Milk by... WEIGHT!?!?!
Options
PAV8888
Posts: 13,649 Member
There we were having fun in another thread, and @MistressSara and @crazyravr were going at it regarding whipping cream! Then @MistressSara said: "You can weigh milk too if you like, but most people don't."
Well... I am most certainly NOT "most people"
If you ever get the urge to weigh your milk, here are a few handy references for you to consult
Fat free milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/134?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=Milk+skim
1% milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/154?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=Milk+1%
2% milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/153?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=fd_s&qlookup=Milk+2%
Whole milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/180?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=35&sort=fd_s&qlookup=Milk+whole
Cream, fluid, half and half: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/49?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Cream, fluid, light whipping: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/51?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Cream, fluid, heavy, whipping: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/52?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Commonly found 2% creamers are just about 10g in the Greater Vancouver area in BC, Canada, while 10% and 18% creamers are just about 9g (I mention the area because I've seen larger looking ones elsewhere)
If you know your cows and your fat %:
http://ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/Milkcompsynth/milkcomp_density.html
More generally: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AliciaNoelleJones.shtml
By the way, I am willing to bet you a dollar, that most people who will use a "tablespoon" of pressurized whipped cream in their coffee or on their cupcake... are not going to use 3.75g worth (60g in cup / 16 tablespoons in a cup)... Cream, whipped, cream topping, pressurized: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/53?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
I note that I far from have my knickers in a knot as to whether anyone else weights or measures their whipping cream or milk... I just find it easier to consistently measure using a scale as opposed to spending calories contorting to eye level to avoid parallax errors when measuring using cups or similar randomly acquired and approximately marked graduated vessels.
Well... I am most certainly NOT "most people"
If you ever get the urge to weigh your milk, here are a few handy references for you to consult
Fat free milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/134?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=Milk+skim
1% milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/154?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=Milk+1%
2% milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/153?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=fd_s&qlookup=Milk+2%
Whole milk - https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/180?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=35&sort=fd_s&qlookup=Milk+whole
Cream, fluid, half and half: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/49?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Cream, fluid, light whipping: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/51?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Cream, fluid, heavy, whipping: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/52?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
Commonly found 2% creamers are just about 10g in the Greater Vancouver area in BC, Canada, while 10% and 18% creamers are just about 9g (I mention the area because I've seen larger looking ones elsewhere)
If you know your cows and your fat %:
http://ansci.illinois.edu/static/ansc438/Milkcompsynth/milkcomp_density.html
More generally: https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/AliciaNoelleJones.shtml
By the way, I am willing to bet you a dollar, that most people who will use a "tablespoon" of pressurized whipped cream in their coffee or on their cupcake... are not going to use 3.75g worth (60g in cup / 16 tablespoons in a cup)... Cream, whipped, cream topping, pressurized: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/53?manu=&fgcd=&ds=Standard Reference
I note that I far from have my knickers in a knot as to whether anyone else weights or measures their whipping cream or milk... I just find it easier to consistently measure using a scale as opposed to spending calories contorting to eye level to avoid parallax errors when measuring using cups or similar randomly acquired and approximately marked graduated vessels.
11
Replies
-
Exercise calories from squats required to contort myself into placing the measuring cup at eye level seem to counterbalance measurement errors in my skimmed milk calories. Meniscus is helpfully obvious in skimmed milk, too.
I see your point with respect to higher calorie alternatives, and especially aerosol whipped cream. With the latter, though, one wouldn't want to tare the container and read the negative, 'cos propellants. One troubling wrinkle: My food scale will not accept my full body weight, and my body scale is not sensitive to few-grams weight changes. Therefore, the frequent use-case, in which I squirt the stuff directly into my mouth, is problematic. (It's OK, I live alone.)
Seriously: Good point. Sometimes it doesn't even occur to people to weigh liquids.14 -
My scale has specific setting for weighing milk, not that i use it, but...2
-
*fist bump* Yay! Another liquid measurer!2
-
I weigh my whip cream and Ranch dressing in grams, but I haven't tried milk!1
-
It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.4
-
As a sidenote Ann, I've noticed that for the quantities I use (generally less than 5g) Pam spray which includes propellant and oil... well the negative spray can method, and measuring the frying pan or casserole before and/after spraying yielded identical results the three times I tried (I was using a full gram rounding scale). So I now go with the negative spray can method for ease
5 -
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.8 -
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
I weigh liquids in mls - my scale gives me that option, but I take your point.1 -
My scale gives that option too. The problem is that it's only accurate for water. The instructions probably say that somewhere. All the scale is doing is slapping a "ml" label on the "g" measurement it's taking. You can't weigh a volume.
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
I weigh liquids in mls - my scale gives me that option, but I take your point.
That "ml" label gives a false sense of accuracy but people probably asked to be able to weigh volumes and the manufacturers decided to at least make it look like the scale could do that.5 -
I log everything by weight, including milk and oil. I'm an oddball then.4
-
Weighing liquids works fine at 1 mL = 1 g for liquids that are mostly water (those where the density would round to between 0.99 and 1.01). I use it for milk all the time (except for my coffee because I only use a splash... weighed it for a while and was fairly consistent so I just assume now).0
-
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
That could be an issue if you're doing a direct g to ml conversion for higher calorie liquids, but if the entry is in grams already, logging by weight works the same as logging solids by weight like you explained. I find the scale way more convenient than anything, so all of my frequent foods are in grams. i even created entries specifically for things that are in ml and it was worth it!2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
That could be an issue if you're doing a direct g to ml conversion for higher calorie liquids, but if the entry is in grams already, logging by weight works the same as logging solids by weight.
That's true and I did say that.If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh.
1 -
Weighing small amounts is actually probably more accurate than eyeballing. The same applies even to things with a small density difference.
I sometimes use http://foodinfo.us/Densities.aspx
And convert from cup to ml using 240 instead of 237 because that's what I believe USDA standard reference is using.1 -
My scale gives that option too. The problem is that it's only accurate for water. The instructions probably say that somewhere. All the scale is doing is slapping a "ml" label on the "g" measurement it's taking. You can't weigh a volume.
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
I weigh liquids in mls - my scale gives me that option, but I take your point.
That "ml" label gives a false sense of accuracy but people probably asked to be able to weigh volumes and the manufacturers decided to at least make it look like the scale could do that.
I use skimmed milk which is pretty much like water, density-wise, so I think the ml measurements in this case will be pretty accurate.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
That could be an issue if you're doing a direct g to ml conversion for higher calorie liquids, but if the entry is in grams already, logging by weight works the same as logging solids by weight.
That's true and I did say that.If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh.
Yes, I realized it didn't look like I was agreeing with you (I was) so I edited my reply. I still think weighing is easier, and that's more accurate is a nice bonus. I've been weighing my foods (and liquids) from day 1, didn't even occur to me to do it any other way because I don't want to do extra dishes or go through all the bending and squinting to real the ml level. Why so many people are against it, I have no idea.3 -
I completely agree that weighing is easier and that's what I do. I couldn't tell you the last time I used measuring cups and spoons. I've found things that have grams on the label or use them in small amounts so that weighing is close enough for my purposes or look up the specific gravity and do the math so that I can create an MFP entry in grams.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
You need to be mindful about weighing non-water liquids since different densities have different weights for the same volume. That's why people say weigh solids and measure liquids.It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh. If the nutritional information lists milliliters, that can't just be weighed (unless it has the density of water) because 500 ml might weigh significantly more or less than 500 g.
I do still weigh condiments (including milk for tea and salad dressing) for the sake of convenience since they are in small amounts but I keep in mind that it's an estimate. Weighing small amounts of liquids is a better estimate for me than eyeballing.
That could be an issue if you're doing a direct g to ml conversion for higher calorie liquids, but if the entry is in grams already, logging by weight works the same as logging solids by weight.
That's true and I did say that.If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh.
Yes, I realized it didn't look like I was agreeing with you (I was) so I edited my reply. I still think weighing is easier, and that's more accurate is a nice bonus. I've been weighing my foods (and liquids) from day 1, didn't even occur to me to do it any other way because I don't want to do extra dishes or go through all the bending and squinting to real the ml level. Why so many people are against it, I have no idea.
I'm not against weighing at all. I just want people to understand that milliliters can't be weighed (just like meters can't be weighed) and, if they are weighing something that has the nutritional information in milliliters, that may not be as accurate as they think it is.1 -
By the way, I am willing to bet you a dollar, that most people who will use a "tablespoon" of pressurized whipped cream in their coffee or on their cupcake... are not going to use 3.75g worth (60g in cup / 16 tablespoons in a cup)...
Correct in my case. I weigh my pressurized whipped cream and it's never equal to a tablespoon. Minimum 10 grams, please!
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions