Is it just me or is counting calories in NZ/Australia a huge headache? (Grams, kJ)

Options
2»

Replies

  • Caralarma
    Caralarma Posts: 174 Member
    Options
    I live in South Africa and have the same problem but I cant bring myself to use kj. I just roughly divide by 4 or scan barcodes on here which will automatically convert to calories 😊
  • thisPGHlife
    thisPGHlife Posts: 440 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    well, yes - eyeballing portions can be tricky.

    Not getting how that relates to grams or metric though - wouldnt it be exactly same issue if you were in imperial measurements?

    Imperial units are generally volume based where metric is weight based. Theoretically, you'd be able to eyeball imperial units because it's a sizing issue. That's actually where the inherent problem is. Since it's by volume, the calories are variable because density is a thing. Metric units are based on weight which accounts for size and density. (1 cup of brown sugar will be X calories when packed and Y calories when not packed. Even then it's a coin toss because your measuring cup may not even be a cup. But, 100 grams is 100 grams is 100 grams.)

    I don't know if that helps.

    I guess the point is, the whole reason op is having the issue in the first place it's because imperial units are based on an inaccurate system of volume which, while way to estimate, doesn't accurately correlate to weight. Weight, which is more accurate and what metric is based on, doesn't necessarily lend itself to eyeballing unless you have a good idea what X grams of Y food looks like with respects to volume.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Imperial units can be weight-based (ounce, pound). Metric can be volume-based (liter).

    US labels ordinarily use grams for the weight, however, not oz. Meat often gets sold in oz. I agree that weight is better if one has an ability to measure it or can estimate it.

    I can't eyeball a cup accurately anyway, however, so if eating a yogurt outside my house (or some cottage cheese) would go with the proportion of the whole I ate. (I guess I don't really eat stuff outside my house that I didn't prepare for that purpose at home, so this would be more likely to come up at a restaurant or someone else's house where I was staying, and obviously at a restaurant packaging would not make a difference.)
  • 23rochelle23
    23rochelle23 Posts: 269 Member
    Options
    I understand the confusion - I moved to the U.K. 2 years ago and still have no idea what it means when someone tells me their weight in stone - is that a lot? A little? (I work in healthcare and still have no idea lol)

    However you will come to love grams because they make sense ;)

    I can eyeball most things I eat all the time fairly regularly (for instance I can pretty much nail 30gm of cheese to the gm without a second thought).
    Otherwise just do the splitting thing if you’re eating it yourself (I do this a lot) - if something has x calories in total and I eat half one day and half two days later I’m happy to just call it half the amount of calories and not worry if one day is 60% and one day 40% - it balances out.

  • thisPGHlife
    thisPGHlife Posts: 440 Member
    Options
    I apologize, they both can be both. However for OP's situation my original statement holds true. At least in the US (where I am) pounds and ounces ate generally used for meats and beverages in the context of how much you consume at one time. Yes you can purchase a pound of nuts but you generally see a serving size listed as number of pieces or portion of a cup. I may be wrong and over generalizing as there probably are cases where servings of solid foods, or even semi solid, that are listed in ounces. The only time I've personally seen that to my recollection has been in pre portioned foods. However I have seen all food items list both a volume and a weight measure with the weight measure in grams.

    While ounces of a portion of meat is common practice in the US, there are numerous places that I've seen "handy guides" that will tell you roughly the size/volume of that portion of meat. (Portion being the size of your pain or the size of a deck of cards, etc)

    I agree that weighing is the ideal and I weigh all of my food in metric. That being said, since I grew up visualizing my food in terms of volume, visualizing in terms of weight does not come naturally to me. Then again, visualizing for me is weird anyway.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    skram01 wrote: »
    I apologize, they both can be both. However for OP's situation my original statement holds true. At least in the US (where I am) pounds and ounces ate generally used for meats and beverages in the context of how much you consume at one time. Yes you can purchase a pound of nuts but you generally see a serving size listed as number of pieces or portion of a cup.

    I'm in the US, and grams are on everything (except for meat where you usually ask for 8 oz or whatever, IME). Packages also give a volume measurement. (Cups are stupid for anything but liquids and baking, though (baking is better with a scale and weight, but I'll use cups and teaspoons for that when the recipe does).)

    I think what you were talking about is that the US has gone over to including a metric measurement for weight rather than an imperial one (one tiny concession to the metric system), but that doesn't mean that metric=weights. I thought you were saying that the US (since we use imperial) only had volumes, and that imperial was inferior since it couldn't account for weight. Imperial is kind of clunky, but not because it doesn't allow for weighing (3.85 oz is as nuanced as 109 grams). We just happen to have made the switch to grams on packages.

    Anyway, I think you and I are actually on the same page here, since for me having both the weight and a size estimate is preferable if I am going to eat it on the go -- half a package of nuts = 170 cal or X many nuts are Y calories. For anything else, weight, and on the whole I prefer grams. (I always had a sense of meat in oz, but now do just as well in grams. I hate, hate, hate those claims that you should eat based on the size of your hand, etc., since I think they don't work well as measures and maybe I want a smaller or larger portion anyway.)
  • thisPGHlife
    thisPGHlife Posts: 440 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    skram01 wrote: »
    I apologize, they both can be both. However for OP's situation my original statement holds true. At least in the US (where I am) pounds and ounces ate generally used for meats and beverages in the context of how much you consume at one time. Yes you can purchase a pound of nuts but you generally see a serving size listed as number of pieces or portion of a cup.

    I'm in the US, and grams are on everything (except for meat where you usually ask for 8 oz or whatever, IME). Packages also give a volume measurement. (Cups are stupid for anything but liquids and baking, though (baking is better with a scale and weight, but I'll use cups and teaspoons for that when the recipe does).)

    I think what you were talking about is that the US has gone over to including a metric measurement for weight rather than an imperial one (one tiny concession to the metric system), but that doesn't mean that metric=weights. I thought you were saying that the US (since we use imperial) only had volumes, and that imperial was inferior since it couldn't account for weight. Imperial is kind of clunky, but not because it doesn't allow for weighing (3.85 oz is as nuanced as 109 grams). We just happen to have made the switch to grams on packages.

    Anyway, I think you and I are actually on the same page here, since for me having both the weight and a size estimate is preferable if I am going to eat it on the go -- half a package of nuts = 170 cal or X many nuts are Y calories. For anything else, weight, and on the whole I prefer grams. (I always had a sense of meat in oz, but now do just as well in grams. I hate, hate, hate those claims that you should eat based on the size of your hand, etc., since I think they don't work well as measures and maybe I want a smaller or larger portion anyway.)

    Yes. I think we are. It's a really weird hodgepodge of measurements and the packaging generally gives an imperial volume and metric weight. Very silly.

    I agree that hand measurements are stupid and I think they are worse than volume measurements. They don't account for have size difference or, sometimes, the third dimension. Saying something should be the size of your palm: I have tiny hands. I know people who, when we compare hands, almost my whole hands would for in their palm. Also a piece of meat that is the size of my palm and 1 inch thick is going to be half as much as something that is 2 inches thick.
  • hixa30
    hixa30 Posts: 274 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    How many grams does a tablespoon of butter weigh? You can Google it, or weigh it later when you get home. Or just guesstimate it.

    If someone eats one quarter of a container of Product X, and the serving size is 20g, which has 400KJ, and the container has 100g, here's how you calculate things:

    The total container has ( 100 / 20 ) x 400 = 2000 kJ. One quarter is 2000 / 4 = 250 kJ.

    If people have trouble with the maths for this, a little practice helps. Maybe spend 10 minutes doing practice calculations. Alternatively ask your phone, ask here, ask a friend etc.

    PS a stone weighs about 6kg.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited January 2019
    Options
    Honestly metric is s better system, you'll just have to adjust but you'll get used to it. This is coming from an American by the way. Nothing inherently different between calories or kilojoules...they are both just units of measure for energy....like kilograms vs pounds or feet versus meters. Oh and if you really want to get confused realize that Calories as they are written on food packaging are actually kilocalories.

Categories