Weighing food is the most accurate - was I overestimating before?

Yes, that happened to me. I was underestimating most things and on the money for others. I still spot check with the scale periodically to make sure there's no "creep" and for things I'm unfamiliar with.

ETA: I think it's because I learned about portion sizes years ago and was still going by that. You know the old deck of cards for a serving of meat? a thumb joint for cheese? That sort of thing.

I've also found that I was over estimating some things (mostly vegetables and fruit), but at the same time I was under estimating some of the higher calorie items like nut butters. I guess for me it all evens out, but I like knowing that I'm using accurate numbers now.

It's possible to make the mistake in either direction. Just don't assume that because that one meal was fewer calories than expected, that that means you are overestimating all your calories. You may find you underestimate other things.

mdnorthside wrote: »

cwolfman13 wrote: »

mdnorthside wrote: »

Hey everyone! I've been tracking my calories for about a month now. Just yesterday I got a food scale, which had been my plan since the beginning. I was nervous to use it assuming that I had been underestimating the calories in my food (people usually do). But it seems that is not the case. I just measured out my whole last meal (grilled chicken and Brussels sprouts, toasted ciabatta, and a little tomato soup) and it turned out to be LESS calories than I was expecting! Only about 600 calories, including butter and olive oil. And now that I've finished I'm completely stuffed. I find it hard to believe that this new measure is more accurate, but I have no evidence to the contrary. Has anyone else had this experience?

You find it hard to believe that weighing out 6 ounces of chicken and then logging 6 ounces of chicken is more accurate than just throwing some chicken on your plate and logging whatever?

No... I'm surprised because I *know* it's much more accurate, and yet it turns out to be less calories than I'd suspected. Most people underestimate, so when I didn't have a scale with me (I had one before I moved so I'm familiar with the process) I assumed that's what I was doing. I felt very full for the number of calories I'd eaten. So I was surprised.

There's no reason to be surprised. If our bodies weren't designed to give us cues on how much we should be eating then we would either starve or stuff ourselves so full that we would suffocate. Instead, we tend to stay at about the same weight but gain about a pound per year. It is a little harder when we are trying to lose weight because the cue for that is that we are hungry, but not too hungry. Still, we have a pretty good idea of what we need to eat. People rely on a food scale because they don't trust their natural cues. But it's like a fence. If you build a fence people will go right to the edge, trusting that the fence will keep them from going over. Without the fence people stand back from the danger.

mdnorthside wrote: »

butcher206 wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

A food scale will accurately tell you how much your food weighs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which is why it's important to learn how to log with the most accurate data available. Especially for high calorie things like meat

I've been using only entries with the green check mark indicating the nutritional information has been confirmed. I know that doesn't guarantee they're correct because it's based on how I describe/define what I'm putting in, but I'm doing all I can

Unfortunately, the green check marks are used for both user-created entries and system entries. To find system entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and plug that into MFP.

For packaged foods, I verify the label against what I find in MFP.