Food scale

cmtigger wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

snickerscharlie wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

As long as you are losing weight, it doesn't matter if you use one or not. People on here assume that by more accurately knowing the quantity of food they will add accuracy to their calorie counts. The irony is that if a scale would cause you to eat less of one food but more of others that you could actually move yourself farther from the correct calorie count. This is because there is much variation in food and even the way we digest food can result in a different calorie count than is on the label.

Some people love to weigh their food. They get a kick out of recording details. The rest of us are better of just assuming that we'll have inaccuracies and adjust our eating based on what we see on the bathroom scale instead of the kitchen scale.

Can you elaborate on this:

1) How would weighing your food cause you eat less of one food but more of others?

2) How can digestion change the caloric value of the food ingested?

The first has already been addressed, so I won't belabor that, but I'll say something about the second.

There are a couple of ways that food companies determine what to put on their labels. One is by grinding the food to a pulp, removing the water, and then burning it to see how much energy is given off. The other is doing an analysis of what the food is made of and then matching those up with the calories for each one. We all know that wood gives off energy when you burn it. Back in the 80's there was something of an uproar when people discovered that bread companies were using wood in their recipes for high-fiber bread. Why? Because even though wood has a lot of calories the human body doesn't digest it very well. It exits the body in much the same state as it went in. So the food calories would be lower than indicated by burning the bread.

Consider carrots. 0.41 calories per gram. If you grind it to a pulp so that it is easy to digest you would likely get every one of those calories and maybe more. But suppose you chopped the carrot up into pea size pieces and you swallowed those without chewing. These wouldn't digest as easily and portions of them might make it through your system without being fully digested. So the same type of food having the same weight would yield a different number of food calories because of the way digestion works.

wow really??? I had a response typed out but had to delete it...the strike I would get for it just isn't worth it.

But I will say this...moot and inane this post is.

OP scales are more accurate period.

If you want assurances that when you step on the scale it will go down getting a food scale for use is a good idea...if you aren't that concerned continue with the cups etc...

I have a scale bought it in 2013...still use it for logging and cooking.

Without begging the question, can you show that the calorie count on food that you weigh is more accurate than on food that you measure with a cup?

cmtigger wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

As long as you are losing weight, it doesn't matter if you use one or not. People on here assume that by more accurately knowing the quantity of food they will add accuracy to their calorie counts. The irony is that if a scale would cause you to eat less of one food but more of others that you could actually move yourself farther from the correct calorie count. This is because there is much variation in food and even the way we digest food can result in a different calorie count than is on the label.

Some people love to weigh their food. They get a kick out of recording details. The rest of us are better of just assuming that we'll have inaccuracies and adjust our eating based on what we see on the bathroom scale instead of the kitchen scale.

that's great for those who have bathroom scales...or have an idea of what 4oz of meat...

and there is no way if you are using a food scale correctly that you could cause yourself to be further from an accurate calorie count...and the variations you speak of are not big enough to cause worry...

OP a scale may mean more food too...ie a serving size in cups of cereal vs the weight is a case where you get less...cottage cheese you get more.

and the bolded is just so telling...I know there is a typo in there but I wonder if it wasn't your brain doing it on purpose...*smirks*

ETA: and I would rather not have to wait for it to show up on the bathroom scale and that is why a food scale is a better option.

How much does a calorie weigh?

When you weigh your food and then convert that into a calorie count, you are assuming that the calories per gram in food of that type is a constant. This is not the case. You can literally take 4oz of meat from two cows with the same mother and raised in the same field and find a significant difference in the number of calories.

You mention that you get more cottage cheese if you use a scale rather than a measuring cup. There's a reason for this and it is one that nullifies your claim that a kitchen scale won't cause greater inaccuracies. When the calorie count for cottage cheese is calculated they include the whey along with the curds. When you scoop out cottage cheese you tend to leave the whey behind. The whey is mostly water, so it doesn't add as many calories but it adds significant weight. The curds will record a lower number on the scale, but they contain more of the calories, resulting in logging more calories than are indicated by the weight.

IIRC, cottage cheese has most of whey drained and they mix in a little milk or cream for creaminess.

The concept is still the same. By weight milk contains fewer calories than the curds, so anyone who weighs the curds without the milk will get more calories per gram than what is listed on the package.

I'm not sure what cottage cheese you are buying, but mine doesn't have enough liquid to leave a bunch, if any, behind.

Yeah, and eventually I eat the whole carton. So maybe there are more calories in the first couple of servings, and fewer in the last couple. Meh. Averages out. SMH.

And

"TimothyFish wrote: »

Without begging the question, can you show that the calorie count on food that you weigh is more accurate than on food that you measure with a cup?

Sure, but it will be unpersuasive to anyone who resists being persuaded.

We have two main variables, the nature of the food substance itself, and the amount of that substance.

Consider an apple. Apple 1 may be sweeter than apple 2, denser, more fibrous, etc. - that's obvious. Can't pin that down better without a chem lab, and the apples would be destroyed in the process, so you couldn't eat them.

What else is relevant besides the chemical composition of the apple? The amount of apple. So, let's keep this simple. We'll peel & chop the apple, and put it in a cup. More or less apple will fit in the cup depending on the size & shape of the cup, and the size and shape of the chunks. Can't pin down the difference in quantity. Our cup, and our chunks, may differ from those used by the person who created the calorie database entry.

More normally, we want to eat the apple whole. So, how to figure the quantity of apple? Measure the diameter? Eyeball it? Not very precise quantity measures. Diameter of a tall apple vs. a short squat one? Hmmm.

What other alternative do we have? Weigh the apple, eat the apple, weigh the core and any other leftover bits, subtract. We've pinned down the quantity of apple fairly accurately, within the order of error of the scale. Side benefits: Takes seconds, and we get to eat the apple out of hand.

So, in all cases, we can't pin down the "calorie density" of our very precise particular apple. But we have varying ability to pin down the quantity of apple, and match it to the quantity used in creating the calorie database. The better measures will give us a better calorie estimate than the worse measures. Weighing is a better measure.

Does the difference make a meaningful difference with apples? Not really - they're not that calorie dense. Does it make a difference with, say, walnut kernel halves? Yes. They're pretty calorie dense.

Is it impossible to lose weight without weighing food? Of course not.

It's entirely possible to lose weight either way.

Is weighing food a more accurate calorie estimating approach than eyeballing or measuring cups/spoons? Yes, somewhat. And sometimes, to some people, in some circumstances, that can be important.

To others, weighing food is an annoying complication that doesn't help them. They don't need to weigh food.

I don't really know why this is a religious argument (on either side) on MFP. If weighing fits your circumstances and you want to do it, swell. Learn how to do it most efficiently. If it doesn't fit your circumstances and you don't want to do it, don't.

When I switched from using measuring cups, tablespoons, etc. to a scale, I realized I was actually under eating. When I was measuring my food I knew there would be a discrepancy so to make up for it I ate a little bit less of it. Now that I'm weighing my food I actually feel like I have a little bit more freedom and I definitely am eating more. I'm also more comfortable knowing my calorie counts are much more accurate.

I myself weigh my veggies, meat and is working great for me.