nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

"Why should I use a food scale?"

yellingkimber

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.

Replies

dawnna76

diannethegeek wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Is it your contention that all calories in all foods are unknowable in any way, shape, or form? Because I've gotta wonder why you bother being here then.

Go back and read about precision vs accuracy. Some of us need it. Some of us find a food scale essier than other methods. Why insist that it's so worthless?

NO his contention is nobody cares for his conversations in real life so he must be overly annoying here in the forum. stop feeding the troll. he will go away.

seriously every post he makes is eyerolling painfully hard to read

inertiastrength

Francl27 wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

what they need is those pasta water bag things like the boil in a bag rice... first world problems

Have you looked at the nutrition label on boil in a bag rice? It's like 4 bags in a box, but there are 'about 10' servings in a box or something. You pretty much have to weigh each bag before cooking if you want to be accurate too.

At least that was the case a year ago when I still used the stuff.

Yeah it seems to be boil in a bag family size servings lol I just meant the concept haha

pinuplove

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

TimothyFish

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

There are also people who use a scale who are convinced they are eating 1,300 calories a day and still gaining.

Tacklewasher

Don't we already have one thread here gone completely off the rails? Do we need another today? Can't it hold off for a day or two?

jessiferrrb

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

There are also people who use a scale who are convinced they are eating 1,300 calories a day and still gaining.

your point?

TimothyFish

jessiferrrb wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

There are also people who use a scale who are convinced they are eating 1,300 calories a day and still gaining.

your point?

Just an observation.

pinuplove

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

There are also people who use a scale who are convinced they are eating 1,300 calories a day and still gaining.

Usually a little digging suggests they're not using the scale *quite* as faithfully or accurately as intended, or else have fallen prey to the many inaccurate database entries here (which is a whole other rabbit hole!) My point is, it's a tool that can be utilized to increase accuracy. But no, as with anything, it is not infallible.

Cortelli

With respect to much of this thread:

SusanMFindlay

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

pinuplove wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

Degrees of inaccuracy. Your '2 hand' method would be far too inaccurate for my taste, but apparently it suits you well so by all means continue measuring that way! No one is telling you not to.

I usually weigh dry things such as pasta in whatever bowl I'm going to serve them in after cooking. It's no bother and isn't dirtying up another dish. I hardly think scooping some dry pasta into a cup is 'dirtying' it, though. I find that preferable to reaching my hand into the box. Your staunch opposition of food scales is frankly baffling at this point.

I just think the discussion is all wrong. I couldn't care less whether people use measuring cups or use a scale. What I have an issue with is the holier-than-thou attitude that people seem to have about using a scale. I own a scale and I use it. I own measuring cups and I use those. I also have hands and eyes. Those work pretty good too. If people are going to claim that the scale will give them an accurate calorie count, but they can't demonstrate that it does give them an accurate calorie count then they're no better off than the person who is trusting that a measuring cup will give them an accurate calorie count. But I suspect they are worse off than the person who is using an inaccurate measuring device knowing that it won't provide an accurate calorie count.

I don't seen any holier than thou attitude from people regarding their scales here at all. We're simply demonstrating that it's a very useful tool for many people. I know I am better off for using a scale. I've tried many times to estimate a proper portion size and then tested myself with the scale. I'm rubbish at it. No big deal. It doesn't make me feel like a failure as a person to need to use a food scale to measure my portions. The proof that weighing works for me is in the results. I'm consistently losing at the rate I'm set to lose. If a person can do that without weighing their food, that great! I can't, so I don't. If I used my eyes and hands to measure, I'd be one of those people convinced they were eating 1300 calories a day and still gaining.

There are also people who use a scale who are convinced they are eating 1,300 calories a day and still gaining.

Sure. Because they're not logging the "splash of cream" in their coffee four times a day. Or they forget to log their midmorning snack. Or they came from Weight Watchers so they don't log fruit and vegetables. Or they don't log their kids' leftovers that they eat. Or never log their weekly cheat day. Lots of different reasons why a person could be eating more than they think. Using measuring cups instead of a scale is only one.

FWIW, the main reason I like the scale is that it's easier. In my house (i.e. the way we cook it), ~200 calories of rice weighs 140 grams. Once I knew that, logging rice became dead easy - no matter how many servings we cooked in the pot. For cooked pasta, ~200 calories = 130 grams (the way we cook it). Take the time to figure it out by doing before-and-after measurements a couple of times, and you get to deal with rice and pasta the easy way for the rest of your life (or, at least, until you decide to change how you cook your rice or pasta).

Theo166

yellingkimber wrote: »

Theo166 wrote: »

Let's not get overly pedantic here.

A scale is essential when you are starting out and when you are stalled but think you are eating to lose. If you are in a predictable rhythm in your eating and loss, it doesn't matter much if you used your hand or a dry cup for liquids.

I weigh things when I'm curious or following a recipe. So far my loss stalls were caused by salt, not under the radar over-consumption.

So, the bolded part is exactly why I posted this in the weight loss section of the forum. It was actually inspired by seeing a bunch of discouraged and stalled posters.

For the italicized part, I just wanted to say for the love of all that is good in the world, please don't measure liquids in a dry cup if you're baking. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I just wanted to add this in case someone heeds that advice and switches between cups when baking. Your results won't come out as intended.

I thought your OP was fantastic, very illustrative to newbies. My comment was directed more at some of the regulars and their response to other regulars (none newbies asking for help).

FreyasRebirth

SusanMFindlay wrote: »

Sure. Because they're not logging the "splash of cream" in their coffee four times a day.

My husband seriously thinks he's using 2 or 3 tablespoons when the coffee is almost white. He will go through a "60 serving" container of coffee creamer in 4 days, and that is without my help!

zyxst

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

You know what I'd love to see posted now?

Someone with access to the proper equipment to measure and burn up 81 grams of dry pasta in a calorimeter and prove it's 289 calories.

LadyLilion

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.

You know guys, I'm 53 years old. I've been cooking for myself for 40 years. I always thought that the proper measurement for pasta was 2 oz dry and that would make 1 cup cooked and that, in my experience, has been close. Works better with spaghetti than anything else. I've never even considered weighing 1 serving of cooked pasta - I've always just weighed the dry, cooked it, then used a measuring cup to serve it. For what it's worth, that has always worked pretty well. If I'm making 4 servings, I cook 8 oz, then measure out four, 1-cup servings. If there's left over I just split it as close as possible into the 4 servings.

Now, measuring would be more accurate I'm sure and I'm not saying it's not. But really, I just can't make myself be that obsessive about the weighing. If 50 calories one way or the other is going to make me gain, or not lose, I've got my calories too high to begin with. That's why I always try to leave a few hundred left over at the end of the day anyway.

But jeeze, some of you folks get testy about it. Let people do what they want. The OP posted a great observation that is really good for newcomers to remember.

Theo166 wrote: »

A scale is essential when you are starting out and when you are stalled but think you are eating to lose.

I completely agree with this. When I first started paying attention to my portions, weighing was essential. Still is for the most part. My husband was floored the first time I cooked pasta and weighed and measured out the servings. He was eating about twice the serving size and had no idea. We weigh most everything now. We eat yogurt and cereal for breakfast - put the bowl on the scale and weigh it. We eat ice cream - bowl on scale and weigh it. Easier than using a measuring cup anyway. As someone said ... albeit for another reason ... why dirty a cup? The scale is both easier and more accurate.

TimothyFish

zyxst wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

You know what I'd love to see posted now?

Someone with access to the proper equipment to measure and burn up 81 grams of dry pasta in a calorimeter and prove it's 289 calories.

Exactly!

gettnmuddy

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.

Let's say I'm cooking some pasta. The bag says the serving size is 56 grams and I want to cook pasta for five nights of dinner. I weigh out 280 grams of dry pasta and cook it. I drain it well and then weigh the results. I take whatever it says on the scale (for example let's say it now weighs 490 grams. I divide that by 5 and get 98 grams. I write "98 g" on a little piece of tape, stick it on the container, and then each day weigh out 98 g of pasta into my dish.

I do that with everything that I make multiple servings of at one time. I weigh the ingredients raw for whatever I'm making in however many servings, then I weigh the total finished product and divide by the servings to put the "serving size" sticker on the container.

earlnabby

heiliskrimsli 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.

Let's say I'm cooking some pasta. The bag says the serving size is 56 grams and I want to cook pasta for five nights of dinner. I weigh out 280 grams of dry pasta and cook it. I drain it well and then weigh the results. I take whatever it says on the scale (for example let's say it now weighs 490 grams. I divide that by 5 and get 98 grams. I write "98 g" on a little piece of tape, stick it on the container, and then each day weigh out 98 g of pasta into my dish.

I do that with everything that I make multiple servings of at one time. I weigh the ingredients raw for whatever I'm making in however many servings, then I weigh the total finished product and divide by the servings to put the "serving size" sticker on the container.

I weigh carefully before cooking, then eyeball the 4 servings. Since I live alone and will be eating the entire dish, it isn't a big deal if I am a little over one day and a little under the next day . . . in the end I will be eating the entire 280 grams of pasta. As long as I am accurate on the front end, the back end will balance out.

Tacklewasher

TimothyFish wrote: »

zyxst wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

You know what I'd love to see posted now?

Someone with access to the proper equipment to measure and burn up 81 grams of dry pasta in a calorimeter and prove it's 289 calories.

Exactly!

Whooosh.

Theo166

I plan to try weigh my coffee next several pots, before I grind. I've read that it is key to getting consistency in your brew strength but my habit is to eyeball and treat every brand the same. I love the scale for experimenting and building self awareness.

Pasta should be dry weight I imagine since it keeps gaining water weight as cooked or used in leftovers.

sjaplo

For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.

When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........

I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.

Wynterbourne

Tacklewasher wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

zyxst wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

fascha wrote: »

TimothyFish wrote: »

ceiswyn 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.

Have I at any point even suggested that a cup measure is better than measuring by weight? The whole thing about the changing weight of pasta came up because Wynterbourne declared with great confidence that 81 grams of pasta is 289 calories. We don't actually know that. Yeah, it is probably somewhere between 280 and 300 calories, but we don't actually know that it is exactly 289 calories. The argument against measuring cups usually goes along the lines of "Cups gives a different amount than a scale. The scale is accurate. Therefore, cups are inaccurate, so use a scale." But if the reason people shouldn't use cups is because they are inaccurate and we can show that a food scale also gives an inaccurate calorie count, doesn't that imply that the food scale shouldn't be used either? Or turn that around. If it is okay to use a food scale even though it is inaccurate, why are people so adamant that people shouldn't use cups?

P.S.: My preferred method of measuring pasta is the two hand method. I reach into the pasta container and grab a couple of small handfuls of pasta and throw it in the pot. It is somewhere around a single serving of pasta. Why dirty up a measuring cup if you don't have to?

You know what I'd love to see posted now?

Someone with access to the proper equipment to measure and burn up 81 grams of dry pasta in a calorimeter and prove it's 289 calories.

Exactly!

Whooosh.

Exactly!

crazyycatlady1

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

Francl27

sjaplo wrote: »

For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.

When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........

I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.

Pasta is 56g per serving.

jennypapage

Francl27 wrote: »

sjaplo wrote: »

For me - weighing pasta showed me that 84g per serving is about twice what I actually need to eat. I weigh out that amount for the two of us and then add whatever sauce.

When you first take the plunge and start weighing food - it is certainly an eye opener for some foods. I'm looking at you cheese, almonds, trail mix...........

I had a boss once who was fond of saying "If you can measure it, you can manage it." He was talking KPIs - but it fits for calorie counting and weight loss/gain.

Pasta is 56g per serving.

depends on where you leave.

Traveler120

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

Sad!

CSARdiver

Traveler120 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

Sad!

How is this sad? Is it sad to balance a checkbook as well?

gettnmuddy

CSARdiver wrote: »

Traveler120 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

Sad!

How is this sad? Is it sad to balance a checkbook as well?

You should also disable the gas gauge in your car.

SezxyStef

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

I've been maintaining for appx 2 years as well and I still use my scale faithfully at home.

I don't take it out of the house but I also still log my food...is that sad as well?

pinuplove

Traveler120 wrote: »

crazyycatlady1 wrote: »

mazdauk wrote: »

My mother-in-law can't understand why she is overweight when "I just have a little bowl of rice and some turkey" and "I only have a light breakfast, just a croissant heated up quickly in the microwave" (like the speed makes a difference!!) yet "I'd love a scrambled egg but its too fatty" (shall we compare the fat content of one egg and a croissant?? No, better not!.
Rice in particular, even simply boiled, is much higher in calories than pasta or potatoes of the same weight.

ETA A scale is also essential in maintenance, or that 30g portion of cereal is 45g before you know it, 100g pasta is 130g and so on.....

4 year maintainer here and I still use my food scale every.single.day. I'll be bringing it with me to the old folks home someday

Sad!

Meh. I routinely go to bed at 9:30, even on the weekends. And I like it. Using a food scale doesn't even rank on the sadness scale of my life :laugh:

STLBADGIRL

OMG...so happy I stumbled on this thread... I don't know why I don't weigh everything - I weigh most things....and this reality check has help nip some questionable things in the bud.

I weigh things like, meats/rice/pasta/nuts/oils/potatoes/fruits...but NEVER bread, eggs or bacon.... I did today, and this is what I found..

Bread according to the package weighs 26g, but it actually weighed 32g
Bacon according to the package weighs 15g, but it actually weighed 18g