"Why should I use a food scale?"
Options
Replies
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.21 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Drussander wrote: »I use the scale now all the time. Even for cereal. If it says grams, ounces, etc., I'll weigh it.
Especially for cereal! It's one of the worst offenders for a single serving size looking all sad and lonely in your bowl. Right up there with ice cream.
I've not figured out how to weigh ice cream and compare to the ml on the label.
So I just assume it has no calories.
Weigh the whole tub of ice cream. (If you're really worried about the weight of the cardboard, weigh an empty tub at some point and adjust your weight accordingly.) That tells you how much the volume listed on the tub weighs. Then calculate the weight of a single serving. Or find an entry in the database where somebody else has done this for you. If there isn't one, make your own and you never have to do the math again.
e.g. A tub of Ben and Jerry's is 500 mL (~2 cups). One serving is 125 mL (~1/2 cup), so one serving is 1/4 of the tub. The whole tub weighs ~420 grams. 420*(1/4) = 105 grams. So, one half-cup serving weighs ~105 grams.
This happens to be true for all of their flavours that I like, and the numbers are similar for other rich dense ice creams like Haagen Dasz and Marble Slab. Fluffier ice creams like Breyers weigh less per half cup and have fewer calories because of that - but their calories-per-gram are pretty similar.2 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »just had this with my bread, 40g is the 1 slice serving....every single slice in the pack weighed 65-68 g
You know I typically weigh everything but bread is something that I never thought to weigh for what ever reason.
*goes to kitchen to weigh a slice of bread*
I had a brand i really liked of rye that was always perfect but this ones "40g per slice/serving" and EVERY piece was 65-67g (at 100 cals per 40g thats a big difference) so im assuming their liars or the mchine was somehow messing up? no clue.1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?2 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?
I'm not rejecting the information on the label. I'm favoring the information that has been stated "by the industry" to be more accurate. The volume measurement is a manufacturer acknowledged estimate because it can vary depending on size and settling of product. The weight is the accepted standard and doesn't change no matter what size the product (broken pieces) or how much it may have settled (dump a box of spaghetti in bag, shake it up, and see how much physical space it's taking up now...). The weight does not change, but the volume can. That's why you always go by the weight.22 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?
I'm not rejecting the information on the label. I'm favoring the information that has been stated "by the industry" to be more accurate. The volume measurement is a manufacturer acknowledged estimate because it can vary depending on size and settling of product. The weight is the accepted standard and doesn't change no matter what size the product (broken pieces) or how much it may have settled (dump a box of spaghetti in bag, shake it up, and see how much physical space it's taking up now...). The weight does not change, but the volume can. That's why you always go by the weight.
^^ This is correct.
For solids, such as dry pasta, the Calories and nutrition information on the Nutrition Facts label is specified by weight, not by volume. The volume measurement provided on the label is an approximation.
US manufacturers follow the US FDA Guidelines for Food Labeling as published in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 101. They must comply with multiple requirements for volume and weight reference amounts on the label for certain food items as detailed in Table 2—Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed Per Eating Occasion: General Food Supply (21 CFR 101.12).
In addition, 21 CFR 101.9 prescribes the volume increments for cups to be specified in 1/4 or 1/3 cup increments, the weight of solids to be specified in grams, and the volume of liquids to be specified in milliliters.
In this instance, the manufacturer choose the reference amount weight from Table 2 for "Pastas, plain" of 55 grams. The manufacturer then needed to determine the closest volume associated with that weight. The manufacturer determined that 56g of that particular shaped pasta as packaged was best approximated by volume as 3/4 cup, as opposed to the smaller choice of 2/3 cup or the larger choice of 1 cup.
Since the nutrition information is determined by weight for solids, the Calories per serving of this pasta would be determined by the weight of the reference amount, not the volume.
Reference:
21 CFR 101, US Government Printing Office, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=180974239ef9b4b85a6a1d2741ff331e&mc=true&n=pt21.2.101&r=PART&ty=HTML24 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?
19 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
THIS is great pasta--bronze cut too. Most durum grain pastas weigh about the same--dry. Barilla for 81g is 290.79 cal so your calculations are dead on--sorry Fish.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?
I'm not rejecting the information on the label. I'm favoring the information that has been stated "by the industry" to be more accurate. The volume measurement is a manufacturer acknowledged estimate because it can vary depending on size and settling of product. The weight is the accepted standard and doesn't change no matter what size the product (broken pieces) or how much it may have settled (dump a box of spaghetti in bag, shake it up, and see how much physical space it's taking up now...). The weight does not change, but the volume can. That's why you always go by the weight.
What if I were to tell you that the weight of pasta does change?0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »yellingkimber wrote: »So, I was in the middle of prepping dinner when suddenly, I remembered seeing a zillion posts of people not understanding why a food scale is useful to have when trying to lose weight. "But I use measuring cups!" I got curious, so I decided to weigh out a serving of pasta and then see how it fit into measuring cups.
Here's what a serving of tonight's pasta looks like.
Here it is weighed out.
Naturally, I realized afterward that I don't even have a 3/4 cup measuring cup, so I made do. Not ideal, but I could have stuffed so much more pasta in that 1/4 cup!
Seriously, look how much room is left over.
It took me another 15 g of pasta to fill'er up. If my math is right, that's another 48 calories worth of pasta that I wouldn't have been accounting for, which isn't that bad, but that's only for one ingredient of my dinner! I was thinking about putting bacon in the sauce. Info on the back of the package says "2 slices or 15 grams" - one slice is 15 grams, which I wouldn't have known without my scale. That would have been an additional 70 calories, which means I would have been 118 calories over what I thought I was consuming!
