye-balling things otherwise, though 'pretty accurate' can still end up with WAY more calories with more calorie-dense stuff!
    You should weigh pasta BEFORE it's cooked.

    Otherwise agree 100% with you!!
  • cmoll520
    cmoll520 Posts: 60 Member
    I just bought one Monday- though really I was being pretty accurate. I was actually generally under. When I was a teenager I weighed everything, so I think that most have done well at training my brain with portion sizes.

    I'll continue to use the scale though.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    spoonyspork wrote: »
    My most eye-opening thing after getting a scale was that I was eating way LESS pasta than I thought! Weighed out the first time after cooked, just going with what I'd normally scoop out for my portion. I was shocked to see I seemed to be eating 3x more than a serving of cooked pasta. Next time I weighed it out dry first, and after cooking it was like 2x more than my usual portion.

    I'd actually been pretty accurate with eye-balling things otherwise, though 'pretty accurate' can still end up with WAY more calories with more calorie-dense stuff!

    Yeah pasta was an eye-opener for me as well. I was grossly underestimating that.
  • holzeeg123
    holzeeg123 Posts: 14 Member
    I have one of those digital scales where it doesn't come with a bowl and you just zero everything and my god it's brilliant. Like, I'll put the pack of butter on it, zero, use butter then weigh to see how much I used and it's so quick. Although I have a set of measuring spoons and it turned out that for weeks I'd been using the dsp instead of the tsp for oils. Silly me!
  • spoonyspork
    spoonyspork Posts: 238 Member
    Serah87 wrote: »
    spoonyspork wrote: »
    My most eye-opening thing after getting a scale was that I was eating way LESS pasta than I thought! Weighed out the first time after cooked, just going with what I'd normally scoop out for my portion. I was shocked to see I seemed to be eating 3x more than a serving of cooked pasta. Next time I weighed it out dry first, and after cooking it was like 2x more than my usual portion.

    I'd actually been pretty accurate with eye-balling things otherwise, though 'pretty accurate' can still end up with WAY more calories with more calorie-dense stuff!
    You should weigh pasta BEFORE it's cooked.

    Otherwise agree 100% with you!!

    Yeah I know! The very first time I didn't think to weigh it out til after it was cooked, so spooned out what I usually eat, looked up what a portion of cooked pasta was 'supposed' to weigh, and weighed what I picked up to compare. Thought I was eating way too much and so sad about my portion. Much happier to see the portion when I cooked it after measuring dry (which ends up being more than I usually eat). Apparently pasta wasn't where I was going wrong, other than the wrongness of way over-cooking it. Oatmeal is similar. 40g of oatmeal ends up filling my large cereal bowl to the brim after cooking it, due to the large amount of water I like to use (it's more of a thick drink than cereal, after adding the protein powder)
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I've recently started trying to get a high amount of fiber, so I started weighing certain foods. Most have weighed less than the package or USDA database says for the volume. I thought perhaps my scale was off, because I see these types of posts on here so often, so I checked it on another and got the same result.

    Since, I've started weighing a lot more stuff. The only thing that has been higher than I thought was meat. 3 oz of meat is less than I thought. Except for fish. Fish was pretty spot on.

    Food loses weight during shipping, due to evaporation.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    spoonyspork wrote: »
    My most eye-opening thing after getting a scale was that I was eating way LESS pasta than I thought! Weighed out the first time after cooked, just going with what I'd normally scoop out for my portion. I was shocked to see I seemed to be eating 3x more than a serving of cooked pasta. Next time I weighed it out dry first, and after cooking it was like 2x more than my usual portion.

    I'd actually been pretty accurate with eye-balling things otherwise, though 'pretty accurate' can still end up with WAY more calories with more calorie-dense stuff!

    Yeah pasta was an eye-opener for me as well. I was grossly underestimating that.

    Or maybe I was over-estimating. At any rate, I was eating less than I thought.
  • twinteensmom
    twinteensmom Posts: 371 Member
    Also, things like chicken thighs. I weigh them AFTER I cook them and take the meat off the bone. After all, I am not going to be eating the bones. So, why count the weight of them?
    If I am making a peanutbutter sandwich, for instance, I will weigh the bread and then zero out the scale with the bread still on it. Then slowly add the peanutbutter. I love my scale.
    I never knew that about weighing pasta before it is cooked, by the way. Makes perfect sense, though.
  • 9Rounder
    9Rounder Posts: 40 Member
    edited March 2015
    SingRunTing wrote: »
    gotobedhungry wrote: »
    I need this explained to me. How can measuring cups/spoons be wrong?? If you're using them correctly and leveling it off with a knife, how can this be?

    Here's a video to explain. The guy is a little annoying, but the video is valid. He actually shows how two different 1/2 cup measuring cups give you different amounts.

    That video was very eye opening! Thanks so much for posting it! I have a food scale at home and recently bought another one for work. I have snacks at my desk and it's always helpful to measure out my portions instead of counting out the number of chips the bag says I can have. Sometimes I get more, sometimes I get less, but at least I know it's accurate. Love this thread!
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    I've recently started trying to get a high amount of fiber, so I started weighing certain foods. Most have weighed less than the package or USDA database says for the volume. I thought perhaps my scale was off, because I see these types of posts on here so often, so I checked it on another and got the same result.

    Since, I've started weighing a lot more stuff. The only thing that has been higher than I thought was meat. 3 oz of meat is less than I thought. Except for fish. Fish was pretty spot on.

    Food loses weight during shipping, due to evaporation.

    Depends on the food, the packaging, and the environment.

    High water content foods are more likely to lose water (and weight), low water content and hydrophilic foods are more likely to gain water (and weight). Foods that tend to change a great deal with environmental exposure are usually packaged to minimize that exposure.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories