You don't use a food scale?
Replies
-
That's a big difference in size. Wow.0
-
Yes and no. I am sharing this loaf with 2 other people in the family so my consumption wouldn’t be the same as with a lone person eating a loaf and averaging it out.just_Tomek wrote: »moonangel12 wrote: »Good time to bump this thread but also wanted to add my first hand experience showing the potential issues with the “per piece” way of logging...
Thing with bread is that there is the total weight of you loaf on the bag. So you know there is 70cal in 28g of bread. if you loaf is 500g, this will average out over time. No need to stress.
Some days you will eat more, some less.
Either way, the point was to show how “per piece” can vary drastically and that weighing is going to be more accurate.
1 -
Ba-da-bump!2
-
bump2
-
I am responding just out of frustration at this point.
In the motivation section someone asked about not losing weight and said they eat 1200 calories a day. The usual came up: do you use a food scale? They don’t and then when people suggested that they should as that is the most likely source of their inability to lose weight, they posted that they are leaving and will just work with their specialist.
What I shall NEVER understand is how you can ask for help and then get upset when the answer is something you don’t want to hear....
I keep trying to help people though because some people do appreciate it...5 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »I am responding just out of frustration at this point.
In the motivation section someone asked about not losing weight and said they eat 1200 calories a day. The usual came up: do you use a food scale? They don’t and then when people suggested that they should as that is the most likely source of their inability to lose weight, they posted that they are leaving and will just work with their specialist.
What I shall NEVER understand is how you can ask for help and then get upset when the answer is something you don’t want to hear....
I keep trying to help people though because some people do appreciate it...
She’s the reason I bumped this post.3 -
Bump0
-
I using a food scale for the first time, but I not sure how to log it. Example the serving size in grams was 152 but I used 130 grams. Does MFP let me just put in the amount of grams?0
-
If the serving size is 152 g, you'd log 130/152 or .86 of a serving. You'd put in 0.86.
It's easier with whole foods, where the entries (the better ones) should have 100 g as a serving option. Then, for 130 g, you'd log 1.3 of 100 g (or input 1.3).2 -
If the serving size is 152 g, you'd log 130/152 or .86 of a serving. You'd put in 0.86.
It's easier with whole foods, where the entries (the better ones) should have 100 g as a serving option. Then, for 130 g, you'd log 1.3 of 100 g (or input 1.3).
Anything with grams usually has a 1g option on the drop down. I use that. No pesky math
(though it's obviously pretty easy if a serving is 100g). 2 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »If the serving size is 152 g, you'd log 130/152 or .86 of a serving. You'd put in 0.86.
It's easier with whole foods, where the entries (the better ones) should have 100 g as a serving option. Then, for 130 g, you'd log 1.3 of 100 g (or input 1.3).
Anything with grams usually has a 1g option on the drop down. I use that. No pesky math (though it's obviously pretty easy if a serving is 100g).
And be careful about what you select from the database, but you probably already know that. There's some really bad errors in there. You can fix 'em and at least save them as your personal foods. If you look, you usually can find one listed in grams; sometimes there's an entry that ONLY has a particular serving size, but most have an option for either 1gram or 100 grams. That math is easy; for 152 grams you just call it 1.52 "units" of 100 grams.
If you really want to be accurate, you can look up how many grams per milliliter there are for calorie dense liquids like olive oil. Those entries are usually listed by volume in the database. Olive oil, for example, is 1.111 ml per gram, so my 10-gram pour is really 11ml. Yep; it's true. Oil is less dense that water. Every milliliter is 8 calories, so that small error could add up if you have a heavy hand. Cream, on the other hand, is more dense than water and is just under 0.99 ml per gram, so 50 grams is 49 ml. You would get to add three more calories to your day if you logged it correctly, so this one is pretty insignificant unless you are using a LOT of cream.
0 -
Bump0
-
Bump1
-
Bump0
-
I just bought a cheap food scale, to keep at work.
I won't use it on everything but it will help me train my brain to better estimate weights.0 -
I know people are going to hit the disagree button, but 'll admit I never use a food scale to measure what I eat, unless I need to for baking purposes. However, I was still able to lose weight and achieve (my once-believed unreachable) goal weight. Maybe it took me longer, but it's a trade-off for me. I also went from higher-range BMI to mid-low range BMI doing this too. I do usually have maybe 100-200 calories cushion room to spare, though. I've said in other posts I can become obsessive about numbers and tracking which will actually lead me to overeat/binge, so for me this was a better alternative.
I know this works well for a lot of people and it's generally recommended, but I also didn't want to become more mindful of internal hunger/satiety cues, which is still an ongoing process for me.3 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I know people are going to hit the disagree button, but 'll admit I never use a food scale to measure what I eat, unless I need to for baking purposes. However, I was still able to lose weight and achieve (my once-believed unreachable) goal weight. Maybe it took me longer, but it's a trade-off for me. I also went from higher-range BMI to mid-low range BMI doing this too. I do usually have maybe 100-200 calories cushion room to spare, though. I've said in other posts I can become obsessive about numbers and tracking which will actually lead me to overeat/binge, so for me this was a better alternative.
I know this works well for a lot of people and it's generally recommended, but I also didn't want to become more mindful of internal hunger/satiety cues, which is still an ongoing process for me.
Fine, what matters is what works for each individual but I have to ask this.... why not just use scales?????
OK, I live in a country that has never used "cups" and scales are pretty much in every kitchen as a matter of course but to me at least "cups" are the oddest of inventions as they are so inaccurate when you can..... just use scales.
Perhaps they are expensive in some countries and that is the reason? But here you can pick up a perfectly nice electronic scale for £10 or even less if you hit lucky.
I assuming here that you use "cups", you do not say, as surely you must do something to judge portions?1 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I know people are going to hit the disagree button, but 'll admit I never use a food scale to measure what I eat, unless I need to for baking purposes. However, I was still able to lose weight and achieve (my once-believed unreachable) goal weight. Maybe it took me longer, but it's a trade-off for me. I also went from higher-range BMI to mid-low range BMI doing this too. I do usually have maybe 100-200 calories cushion room to spare, though. I've said in other posts I can become obsessive about numbers and tracking which will actually lead me to overeat/binge, so for me this was a better alternative.
I know this works well for a lot of people and it's generally recommended, but I also didn't want to become more mindful of internal hunger/satiety cues, which is still an ongoing process for me.
Fine, what matters is what works for each individual but I have to ask this.... why not just use scales?????
OK, I live in a country that has never used "cups" and scales are pretty much in every kitchen as a matter of course but to me at least "cups" are the oddest of inventions as they are so inaccurate when you can..... just use scales.
Perhaps they are expensive in some countries and that is the reason? But here you can pick up a perfectly nice electronic scale for £10 or even less if you hit lucky.
I assuming here that you use "cups", you do not say, as surely you must do something to judge portions?
I'm curious as to why you wan't to know why I don't use scales, even though I said not doing so has worked for me. It's one thing if I was "stuck" or wondering why I wasn't losing weight, but that's not the case. That's the thing about weight loss and weight maintenance: what may find necessary for successful weight loss and maintenance may not be necessary for another. I also have no issue with those who do weigh and measure their ingredients if that's what they need to be successful. However, since you asked and seem to believe that the only reason I wouldn't measure with a scale is because they're too expensive, I'll give you my long and detailed explanation. Sorry, you asked
My history with weight loss and maintenance is long and somewhat troubled, never really being a person I'd consider "naturally thin." I went on my first (severe) diet at age 14. I probably needed to lose 15-20 pounds (if that), but took it to the extreme. I'm sure back then I would've measured things, but I remember eating a lot of pre-packaged foods to keep it "safe." I became borderline anorexic, but eventually became so starved that I began bingeing in secret and gained everything plus more back. This set up years of disordered eating and relationship with my body: restricting/binge/attempt at purging/purge and never truly believing I could maintain a smaller size, despite my sometimes successful attempts at reaching it.
I did lose significant amounts of weight 3 other times in my life, with the last time having kept it off now for over 8 years. I have measured foods a lot counted calories, points, etc., and now actually have a pretty good idea of what cups, etc., look like. This past year I lost another 12 pounds from that previous significant amount (still within the normal range). I don't think I ever measured my food on a scale and got to my goal weights/or (the last time) weights I was happy with. The reason I was overweight or gained the weight back was not because I didn't weigh my food, it was because 1. I still thought I wasn't "good enough," so tried to restrict myself further, leading to overly restrictive/binge/attempts at purge cycles. 2. My relationship with food had become disordered and I lost almost all awareness of satiety/fullness cues (and even hunger cues), not that it was great to begin with having been overweight a lot of my childhood. 3. I also did a lot of mindless eating, and eating without even paying attention to them or grabbing a bite here and there, and eating for emotional reasons. This last time, I decided to address the root causes of me being overweight, while still holding myself accountable by tracking food. I also needed to change my mindset and learn to feel ok with being a bit hungry, knowing that it wouldn't lead to a binge. I'm also continuing to work on recognizing satiety signals, and stopping when I get there. In the past, even the thought of tracking or counting calories can cause anxiety as someone who has anxiety, so I needed to make it feel the least "diet-y" as possible for me to succeed. I also was thinking in terms of habits I felt I could keep long-term, and honestly, measuring my food on a scale wasn't one of them. I also knew there would be recipes that didn't have specific serving amounts for nutrition information, just a portion of the recipe. I had to be ok with estimating at times, even though sometimes I try my best to divide the recipe equally by servings (if possible).
I do in fact have a decent scale I got a few years back, actually as a gift for my husband to help with beer brewing. I do use it when a recipe calls for measuring in weight, especially baking. I will measure ingredients for a recipe (sometimes, depending on the ingredient), or occasionally to "check" myself to make sure what I think is 1/2 cup, etc., is pretty close to that. Just today I was eyeballing what I thought 1 cup chopped carrots was for a recipe, but decided to measure it after I had them cut just for *kittens* and giggles. Lo and behold, what I cut was almost exactly 1 cup.
9 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I know people are going to hit the disagree button, but 'll admit I never use a food scale to measure what I eat, unless I need to for baking purposes. However, I was still able to lose weight and achieve (my once-believed unreachable) goal weight. Maybe it took me longer, but it's a trade-off for me. I also went from higher-range BMI to mid-low range BMI doing this too. I do usually have maybe 100-200 calories cushion room to spare, though. I've said in other posts I can become obsessive about numbers and tracking which will actually lead me to overeat/binge, so for me this was a better alternative.
I know this works well for a lot of people and it's generally recommended, but I also didn't want to become more mindful of internal hunger/satiety cues, which is still an ongoing process for me.
Don't feel bad and no need to apologize. I lost weight without a scale as well. I only had 14lbs to shed so I was not in a hurry. I only got a kitchen scale after I reached maintenance (11 years ago!) and only because I wanted to keep better track of the macros. I don't bake and I seldom follow recipes in detail, so a scale was not important to me. My mother never had one, and on the few times that she baked, cups were enough.
I know that scales are very useful and for some people the only way to keep track of the calories. But not everybody needs them or wants to use them. I don't measure, weight or log when I am on vacation or when eating out (not at all right now), or with take out food. Everything is good.4 -
Bump1
-
Hungry_Shopgirl wrote: »when i first lost weight i never used a scale. i did just fine
When you have a lot of weight to lose, having a deficit, any deficit, will help. So cutting back in general in terms of portions might be good enough. However, as you get leaner that margin becomes smaller, so the difference between eyeballing and weighing becomes important.
If you're not weighing your food and you're still losing, great. But when you plateau, it's time to get a food scale.
not everyone plateaus......2 -
True - I never found that happened to me - I steadily (but not exactly linearly, of course) lost weight from beginning to end without changing my level of eyeballing, estimating,averaging etc5
-
bump0
-
If you really want to be accurate, you can look up how many grams per milliliter there are for calorie dense liquids like olive oil. Those entries are usually listed by volume in the database. Olive oil, for example, is 1.111 ml per gram, so my 10-gram pour is really 11ml. Yep; it's true. Oil is less dense that water. Every milliliter is 8 calories, so that small error could add up if you have a heavy hand. Cream, on the other hand, is more dense than water and is just under 0.99 ml per gram, so 50 grams is 49 ml. You would get to add three more calories to your day if you logged it correctly, so this one is pretty insignificant unless you are using a LOT of cream.
This is exactly the kind of information I've been looking for. It's always bugged me that my scale (which is very accurate) has a mL option, as well as one for grams, because that is not the way you do milliliters. :-)
Do you have a link to a chart with other volume-to-mass conversions?
0 -
If you really want to be accurate, you can look up how many grams per milliliter there are for calorie dense liquids like olive oil. Those entries are usually listed by volume in the database. Olive oil, for example, is 1.111 ml per gram, so my 10-gram pour is really 11ml. Yep; it's true. Oil is less dense that water. Every milliliter is 8 calories, so that small error could add up if you have a heavy hand. Cream, on the other hand, is more dense than water and is just under 0.99 ml per gram, so 50 grams is 49 ml. You would get to add three more calories to your day if you logged it correctly, so this one is pretty insignificant unless you are using a LOT of cream.
This is exactly the kind of information I've been looking for. It's always bugged me that my scale (which is very accurate) has a mL option, as well as one for grams, because that is not the way you do milliliters. :-)
Do you have a link to a chart with other volume-to-mass conversions?
I thought I had a site bookmarked to do the conversion, but I can't find it right now. I just go to my search engine and enter something like "ml per ounce of olive oil"
I've looked at a few, and they all rely on the same data. One of them just told me that ten grams of olive oil is 11 ml. http://convert-to.com/558/olive-oil-amounts-conversion-with-nutritional-facts.html0 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »We have many new members who have been around for about three weeks now. And there are lots of posts saying "I've been doing this for three weeks and haven't lost any weight!" Many responses to those threads tell the member to use a food scale. This video illustrates why a food scale is such a powerful tool for most people's weight loss. (Although I wish it used peanut butter instead of oatmeal. )
https://youtu.be/XpHykP6e_Uk
If anyone has any other infographics or videos that are pro-food scale, add 'em!
Bump0 -
One of the things I've enjoyed about using a food scale, after being a pretty experienced cook without one, is that it saves extra dish washing - once I have the weight written down for a recipe, I can add directly from the container without using measuring cups or spoons. Pretty handy!
I've also built a spreadsheet (that I will print once it's completed) with the weights of all my dishes and pots/pans so I can use it as a reference if I forget to tare, which...has happened a couple of times.
It is a little finicky to get used to, but I was encouraged by it. I'm also a fan of precision and accuracy generally. One of the reasons I found calorie counting difficult in the past was because I felt like I was making stabs in the dark. But if I'm actually measuring...then I know for sure. I don't know if I plan to do it in maintenance too, but for now, it's very helpful and keeps me honest.0 -
Is it time yet for...
1 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »I know people are going to hit the disagree button, but 'll admit I never use a food scale to measure what I eat, unless I need to for baking purposes. However, I was still able to lose weight and achieve (my once-believed unreachable) goal weight. Maybe it took me longer, but it's a trade-off for me. I also went from higher-range BMI to mid-low range BMI doing this too. I do usually have maybe 100-200 calories cushion room to spare, though. I've said in other posts I can become obsessive about numbers and tracking which will actually lead me to overeat/binge, so for me this was a better alternative.
I know this works well for a lot of people and it's generally recommended, but I also didn't want to become more mindful of internal hunger/satiety cues, which is still an ongoing process for me.
I lost 34 pounds almost two years ago and reached a normal weight. I used a scale once or twice, so you're not the only one out there who's lost weight without them.
Of course, scales help many people, but other people lose fine without them. My lifestyle habits made me overweight, so if I watch those then I stay a normal weight. I don't have to weigh each item I eat, just use common sense and stop eating when it's time to stop.
4
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