Fun size M&Ms not so fun when I go to log
checkmatekingtwo
Posts: 118 Member
Was at a department meeting today during my lunch period. They had a big bowl of fun size M&Ms. I had never had the caramel or peanut butter M&Ms, so I tried both fun sizes --- would go ahead and log them before I went back to my classroom for lunch.
Yikes! At 90 calories each, those two fun sizes wound up replacing what would have been my 180 calorie Progresso soup.
Thank goodness I checked BEFORE making the soup. Yes.... I have very small lunches, so I can have a nice filling dinner at night.
Well, gonna avoid those fun-sizes in the future.
Yikes! At 90 calories each, those two fun sizes wound up replacing what would have been my 180 calorie Progresso soup.
Thank goodness I checked BEFORE making the soup. Yes.... I have very small lunches, so I can have a nice filling dinner at night.
Well, gonna avoid those fun-sizes in the future.
10
Replies
-
The fun-sizes are certainly higher than expected for how small they are! We had the fun size candy bars at work (milky way, snickers, etc) and I could definitely eat a chunk out of my calories with just a couple pieces. I do like them, though, because they are a good balance between a full-size, which is too much, and a mini-size, which is too small to feel satisfying.0
-
Wow! I usually expect fun size packs to be anywhere from 45 (very few) to 50 or 60 Cal (most common). Double checked your 90 and was surprised to find it was correct!!!
Just a quick note that it is sometimes OK to go over and still eat normally so as to prevent leaving yourself too hungry and then over-eating on the re-bound or making thing too difficult.
Going over by 200 Cal once or twice might slightly delay, but will not permanently derail or stop weight loss. Giving up because weight loss is too difficult on the other hand...27 -
In the old days, you would have eaten it all without thinking twice. At least I would have, that's how I wound up here, so I assume that's true if just about everyone else here too. Anyway, this whole thing has changed the way you approach food, for the better, and that's pretty awesome.12
-
The fun is what Mars Corp adds to the family wealth fund.
7 -
Nice job passing on those!8
-
Personally I would have eaten the soup. 180 calories is not that much to start and spending it all on a half a handful of candy would not have been satisfying. I don't require perfection or strict adherence for myself when a mistake has been made. Weight loss takes a long time and so far the overwhelming majority of days I have been within my calorie goal. There have also been days I have been over by a little and days I have been over by a lot.
12 -
Wow! I usually expect fun size packs to be anywhere from 45 (very few) to 50 or 60 Cal (most common). Double checked your 90 and was surprised to find it was correct!!!
Just a quick note that it is sometimes OK to go over and still eat normally so as to prevent leaving yourself too hungry and then over-eating on the re-bound or making thing too difficult.
Going over by 200 Cal once or twice might slightly delay, but will not permanently derail or stop weight loss. Giving up because weight loss is too difficult on the other hand...
I eat a lot of fun size and I disagree. I think 80-90 is the most common. That includes Snickers, Almond Joy, Baby Ruth, Milky Way, Oreo candy bars (those new sugar bombs), M&Ms. 3 Musketeers, etc. There are bite size and miniatures in some brands that are smaller and fun size York patties are only 50. But if you aren't sure and it is fun size, figure on it being about 85.6 -
There is a candy dish (usually has fun size candy bars) on a small table in the center of the work area I share with 8 people. The dish was empty and one of the managers came by and dumped some candy in it. A guy and girl I work with literally jumped up and dove at the dish trying to get there first (this is in an office of professionals working for a multi-billion$ company). I like both of them, but it really looked like someone threw a steak between a couple dogs.
I've eaten maybe 5 pieces of candy from the dish in the 2 months it's been there. Thought I'd be a good sport and bought $10 worth of Halloween fun size candy to stock it. Took 1/2 of it one day and it was gone. Took the other 1/2 the next day, that was gone. Since I'm right next to the table, I see several people making daily double digit visits to the dish.
I'm personally done contributing.4 -
Yeah that’s crazy, and those portions are not even satisfying, it’s just a tease ! I’d rather just make room in my calorie allowance and have full size.4
-
CarvedTones wrote: »Wow! I usually expect fun size packs to be anywhere from 45 (very few) to 50 or 60 Cal (most common). Double checked your 90 and was surprised to find it was correct!!!
Just a quick note that it is sometimes OK to go over and still eat normally so as to prevent leaving yourself too hungry and then over-eating on the re-bound or making thing too difficult.
Going over by 200 Cal once or twice might slightly delay, but will not permanently derail or stop weight loss. Giving up because weight loss is too difficult on the other hand...
I eat a lot of fun size and I disagree. I think 80-90 is the most common. That includes Snickers, Almond Joy, Baby Ruth, Milky Way, Oreo candy bars (those new sugar bombs), M&Ms. 3 Musketeers, etc. There are bite size and miniatures in some brands that are smaller and fun size York patties are only 50. But if you aren't sure and it is fun size, figure on it being about 85.
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
0 -
This is great. I've learned that lesson long ago, that just because it's unplanned it's not without calories even if it looks small/benign. I would still have a piece or two every now and then, but it's never "just because they're there and I want to try them". Asking "is it worth the calories" is very important to my dieting process, sometimes it's worth it, sometimes it's worth it "later", and other times it's not worth it. Whatever the outcome, I always have to ask myself this question for any unplanned snack or craving.
You should feel good about this because it's a step closer to you crafting your own strategies around food that are more likely to stick with you because they're a result of an experience you had, not just arbitrary rules.6 -
16 -
CarvedTones wrote: »Wow! I usually expect fun size packs to be anywhere from 45 (very few) to 50 or 60 Cal (most common). Double checked your 90 and was surprised to find it was correct!!!
Just a quick note that it is sometimes OK to go over and still eat normally so as to prevent leaving yourself too hungry and then over-eating on the re-bound or making thing too difficult.
Going over by 200 Cal once or twice might slightly delay, but will not permanently derail or stop weight loss. Giving up because weight loss is too difficult on the other hand...
I eat a lot of fun size and I disagree. I think 80-90 is the most common. That includes Snickers, Almond Joy, Baby Ruth, Milky Way, Oreo candy bars (those new sugar bombs), M&Ms. 3 Musketeers, etc. There are bite size and miniatures in some brands that are smaller and fun size York patties are only 50. But if you aren't sure and it is fun size, figure on it being about 85.
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
Some people just don't know how to have fun.
I like having some of those smaller ones around also, though I can end up with more calories instead of less. The Baby Ruth minis are 52 calories which is a savings of about 30 calories from the fun size except I often end up eating 2 instead of 1.
I am the carb king; I know my candy.
I am making it fit; finally getting pretty settled in to keep close to the middle of my maintenance range. 4 -
I find most snack sized bars are around 100 cals. Usually have at least one of those a day to get my choccie hit. If we know the calories, we can plan for them.2
-
Yeah that’s crazy, and those portions are not even satisfying, it’s just a tease ! I’d rather just make room in my calorie allowance and have full size.
I think it depends on the person who is eating them. There are things that I have found that a single bite or very few bites are enough. Most sweets are on that list. I wouldn't want the hassle of a full-sized Snickers bar for instance because it has to be wrapped back up for when I want another bite.
I have seen someone else mention that there is science to back up that the first taste or two of anything is the strongest. I have never looked into it personally. There are things that I want a volume to satisfy me too like a juicy steak. I have just learned I don't need quantity on everything and I am sure it varies from person to person. I am not sure I can ever stress this enough but I think experimentation is a huge part of adjusting the long term aspects of a lifestyle. I am positive that learning which foods I can nibble on and be happy will serve me long after the excess weight is gone.2 -
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.2 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
But they're usually lower than that because it's not pure sugar or fat unless we're talking some types of hard candy. You would also need to take into account moisture. I found that the highest calorie typical snack of that kind, at least of the things I've eaten, is very dark chocolate at 60 calories per 10 gram square.4 -
Disclaimer - unverified internet search result
13 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case4 -
Fun size candy is super annoying, unless you eat enough to make a full size treat. I'm never quite satisfied with the fun sizes and so I tend to avoid fun sizes and instead plan for a full size.5
-
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Fun size candy is super annoying, unless you eat enough to make a full size treat. I'm never quite satisfied with the fun sizes and so I tend to avoid fun sizes and instead plan for a full size.
Exactly how I feel.2 -
90 calories seems pretty reasonable to me5
-
deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.3 -
I find I can have my fun if I plan to exercise it off. I look at my net calories on a weekly basis. Last Saturday night-sunday morning I over indulged to the tune of 800 calories. By carefully logging and a couple of workouts where I didn't eat back all of my workout calories, it's Friday now and I think I'm at goal now. With a workout later today I will be back to under goal and able to go to a party tonight without ruining a thing.0
-
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs1 -
deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs
You are 100% correct and understood 0% of my point.
For had you understood and examined the context, you would realize we are talking about a 9g bit of candy, not a 118g banana.
To accomplish my logging goals, my estimate for a 9g bit of candy is sufficient.
I'd just log a banana if I were having a banana. And no I don't weigh my bananas either.6 -
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
I had 9 to 15 gram Halloween candy in mind! Obviously my "fun" sizing is off
9-15g is anywhere from 36 to 135 calories when you figure a g of carbs is 4 calories and a g of fat is 9
Assuming most candies are sugar and fat, you are somewhere in the range of 9*4 to 15*9 or 36-135 calories in a treat sized as you describe.
but that implies that 9g of candy is equal to 9g of carbs - and that isn't necessarily the case
Well, it's carbs, fat or protein. Well, some can be water.
But if you have the goal of losing weight, would you rather UNDER or OVERESTIMATE the caloric content?
The rule I gave you gives you a range. The item may have fewer calories than the range, but unless there is something more calorie dense than fat, it's not going to have more. So the 9g treat will have between 36 and 135 calories. It may have fewer. But odds are, it's going to have sugar and fat and fall between the two values presented.
As I frequently state, we are not going to the moon with the data, so we can make SMART approximations where the error is in favor of our goals. Therefore, overestimating the calorie content of something when the goal is to lose weight is generally in favor of reaching the weight loss goal.
Underestimating the calorie content is not in favor of our goals. Therefore, I choose to err on the side of meeting my goal.
food weight and macro contribution weight aren't the same thing...
i.e. 1 banana that weighs 118g is not going to be 118g of carbs - its approx 27g carbs
You are 100% correct and understood 0% of my point.
For had you understood and examined the context, you would realize we are talking about a 9g bit of candy, not a 118g banana.
To accomplish my logging goals, my estimate for a 9g bit of candy is sufficient.
I'd just log a banana if I were having a banana. And no I don't weigh my bananas either.
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)
What was factually incorrect about the candy and the estimate I provided.
I said the calorie count would be in the range of values presented, or at least close enough for most purposes.
I'm not looking for mass spectrometer accuracy. I'm trying to create a calorie deficit to lose weight and to limit carbs in order to keep my Blood Glucose below 100 mg/dL.
This approach works. If I round up certain items, I will reach those goals. If my 9g bit of candy is really only 6g of carbs and 3g of non-caloric stuff such as water, will my estimate of 36 calories really throw off my 2025 calorie day if the candy is really only 24 calories?
Nope.
The fact I stated was this was MY method of estimating and leaving margin in case I miss something and/or to stay away from the limits.
Using my "incorrect" method, I've lost 50# and my A1C has gone from 7.3 to 5.1 since 14 Feb this year.
So while it may not be accurate enough for you, and I'm all about you doing you. Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said it was CLOSE enough to meet my goals.
I never claimed it would give you lab accuracy. What I claimed was you would not UNDERESTIMATE what you had to eat using my described method if you had to estimate and had NO data.
Which is 100% true.
It can be both 100% true, inaccurate for your purposes, and works for my goals and not fit yours.
If it's useful, use it. If not, just let it go.
But don't call it factually incorrect when what I stated was a correct description of my method of estimation, that described the limits of the method. I clearly stated it may overestimate what you've consumed, but what you eat will never be MORE calories than the range described.
Which is true.0 -
tbright1965 wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »
no i didn't misunderstand your point - i pointed out that you are factually incorrect - there is a difference
another non-fruit example - the bagel i ate the other day - was approx 95g
but it wasn't 95g of carbs/fat/protein - it was 47g carbs/5g fat/12g protein (which totals 64g)
What was factually incorrect about the candy and the estimate I provided.
I said the calorie count would be in the range of values presented, or at least close enough for most purposes.
I'm not looking for mass spectrometer accuracy. I'm trying to create a calorie deficit to lose weight and to limit carbs in order to keep my Blood Glucose below 100 mg/dL.
This approach works. If I round up certain items, I will reach those goals. If my 9g bit of candy is really only 6g of carbs and 3g of non-caloric stuff such as water, will my estimate of 36 calories really throw off my 2025 calorie day if the candy is really only 24 calories?
Nope.
The fact I stated was this was MY method of estimating and leaving margin in case I miss something and/or to stay away from the limits.
Using my "incorrect" method, I've lost 50# and my A1C has gone from 7.3 to 5.1 since 14 Feb this year.
So while it may not be accurate enough for you, and I'm all about you doing you. Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said it was CLOSE enough to meet my goals.
I never claimed it would give you lab accuracy. What I claimed was you would not UNDERESTIMATE what you had to eat using my described method if you had to estimate and had NO data.
Which is 100% true.
It can be both 100% true, inaccurate for your purposes, and works for my goals and not fit yours.
If it's useful, use it. If not, just let it go.
But don't call it factually incorrect when what I stated was a correct description of my method of estimation, that described the limits of the method. I clearly stated it may overestimate what you've consumed, but what you eat will never be MORE calories than the range described.
Which is true.
You are deliberately and massively aiming to err on the side of overestimating Calories eaten and, based on other threads, deliberately aiming to err on the side of underestimating Calories expended.
You believe that this is working well for you.
There are many people, myself included, who think that this aggressive strategy very seldom ends up in a better place than a more moderate strategy of correctly estimating inputs and expenditures while engaged in moderate deficits.
Trying to correctly estimate will lead to estimation errors; but, absent a deliberate bias, the errors will tend to cancel one another.
Deliberate errors to be more aggressive with their deficit can lead to their own set of very real problems for other people who you councel to adopt your methods.6 -
You are deliberately and massively aiming to err on the side of overestimating Calories eaten and, based on other threads, deliberately aiming to err on the side of underestimating Calories expended.
You believe that this is working well for you.
There are many people, myself included, who think that this aggressive strategy very seldom ends up in a better place than a more moderate strategy of correctly estimating inputs and expenditures while engaged in moderate deficits.
Trying to correctly estimate will lead to estimation errors; but, absent a deliberate bias, the errors will tend to cancel one another.
Deliberate errors to be more aggressive with their deficit can lead to their own set of very real problems for other people who you councel to adopt your methods.
I wouldn't say MASSIVELY. I think that's a gross mis-characterization.
If I get 25g of cheese from the bag of shredded cheddar for my omelette and log it as a 28g serving, that's what a 10% error on what will be 5% of my daily caloric intake? The caloric content 28g of cheeses is between 90 and 110 calories for the cheeses I've used in my morning omelette. Sliced cheeses are in the ball park of 70-90 calories/slice. My 25g weighted portion will be 89.2% of that or between 80 and 100 calories give or take.
If I have 2000 (rounded down, I get 2025 before any exercise calories) a day, being off by 5-10 calories on one item really won't matter.
But what it does do is allow me to just pour a oz or two of milk in my coffee without getting out the food scale to make sure I only get 30ml of milk for that same 10-15 calories, IIRC.
Or it lets me have that bit of hard candy without having to run off to log it.
I'm not running unhealthy deficits. In fact, I'm doing largely what my diabetes coach/dietitian suggests. There is a host of estimates one can make in order to track what they are eating. Combined with taking my BG daily in the AM and the dropping of roughly 20% of my starting body weight, my approach is working to achieve my goals.
And in 20 more pounds, I'll be down to my first goal weight, to weigh what I weighed when I left the Army in 1992.
My Dr is already willing to take me off of Metformin, as I can keep my BG below 100mg/dL and often have numbers in the 80s when I wake in the AM.
Now, my approach will not win me the Nobel prize in medicine.
But it's an approach that is doable by anyone with a 6th grade education.
I really doubt I'm starving when I eat between 2000 and 2500 calories/day at 215# of body weight.
But I am staying at a deficit as I'm likely burning between 2400 and 3000 on those very same days.
It's almost 4pm where I am, and my Fitbit estimates I've burned just under 1600 calories today. (Haven't worked out yet.)
Which goes right along with the calculators for someone fitting my profile, a sedentary TDEE of just under 100 calories/hour at 2340/day.
So on most days, I'm staying around that 500-750 calorie deficit depending on how much exercise I get.
What part isn't working?
I'm not counseling anyone to adopt drastic measures. I'm saying this is how I'm doing what I do to maintain such a deficit. I don't try to get 28g of cheese by reaching into the bag again. I know I'm going to have an oz of milk in my coffee and it will balance out.
I know most people will forget things or eat samples when they go to Sam's Club, or a candy from the reception desk.
Life.
Most who try to go right up to the line will find they are actually 500 calories over the line. We see that post all the time here.
Paraphrased Title: "I've been eating 1200 calories/day and I've gain 6 pounds in the past 6 weeks, help!"
I've been here long enough to see a handful of iterations of that title each week.
If people have significant medical challenges, they should be under a DR's care and not getting their advice from a website.
Sharing what works for me is not counsel. Sharing an estimation methodology is not counsel.
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions