Milk by... WEIGHT!?!?!

PAV8888
PAV8888 Posts: 14,421 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
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" :lol:

If you ever get the urge to weigh your milk, here are a few handy references for you to consult :wink:
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.
«1

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • icemom011
    icemom011 Posts: 999 Member
    My scale has specific setting for weighing milk, not that i use it, but...
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    *fist bump* Yay! Another liquid measurer!
  • IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt
    IdLikeToLoseItLoseIt Posts: 695 Member
    I weigh my whip cream and Ranch dressing in grams, but I haven't tried milk!
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    edited February 2018
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    I log everything by weight, including milk and oil. I'm an oddball then.
  • Purplebunnysarah
    Purplebunnysarah Posts: 3,252 Member
    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).
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited February 2018
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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!
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited February 2018
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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.
    seska422 wrote: »
    If the nutritional information lists grams for the liquid, that's ideal and you can weigh.

  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,421 Member
    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.
  • tar2323
    tar2323 Posts: 141 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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.
    seska422 wrote: »
    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.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited February 2018
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    tar2323 wrote: »
    It's a liquid with calories - why wouldn't I weigh it? 140cals of my 1200 a day are 'spent' on milk for tea.
    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.

    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.
    seska422 wrote: »
    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 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.

    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.
  • sugaraddict4321
    sugaraddict4321 Posts: 15,898 MFP Moderator
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    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! :)

  • TurtleTape
    TurtleTape Posts: 254 Member
    MistressSara wrote: »
    icemom011 wrote: »
    My scale has specific setting for weighing milk, not that i use it, but...

    That's kind of cool. Can it differentiate between butterfat percentages?

    Not who you asked, but mine just has a single setting for milk.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,065 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    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 :blush:

    That was not the result I got when I tried it (with spray olive oil). There was an unreasonably large reading for a small duration of spray. It made so many exclamation points pop up around my head that I didn't try it 3 times. I'll try it again on your recommendation.

    For the spray whipping cream, I'm thinking you underestimate my desired portion size. I rarely buy it, but when I do, I might as well log ((labeled servings per can) X (labeled calories per serving)), because the whole thing will be gone in a few days anyway. Happily, there are surprisingly few calories in a full can . . . lots, but still surprisingly few. ;)

  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I have 200ml of Almond milk in my smoothie everyday, all i did was measure the 200ml in a measuring cup, and pour into another cup on my scale to see the actual weight, I did the same with my regular milk. So now,i don't bother with annoying measuring cups for milk any more.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,117 Member
    If I'm just pouring it into coffee or tea or on cereal, or pouring it into a glass or cup to drink, without following a recipe that specifies the amount by volume, it's a lot easier to weigh than to use (and dirty) a measuring cup or measuring spoon. I use USDA entries for commodities like milk (by fat %) and half and half, and they all have serving unit options in grams.
  • lightenup2016
    lightenup2016 Posts: 1,055 Member
    I've recently begun weighing my wine in oz. Is there any reason this wouldn't be very accurate? I'm logging 25 cal per oz. I figure wine is not much denser than water, but not sure how accurate this is.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,421 Member
    lightenup2016 wrote: »
    I've recently begun weighing my wine in oz. Is there any reason this wouldn't be very accurate? I'm logging 25 cal per oz. I figure wine is not much denser than water, but not sure how accurate this is.

    http://web2.slc.qc.ca/jmc/w05/Wine/results.htm
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,117 Member
    lightenup2016 wrote: »
    I've recently begun weighing my wine in oz. Is there any reason this wouldn't be very accurate? I'm logging 25 cal per oz. I figure wine is not much denser than water, but not sure how accurate this is.

    Slightly less (not more) dense, which means weighing in ounces and using that number to log with an entry where the serving unit is fluid ounces means that you're slightly under-counting the calories. It's not a big deal, unless you're drinking a lot on a regular basis, in which case I'd be more concerned about how you're fitting in the nutrients your body needs within your calorie limit (among other things).
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,341 Member
    Well I guess I am the odd one out - on this thread anyway - I dont weigh these things.

    the only time I have whipped cream is when I am out somewhere and treat myself to a cake or something - and then I guesstimate the amount - because not home with scale.

    The skim milk in my coffee I measured once in ml - I then just assume every coffee I have has same amount -because averages out.
    I have been drinking white coffee for years, my mugs are all around the same size and I know how I like it, proportions are not going to change significantly.

    If i drink plain milk or put milk in a recipe, I measure it in mls with little jug - no more contorting to read that than to read scale and then gets poured from there straight into mixing bowl or my drinking cup.

    Or i drink it directly from measuring jug, done that before.
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,745 Member
    I weigh most liquids and generally just assume the density is the same as water, because for most drinkable liquids, it is.

    The only things which are going to make a drinkable liquid a different density are fat (makes it lighter), alcohol (lighter) and sugar (heavier). Fibre, eg in smoothies or soup, is more or less neutral buoyancy and has no noticeable effect one way or the other. Even wet foods like stews are very close to water density. It's low-moisture foods, and foods that trap air (eg ice cream, whipped cream), that can be drastically different.

    Fat content in even whole milk is so low that the difference is within margin of error - 4% fat only makes a 0.8% difference in density. Kitchen scales just aren't that accurate! Sugar content likewise, and even alcohol won't make a noticeable difference unless we're talking about hard spirits.

    Granted heavy cream will be noticeably lighter than water, but you're still looking at a bigger inaccuracy in using a volume measure than the density difference would produce.

    I weigh oil, too. It's 80% as dense as water, roughly, so 8g is 10ml. I just estimate that in my head.

  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,745 Member
    Just to add, in case anyone is wondering "what about salt?" - even if you're a salt junkie, the concentration in your food is too low to materially affect the density. Even sea water is only 2.5% more dense than fresh, and sea water is, proverbially, far too salty to drink.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories