# You don't use a food scale?

## Replies

• Posts: 5,647 Member
lemurcat2 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).
• Posts: 7,880 Member
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
lemurcat2 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.
• Posts: 28,140 Member
Bump
• Posts: 28,140 Member
Bump
• Posts: 28,140 Member
Bump
• Posts: 2,564 Member
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.
• Posts: 960 Member
edited January 2021
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.
• Posts: 338 Member
edited January 2021
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?
• Posts: 4,021 Member
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.
• Posts: 28,140 Member
Bump
• Posts: 2 Member
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......
• Posts: 28,140 Member
bump
• Posts: 497 Member
mtaratoot wrote: »
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?
• Posts: 7,880 Member
edited March 2021
durhammfp wrote: »
mtaratoot wrote: »
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.html
• Posts: 52 Member
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. )

If anyone has any other infographics or videos that are pro-food scale, add 'em!

Bump
• Posts: 945 Member
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.
• Posts: 7,880 Member
Is it time yet for...

• Posts: 7,880 Member
mtaratoot wrote: »
Is it time yet for...

I think I was right. And maybe it's time for another one.