If you're one of those people that says "I'm eating 1200 calories and I'm not losing a pound!" I highly suggest buying a scale. The one I'm using was only $7 at Walmart.
It seems to me that all you have shown is that 2oz (56 grams) of pasta really is equal to 3/4 cup of pasta, as long a you use level measuring cups. In the picture, the 1/2 cup measure is overstuffed, but there is plenty of room in the 1/4 cup measure to take the overflow to get it down to a level cup.
Curious what you think my picture shows then...
The pasta in your picture looks like it has been cooked. 1 cup of dry pasta makes about 2.25 cups of cooked pasta. So the cup that you are saying is 289 calories is more like 100 calories.
Sorry, but it is indeed dry pasta. It's called campanelle. Let me take another picture for you since I have some in the cabinet. I stand by my weighing, my math, and my calculations. I have no reason to create an image that's a lie. Do you need me to take new pictures of the cup on my scale from multiple angles so you can see that it is indeed a level cup that weighs 81 grams and is indeed 289 calories?
No, that's fine. With the second picture I can see that it that it is dry. I'll even agree with you that it weighs 81 grams. But can you prove that it is 289 calories?
Are you serious?
The label says 1 cup (56g) = 200 calories.
81g ÷ 56g = 1.45g
1.45g x 200 calories = 289 calories.
On food labels, the volume is a given to be an estimate while the weight is the more accurate measurement. And yes, we know that the calories on food labels are allowed to have up to a 20% discrepancy, so while I can not *prove* that it may not be exactly 289 calories it does prove that a volume measured serving for this pasta is indeed a 44.5% caloric increase from the labeled weighed serving size.
Yes, I'm serious. You are willing to reject the information on the label because the weight per cup doesn't match what they claim. Why should you turn around and accept the information on the label at face value concerning the number of calories? Have you stopped to think why they would list it as one cup is 56 grams if one cup is actually 81 grams? Why would the weight of a cup at the manufacturer be less than one in your home?
I'm not rejecting the information on the label. I'm favoring the information that has been stated "by the industry" to be more accurate. The volume measurement is a manufacturer acknowledged estimate because it can vary depending on size and settling of product. The weight is the accepted standard and doesn't change no matter what size the product (broken pieces) or how much it may have settled (dump a box of spaghetti in bag, shake it up, and see how much physical space it's taking up now...). The weight does not change, but the volume can. That's why you always go by the weight.
What if I were to tell you that the weight of pasta does change?
Proof.0 -
Pasta is a pain. You need to weigh it dry, but who cooks just one serving? I'm always eyeballing my serving once cooked and I suspect it's not very accurate.1
-
Fascha burned 200 calories doing 10 minutes of shaking her head21
-
TimothyFish wrote: »What if I were to tell you that the weight of pasta does change?
Then I would look at you funny.
The only way in which the mass of an item can change is if you either add mass to it (eg water mass when you cook it) or remove mass from it.
I am looking forwards to hearing how the dry weight of pasta changes.
7 -
Good thread!0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »What if I were to tell you that the weight of pasta does change?
Then I would look at you funny.
The only way in which the mass of an item can change is if you either add mass to it (eg water mass when you cook it) or remove mass from it.
I am looking forwards to hearing how the dry weight of pasta changes.
Manufacturers aim for a moisture content of 12% in dry pasta and the nutritional information is probably based on pasta with 12% moisture content. But it is legal to ship dry pasta with as much as 13% moisture content and I doubt a manufacturer would destroy a batch of pasta if the moisture content was 11% instead of the desired 12%. The humidity in the air is generally higher than 12%, so pasta that is exposed to air will tend to increase in moisture content over time, but in a dry climate it could decrease in moisture content.2 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »What if I were to tell you that the weight of pasta does change?
Then I would look at you funny.
The only way in which the mass of an item can change is if you either add mass to it (eg water mass when you cook it) or remove mass from it.
I am looking forwards to hearing how the dry weight of pasta changes.
Manufacturers aim for a moisture content of 12% in dry pasta and the nutritional information is probably based on pasta with 12% moisture content. But it is legal to ship dry pasta with as much as 13% moisture content and I doubt a manufacturer would destroy a batch of pasta if the moisture content was 11% instead of the desired 12%. The humidity in the air is generally higher than 12%, so pasta that is exposed to air will tend to increase in moisture content over time, but in a dry climate it could decrease in moisture content.
This is getting very esoteric and does not in any way illustrate how the cup measure would be better than the dry weight measure.
13 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Pasta is a pain. You need to weigh it dry, but who cooks just one serving? I'm always eyeballing my serving once cooked and I suspect it's not very accurate.
that's easy to do. weigh the amount of servings you want to cook dry. let's say you cook for 4 people, so 4 servings. that would be 340gr. of dry pasta (85gr/serv.)After cooking, weigh the cooked pasta. Divide the weight by 4. That number is the weight per serving.4 -
jennypapage wrote: »Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »Pasta is a pain. You need to weigh it dry, but who cooks just one serving? I'm always eyeballing my serving once cooked and I suspect it's not very accurate.
that's easy to do. weigh the amount of servings you want to cook dry. let's say you cook for 4 people, so 4 servings. that would be 340gr. of dry pasta (85gr/serv.)After cooking, weigh the cooked pasta. Divide the weight by 4. That number is the weight per serving.
Pasta is like a science experiment in my house. 2 kids a serving each, a bulking bf who eats about 3 lol (bowls everywhere)
2 -
what they need is those pasta water bag things like the boil in a bag rice... first world problems
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions