Scale questions

not_my_first_rodeo
not_my_first_rodeo Posts: 311 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am coming around to the notion that I need to weigh everything. No need to convince me. I do have a couple of questions, though. Forgive me if they are basic.
  1. The food scale I currently own has a tare function and the ability to weigh in: pounds, kilograms, grams, and ounces. Is that sufficient or are there other features for which I should be looking?
  2. Does it matter if I weigh things in grams or ounces?
  3. For liquids, my understanding is that you still need to use measuring cups. Is that correct?
  4. If I eat things that are already measured in single-serving packets (e.g. nuts), do I need to weigh those too?
  5. Anything else I should know when it comes to weighing food?

Replies

  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    1. That all sounds pretty good
    2. Since grams are smaller, it's best to use that
    3. Yes. Only water has a conversion rate of 1 ml to 1 g.
    4. Ideally, yes. You'd be surprised at how far off the package could be.
  • DoreenaV1975
    DoreenaV1975 Posts: 567 Member
    edited October 2016
    Crazy I just posted about this very subject this morning on my IG account.

    It's long so check it out if you want but if not, the answer above, by @malibu927, is perfect!


    https://instagram.com/p/BLOt5oHDBMs/embed/


  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    My scale has ounces to two decimal points and it increments in .05 ounces. That gives my scale the ability to weigh 20ths of ounces. A gram is approximately one 25th of an ounce, so the gram scale is slightly finer than the ounce scale. In the real world, fuggedaboutit.

    I've been weighing carefully for months and only recently read something that should have been obvious, so I'll repeat it to you. You can have a serving bowl full of a food item for a family and accurately weigh your portion by placing the bowl of food on the scale and then using the tare function to set the scale to 0. Then ladle out your portion to your plate and the negative value shown on the scale is the inverse of how much you got. It's super easy.
  • kathrynjean_
    kathrynjean_ Posts: 428 Member
    The only other thing that I would add is that when possible, you always want to be weighing raw items because this is more accurate than weighing cooked food.

    As well, just because there are always a ton of threads about this that pop up ... You weigh the banana without the skin!
  • not_my_first_rodeo
    not_my_first_rodeo Posts: 311 Member
    Okay, this is great. My current scale doesn't do the decimal point thing, but when money isn't quite so tight I'll look for one with that feature.

    And I will definitely start weighing single-serve foods!

    Thanks everyone!
  • GauchoMark
    GauchoMark Posts: 1,804 Member
    malibu927 wrote: »
    1. That all sounds pretty good
    2. Since grams are smaller, it's best to use that
    3. Yes. Only water has a conversion rate of 1 ml to 1 g.
    4. Ideally, yes. You'd be surprised at how far off the package could be.

    2 - Not really, the scale is mechanical. The accuracy is what it is for both units of measurement. If you look at the specs it will say something like ounces +- 0.05 oz or grams +- 1 gram. Use whichever measurement makes most sense to you. Besides, if you are really worried about the calories of a fraction of a gram, you are really going too far.

    3 - Again, not necessarily. While technically correct, water has a density of 1g/ml, any other food liquid that has a similar consistency as water is going to have a density pretty darn close to 1g/ml as well. If you think about it, they ARE mostly water, too. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap815e/ap815e.pdf In all practicality, you can use the scale to measure liquid as well. Even whole milk has a density of 1.04g/ml - a 4% error if measured as 1g/ml. I am sure your standard measuring cup has more error than 4%. Besides, you would be erring 4% on the conservative side anyways.

    4 - I usually don't unless I suspect a difference. I know its not exact, but it really just depends on how much prepackaged food you eat (I don't eat much) and how much effort you want to put into logging. For me, the purpose of prepackaged food is for when I am out and about and need something easy - in that situation, I am not toting my scale around.
    kathrynjean_ wrote: »
    The only other thing that I would add is that when possible, you always want to be weighing raw items because this is more accurate than weighing cooked food.

    As well, just because there are always a ton of threads about this that pop up ... You weigh the banana without the skin!

    I would also mention that there are cooked entries as well. I'll usually search for something like "chicken breast cooked" and use it. Some foods, like beef or bacon, you really want to log cooked because a bunch of the fat cooks out.

    Good point about the fruit, though - it is just the part you eat.
  • Mumu190672
    Mumu190672 Posts: 76 Member
    The function tare is useful because if you put your plate on the scale, use tare it goes to 0 then add meat 100g and log it then use tare again to set your plate back to 0 and add something else.
  • daniip_la
    daniip_la Posts: 678 Member
    edited October 2016
    GauchoMark wrote: »
    malibu927 wrote: »
    1. That all sounds pretty good
    2. Since grams are smaller, it's best to use that
    3. Yes. Only water has a conversion rate of 1 ml to 1 g.
    4. Ideally, yes. You'd be surprised at how far off the package could be.

    3 - Again, not necessarily. While technically correct, water has a density of 1g/ml, any other food liquid that has a similar consistency as water is going to have a density pretty darn close to 1g/ml as well. If you think about it, they ARE mostly water, too. http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap815e/ap815e.pdf In all practicality, you can use the scale to measure liquid as well. Even whole milk has a density of 1.04g/ml - a 4% error if measured as 1g/ml. I am sure your standard measuring cup has more error than 4%. Besides, you would be erring 4% on the conservative side anyways.

    I agree with using the food scale for other liquids with a density of 1g/mL. What I did was put a graduated cylinder on my food scale, tare it, add however many mL is a serving, and check the mass. I've found that my half & half, for instance, is also 1g/mL (or close enough that the difference didn't matter). So I can weigh it instead of worrying about measuring spoons.

Categories