How do you know how many calories are ACTUALLY in fruit and veg?
Replies
-
I don't think everyone needs to weigh. I didn't at first even though I had a scale for baking, because I thought it was obsessive and oppressive, and I lost fine. But I realized I was spending more time trying to estimate than just weighing and started to do it and found it fun (this was around the time I discovered the USDA entries and the marvelous 100 g option).
Cups were always counterintuitive to me since I rarely measured things in cups and things like broccoli in a cup just don't make sense to me (depends how you cut it or how much you shove it in). Same with things like tsp (how much you put in depends on how much you are motivated to put in with some things). That's why I got the scale for baking in the first place.
I also don't get measuring out cooking ingredients (I was a by sight cook), and find weighing pleasurable since I just do it when I'm chopping, no extra tools needed, and I can guess and see how close I am and still feel like I'm going by eye and tossing in what I want. Today I had some leftover brussels (151 g) and leftover cauliflower (116 g) when I was making dinner, and rather than trying to fit them in a cup I just weighed what I had and used them up.
Maybe this is different for those used to recipes that call for cups? I hate cooking from recipes, so realizing I didn't have to was freeing for me. That said, the USDA entries usually do have cup options and for many they will be fine.1 -
AoifeFitzy wrote: »Honestly when it comes to fruit and veg I don't worry overly much. Cause most veg, especially, are pretty low in calories-by-weight overall so I don't mind if I'm off by a few cals. I figure, I just really strictly measure the high cal density foods, 'cause those are the ones where an unmeasured spoonful can really throw off your accuracy. Having your daily log be 20 or 30 cals off 'cause of veg estimates isn't going to make much of a difference in the long run, really.
I figure most people that make comments like this don't actually eat much in the way of fruit and veg. I can easily eat 1 kg of fruit and veg a day and if I didn't worry too much about tracking I could be eating much more than I think I am.7 -
On mfp, not all green ticks are the one you wanna look for. look for the FULL descriptive ones :
eg:
apples, raw, with skin.
pineapples, raw, all varieties
rice, brown, uncooked,
this is how you know its entered my admins and not public. if im not sure, i go to cronometer and type the food and cronometer is extremely correct so i can verify ..for nutrition labels, if it says 100g, its the dry weight as you have it in the bag...... after cooking, weight varies so makes sense to use dry weight. because you might have extra water weight in your rice compared to another person etc. sometimes it shows cooked weight but that is usually written "cooked:2 -
I would just go for the most consistent answer you see
No need to get too worked up about it.
So if I saw broccoli is 25 a cup, but another place said 40, and another place said 35? I'd go for the answer that is closest to the average ~ ( ͡ᵔ ͜ʖ ͡ᵔ )0 -
Nope, go with the USDA entry. For whole foods it's really not hard to pick the best entry.7
-
JustinAnimal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »I guess my point is, if you're eating 1000 calories or whatever solely in vegetables... I don't know, I'm sure that it is archaic and inaccurate logic... and, yes, CICO, I know... I still just wouldn't be worried. If I GAINED weight eating plants all day, I'd be more likely to give myself a pat on the back and brag about it. Now, I do completely understand going OVER your limit... still, and I mean completely personally, I would not be worried about eating 1000 calories over my goal in raw fruits and veggies. That said, I've never done it and have no idea what it would do to me and I'm sure I'm wrong and I'd balloon up and look like such an idiot for speaking. Anyway, my two cents.
I don't know if anyone here is "worried" as much as we understand that you can gain weight from any type of food if you consume more calories than you're using, including plants. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you're worried by vegetables, it's just realistic.
If you regularly eat 1,000 calories more than you're using, you will gain weight even if it's carrots or green beans or tomatoes.
Is everyone an utter disciple of CICO? No one believes that foods can be processed differently by the body? That some foods burn more calories in the process of digestion than others? That alcohol behaves in a wacky way and isn't processed like standard calories?
Again, I know it's archaic, probably not backed by science, and coming from a loudmouth moron, but I just can't believe that literally all things we put in our body, even the ones we invented in a lab, are processed the same way by our bodies. The day I meet an obese vegan, I will devote my life to helping them achieve whatever body shape they desire... I should've just said I'll eat my hat. Anyway, thanks for polite conversation and tolerance of my backward views.
ETA: I am aware that anything synthetic ("...we invented in a lab...") ultimately came from nature at some point. I don't believe that makes them natural.
I am convinced by the evidence currently available for CICO, yes. This doesn't make me an "utter disciple." If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm happen to consider it. What evidence do you have? That you personally "just can't believe" isn't especially compelling to anyone else.
I was an overweight vegan. I became non-overweight by consistently achieving a calorie deficit and I've maintained that weight loss through consistently consuming the amount of energy my body needs. This isn't about veganism.
11 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »I guess my point is, if you're eating 1000 calories or whatever solely in vegetables... I don't know, I'm sure that it is archaic and inaccurate logic... and, yes, CICO, I know... I still just wouldn't be worried. If I GAINED weight eating plants all day, I'd be more likely to give myself a pat on the back and brag about it. Now, I do completely understand going OVER your limit... still, and I mean completely personally, I would not be worried about eating 1000 calories over my goal in raw fruits and veggies. That said, I've never done it and have no idea what it would do to me and I'm sure I'm wrong and I'd balloon up and look like such an idiot for speaking. Anyway, my two cents.
I don't know if anyone here is "worried" as much as we understand that you can gain weight from any type of food if you consume more calories than you're using, including plants. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you're worried by vegetables, it's just realistic.
If you regularly eat 1,000 calories more than you're using, you will gain weight even if it's carrots or green beans or tomatoes.
Is everyone an utter disciple of CICO? No one believes that foods can be processed differently by the body? That some foods burn more calories in the process of digestion than others? That alcohol behaves in a wacky way and isn't processed like standard calories?
Again, I know it's archaic, probably not backed by science, and coming from a loudmouth moron, but I just can't believe that literally all things we put in our body, even the ones we invented in a lab, are processed the same way by our bodies. The day I meet an obese vegan, I will devote my life to helping them achieve whatever body shape they desire... I should've just said I'll eat my hat. Anyway, thanks for polite conversation and tolerance of my backward views.
ETA: I am aware that anything synthetic ("...we invented in a lab...") ultimately came from nature at some point. I don't believe that makes them natural.
The poster you are responding to is a vegan.
Even if there is some difference in the amount of calories our body extracts from whole foods rather than processed foods (which I don't believe I've ever seen any proof of), do you really think it's enough to offset 1000 calories? You might be talking about 5 or 10 calories, here or there. I don't remember what it stands for, but TEF is the measurement of how many calories are burned digesting certain foods, and that calculation is included in the calorie values of foods. They can actually test that in the lab.
There are several veteran posters who became overweight as vegetarians or vegans, and came here, counted calories, and lost the weight in that same manner of eating.
We hear so much from the diet industry about the "pureness" and "naturalness" of whole foods, it's understandable you might think that they have extra value to weight maintenance. And they often do - as they often have more fiber and protein than convenience foods and therefore fill some people up on less calories. But you can get fat on them if you eat too much.
I don't (very intensely) identify with the whole "clean eating" thing. I suppose I am speaking purely from personal experience. The most success I had with rapid weight loss was when I ate two servings of raw fruit and/or vegetables before each meal. It become too hard to fit anything else in there. From 300 pounds to 200 pounds, that trick saved me and it still does when I've been backsliding. I think that's kind of what that one person meant when they said you can eat fruit and veg until you explode. Of course, not literally (or even figuratively) can one do this, but I think her (and my) point is that it'd be darn hard to accomplish.
As I stated previously, I appreciate all of your tolerance. Away!
ETA: I've met many, many overweight "vegetarians." They didn't eat vegetables. They ate primarily bread and cheese. Pizza. Burgers minus the patty (sometimes with, because, you know, you're still a vegetarian if you eat a burger patty three times a week and that's it except for some occasional wings or bacon). I have never met an even-close-to-overweight vegan... but my downfall is once again believing my personal experience encompasses the scope of humanity.
There are many overweight and even obese vegans within the vegan community. All you have to do to be overweight is to consume more energy than your body is using and that's incredibly easy to do today, even for vegans. And before you ask, yes, the ones I've known ate plenty of fruits and vegetables. When I was overweight, I ate lots of fruits and vegetables too.6 -
I log my fruits and veggies as those calories can add up.
And like most here I believe that logging accurately and consistently helps people stay in goal for weight loss/gain or maintenance.1 -
Thanks everyone for your answers. I think we should all be allowed to do what we think is right for ourselves. The reason why I asked and choose to log fruit (especially) and veg is that I am not a big person (only 5'3) and I am "normal" weight by BMI definitions. So to lose weight, I am left with not many calories really, to begin with. I want to log them accurately so that I can eat more
Once I am happy with my weight, I won't be worried if I have logged 100g of broccoli or not - that's for sure, but for now I know they can add up, especially when I try to fill more than half of my plate with veg.
BTW this USDA website is great! Helps me alot6 -
This content has been removed.
-
I always go for the USDA ones. And then I compare the entries to make sure theyre consistent, and I go with that.
Helps that theyre usually listed in grams, too, so I just weigh everything in grams. If the entry has ounces, or whole fruit/veg, I skip those. Those are just too unreliable.1 -
You don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
They calculate how many calories are in a food by dessicating it, so it is completely dried out, and then burning it in a stream of oxygen and measuring how much heat that generates.
The ACTUAL calories your body obtains from food will be different, because you digest it in a different way. DIfferent people will obtain different amounts of calories from the same food.
Then the amount of calories in a parsnip will depend on how sunny it was when it was growing, how much rain there was, how closely they were planted, the soil, the variety of parsnip, how long it has been stored and how, how it was cooked etc. etc. etc.
To lose weight you need to have a deficit between energy expended and energy consumed. The other side of the equation to eating (energy expended) will also vary depending on the person, what they were doing, their metabolic rate, the surrounding temperature etc.
Published values for calories are only approximate based on averages. You can't really measure how much energy you are expending during the day (step counters and fitbit estimates are wildly inaccurate measures of energy expenditure).
The important thing to lose weight is to eat less, eat better, and be more active. Don't get hung up on counting every calorie because you can't.8 -
We are carbon based life forms. Everything we eat is a carbon based life form. Carbohydrates, Fats, and Proteins are based on molecules of hydro-carbons. It's basic fuel and, just like wood and gasoline, it burns. Calories are a measure of the energy released when a substance is burned under laboratory conditions. The only way to know how many calories are in the apple you are about to eat is to burn it and measure the energy. But then you can't eat it because it's burned up. The calories listed for any food is an estimate based on the amount of calories observed in a controlled experiment. The next time you go to the supermarket look at the calories listed on packaged fruits and vegetables and make an educated guess as to the calorie content of your next meal.3
-
Another example is frozen peas. On the back of the packet, it shows nutritional values but doesn't say if it's for 100g frozen or boiled or what?
For this part - it's the frozen weight.
Or in the case of dry products (pasta) - the dry weight.
Because they have no idea how your cooking method will change the water content, which could change dramatically the weight.3 -
Interestingly, many of us who have been logging here for years, reached our goal weight and are maintaining that weight in proportion to what our logged calorie balance would suggest. So while I agree there is no way to know how exact the numbers are, they are clearly close enough to use an understanding of CICO to manipulate your weight, and to make choosing the most accurate entries worthwhile.11
-
ChrisManch wrote: »You don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
They calculate how many calories are in a food by dessicating it, so it is completely dried out, and then burning it in a stream of oxygen and measuring how much heat that generates.
The ACTUAL calories your body obtains from food will be different, because you digest it in a different way. DIfferent people will obtain different amounts of calories from the same food.
Then the amount of calories in a parsnip will depend on how sunny it was when it was growing, how much rain there was, how closely they were planted, the soil, the variety of parsnip, how long it has been stored and how, how it was cooked etc. etc. etc.
To lose weight you need to have a deficit between energy expended and energy consumed. The other side of the equation to eating (energy expended) will also vary depending on the person, what they were doing, their metabolic rate, the surrounding temperature etc.
Published values for calories are only approximate based on averages. You can't really measure how much energy you are expending during the day (step counters and fitbit estimates are wildly inaccurate measures of energy expenditure).
The important thing to lose weight is to eat less, eat better, and be more active. Don't get hung up on counting every calorie because you can't.
What?2 -
What I mean by this is ... for example I wanted to find out how many calories in parsnips. I've never ever had parsnips before so got some from a farmers market no packaging to try. Googled it and the calories differ everywhere. One place says 66cal per 100g. Other says 85. Who do I trust? Also is that for raw parsnips?
Another example is frozen peas. On the back of the packet, it shows nutritional values but doesn't say if it's for 100g frozen or boiled or what?
And a third example that I struggle with often is apples.. there are SO many different "apple" entries on MFP and even if I measure how much my apple weights I have got the option to log 65 to 85 to 150 calories.
I know they only differ by a little bit but I really want to track everything very accurately. What is your opinion?
You can't. Fruits and veggies are all different. One apple isn't the same as the next even if they're the same variety. Different sizes, different ripenesses, different amounts of natural sugars. You absolutely CANNOT count calories for any food exactly. Even the calories printed on packaging aren't right on because there's no way to accurately calculate how many calories are in each individual food item. Educating yourself on things like this will be fundamental if you want to be successful.4 -
Interestingly, many of us who have been logging here for years, reached our goal weight and are maintaining that weight in proportion to what our logged calorie balance would suggest. So while I agree there is no way to know how exact the numbers are, they are clearly close enough to use an understanding of CICO to manipulate your weight, and to make choosing the most accurate entries worthwhile.
This.3 -
I find the chart at the bottom of this page helpful for a quick reference:
https://www.lasting-weight-loss.com/calories-in-vegetables.html0 -
I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....9 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....
except 5 servings of fruit can be up to 500 calories and that can and often does wipe out a deficit.
Same with veggies...
I am not saying that it has to be so strict that you are stressing over a carrot stick or even 4 or 5 but they do have calories and they need counted especially if you are stalled...or finding it difficult to lose weight or gaining...time to take stock of the CI CO equation.4 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....
I would argue that WW members tend to be less successful in their loss/maintenance efforts than those who track calories. This is purely based on observations that I've made throughout the years of reading threads on MFP (I had another account before this one). 1-5 servings of fruits and veggies can easily wipe out a deficit. When I lose I stick to a 250 calorie deficit which is like... a banana and a side of peas and carrots. Not a lot of food at all.2 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....
It might help if you actually read through the thread, this was already addressed by some of us.2 -
The differences of opinions on this subject are why I always suggest that everyone start by logging anything that has calories and reviewing everything that you put in your mouth that is not water. Examine the way you eat and then decide where, if anywhere, you can be relaxed. Also, be prepared to change as your deficit decreases and the things you could get by with at higher deficits might work against you more when you get down to the lower deficits.
9 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....
You don't have to be exact, but why not learn how to choose the correct entries given how many in MFP are incorrect, and not do silly things like exaggerate amounts rather than choose the correct entries.
Also, advice like "don't eat too many, be reasonable" is not IMO good advice re fruits and veg (especially veg) given how many people don't eat many at all.
It's not like veg and fruit are harder to measure than anything else, and the question about "which entry" applies across the board to non packaged food items (including starches and meat).5 -
The differences of opinions on this subject are why I always suggest that everyone start by logging anything that has calories and reviewing everything that you put in your mouth that is not water. Examine the way you eat and then decide where, if anywhere, you can be relaxed. Also, be prepared to change as your deficit decreases and the things you could get by with at higher deficits might work against you more when you get down to the lower deficits.
+1
People tend to think we all eat the same way, have the same patience for numbers or organization, and the same desires and goals. We don't. But following this advice will get you closer to a system that will work for each individual.5 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »I haven't read all the comments, but what I have read I tend to agree with those who are less rigid. If you are eating the recommended servings of fruit & veg (is it still 5-10 daily? in the revised food guide) and not choosing HUGE portions then it shouldn't be that big of a deal if you're not exactly exact. And even though MFP contains varying estimates, I think most things can be averaged out without going extreme either way.
If you think about it Weight Watcher members lose weight WITHOUT calculating most of their fruits & veg intake, but it is also based on being reasonable, it isn't a free-for-all just because they are considered "free" foods. For instance bananas are a free food, but only if you eat ONE banana not FIVE bananas. I'm assuming Weight Watchers still calculate that way...they tend to change their format regularly so perhaps it isn't...ANYHOO the principle still applies.....
This is why Weight Watchers begins with a calorie goal that is lower than some other plans -- because they're counting on you eating some "free" foods. They give you a lower calorie goal because they know there is really no such thing as a "free" food. Calories count.5 -
I don't really worry about it. If there are a few calorie options, I tend to pick one that makes sense. Really, I didn't gain weight by overeating on fruits and veggies! At the end of the day, a lot of this is a guesstimate and now I know that I maintain my weight right where I want it so the calories in vs. calories out must be working.1
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
- 426 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