Am I counting my calories incorrectly?

zcassel
zcassel Posts: 12 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi guys,

So I've got a bit of a dilemma. I'm not entirely sure if I'm misunderstanding labels or just eating too much. I have a diet I constructed to ensure I stay full (with large doses of water) and fuel my intense workouts. While going over yesterday's numbers as well as what I'll be eating today, I eat the same thing every day so there's no confusion, I felt like my numbers might be misleading. I measure all my food, with the exception of select measurements like teaspoons and such.

Here's my issue though, I measure out 2 oz of Barilla farfalle every day and cook it, producing 4 oz of cooked pasta. My problem arises when I count the calories. I put in 4 oz of pasta (below) and it shows 400 calories. So the question is, am I misunderstanding the label or am I screwing myself out of 200 calories a day? I'll also include a picture of the nutrition label for Barilla's farfalle. The pasta I get to have every day is plenty, pair it with chicken and I'm fine headed toward dinner a few hours later. Is it an oversight on MFP's system or am I just not incorrectly inputting the food? HELP!

7j2smspg6n7f.png

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    If the 2 oz of dry pasta was all carbs it would have about 200 calories. I don't try to understand American nutrition labels and I certainly don't weigh foods cooked.
  • zcassel
    zcassel Posts: 12 Member
    edited February 2016
    I don't pretend to understand them either, which is why I asked lol. Trying to wrap my head around labels is seriously making me crazy. For the sake of understanding how much pasta I'm eating I weighed it.
  • tiptoethruthetulips
    tiptoethruthetulips Posts: 3,372 Member
    edited February 2016
    Wouldn't it be best to use the dry (uncooked) weight?

    The additional weight is water so you wouldn't count 4oz of cooked pasta (unless the item in food list was specifically for cooked pasta). I would say the item is uncooked/dry weight therefore you should use 2oz.

    Edited to add: You may want to make sure that the nutritional data (calorie) is correct for the item selected, I've read that a lot of people have noticed errors. Compare it to the packet info.
  • zcassel
    zcassel Posts: 12 Member
    edited February 2016
    Thanks tiptoe that makes sense. I've amended my meals to reflect that in the future!
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    zcassel wrote: »
    I don't pretend to understand them either, which is why I asked lol. Trying to wrap my head around labels is seriously making me crazy. For the sake of understanding how much pasta I'm eating I weighed it.

    weigh it dry if the label refers to dry weight.

    http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=254878476 is dry analysis, 200 calories for 2 ounces, I think the only error you're making is to use a wet (cooked) weight along with a dry analysis. Log it as 2 ounces and you're good to go.
  • ForeverSunshine09
    ForeverSunshine09 Posts: 966 Member
    Always weigh pasta dry and most things uncooked unless stated on the package. I only own item that says the cals are for the item cooked and that is frozen breakfast sausage patties.
  • richardgavel
    richardgavel Posts: 1,001 Member
    I assume uncooked for all foods unless there is a method of cooking in the title (Grilled chicken breast, roasted pork loin)
  • Equus5374
    Equus5374 Posts: 462 Member
    The weight on American packaging labels is the dry weight for things like rice and pasta.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories