Calorie Counting

>>38390436
If you don't weight your food you can not count calories.

>>38390436
Sure

Scales are also useful for baking

>>38390462
You can measure by volume
Technically you aren't weighing it

Can I get a good one at a grocery store?

>>38390481
Measuring by volume is the worst plebeian idea in nutrition and fitness. Weight is everything.

File: 28-grams-of-fruity-pebbles.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>38390481
Measuring by volume is less accurate and less scientific.

>>38390436
yea i got one for $10 i mainly use it to weigh chikcne
very useful would recommend 9/10

>>38390436
With time you don't need them because you get used to do the mental math, but they are one of the most usefull gadgets to have in the kitchen.

I've used three of these since 2012. Only one broke and it was because I was being a dumb fuck with cleaning it. Would recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001N07KUE/ref=twister_B001N0BBAY?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

>>38390481
I measure my lifts by volume of the disc too.

>>38390481
that is only accurate for liquids

I heard that "bodyweight scales" may vary the weight shown, is it the same for kitchen scales?

>>38391178
No scientific instrument is 100% accurate.

You can use it for mail or weighing pets too

They cost less than an old video game and they are the best way to track calories for solids. So yes.

>>38390508
>>38390562
>>38390735
>>38390771


I never said it was as accurate, it is still a method people use

>>38390771
>>>38390481
>that is only accurate for liquids

1)Fill up measuring cup, pour it into a larger cup.
2)Place the measuring cup on the counter then pour the liquid back into the measuring cup.
3) Then add more liquid to the measuring cup without moving it until it overflows.

I guarantee you will be able to add a surprising amount of liquid at step 3. That volume of liquid you can add is how far off your original measurement was.

Tldr - measuring by volume is very inaccurate. Period.

>>38390436
Absolutely. Bought one that goes down to the gram and it is awesome to make your portions. You will also see some cool stuff, like how much chicken breast you can eat, compared to fat red meat. I still love both, but sometimes you feel the need to eat like there's no tomorrow, then you go for the small calorie stuff.
You can't go wrong with a scale.

>>38390436

Yes.

Get one with a "Tare" function. This makes it easy to subtract the weight of the container.

>>38392752
All of them have that function, it's a fucking copy paste circuit.

>>38391679
That's because there will be some leftover liquid residue on the larger cup no

>>38392867
No, the "residue" will be like 1/100th of the additional liquid needed. Try it yourself.

>>38390436
I bought a scale wayyyy before i started lifting for cooking... you cannot bake without a scale... period.

File: scale.jpg (110KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1200x1200px

Bought pic related on sale for $12, regular $30. (Canadian)
Get it, it's worth it.

>>38392909
Then what's the trick? Air bubbles being displaced or something?

>>38392939
No trick. A cup measures a cup when it is 100% full. If you fill it from a faucet or pour quickly you will not fill it 100% and if you hold it up when it's 100% full you will spill some. The clear container with lines aren't much better because "eyeballing" the volume will never be perfect either.

>Inb4 being anal, getting a really good fill is easily between 1/6-1/3 cup low

>>38392842
>All of them have that function
"No."