How to measure Protein Servings

[cmcole]

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-3-61-462-7367-1,00.html?cm_re=HP-_-Center%20Box%20Right-_-Six%20Easy%20Ways%20to%20Measure%20Portions

Exerpt from Prevention online article


http://www.prevention.com/images/cma/portion_control_chart.gif (http://www.prevention.com/images/cma/portion_control_chartFULL.gif)

[Gabriel Guzman]

Problem is there is no correlation between a palm-size and the actual amount of protein (for example) that we might need, while increasing the risk of underestimating the amount of food. What this accomplishes is a reduction in total amount of food, which of course goes hand in hand with the 'eat less' concept, but not necessarily doing it right.

Perhaps one of the investments that's worth making in this plan is a simple food scale. At the beginning, it may be a hassle to measure food but you'd be surprise how quickly one starts to relate 'right amounts' (measured) with portion sizes, which may or not be equal to one's fist. Soon enough it becomes almost second nature to think of 1 oz of meat has roughly 7 gr of protein so once we know the weight in the package, we pretty much know how much we need.

I guess it's true that “Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.”

[cmcole]

Quite true. Sometimes I find it difficult to get my head around grams of protein rather than serving size, which seems to be the standard that is adhered to by so many practitioners.

My scale has been my best friend (in the past). I will have to dig it out again. It is digital, and can weigh in grams or ounces, and zero out, so, if I were weighing something in a bowl, I could weigh the bowl, zero it out, and then weigh the item. I also sometimes just throw plastic wrap on the top, which saves the scale from becoming too unsanitary.
http://www.fantes.com/images/9091scales_small.jpg (http://www.fantes.com/images/9091scales.jpg)Salter
Microtronic 2001
Electronic Scale$29.99
#9091
6.75" x 7.5" x 1.125" high,
5.75" tray,
Measures solids up to 5 Lbs by 1/8 oz,
High precision strain gauge weight sensing; no moving parts,
Auto zero shutoff,
Reset for tare weight,
Lbs or Kg conversion button,
Uses 9v alkaline battery (not included), (mine had a built-in battery, included)
10 year limited warranty
China

[LisaS]

my food scale is definitely my best friend for learning portions. I even use it for liquids - I'll make a salad and put it bowl-and-all on the scale, tare the scale - and then add ranch dressing to "eye" rather than measure in a spoon - but then I can use the grams & the label to determine how much that actually is.

I always weigh my protein portions otherwise I'll shortchange myself.

[mcsblues]

I did try ... but I can't resist! :p

If you measure protein (and carbs) in grams, why not measure your food in the same way?? :lol:

It makes it so much easier when you realise that low carb protein sources are all (very) roughly 25% protein - so unless you are really struggling to get your protein intake up to the minimum levels the PP WOL requires ... that's all you need to know - you can estimate your protein intake while you are still in the supermarket.

[LisaS]

I do measure all my portions in grams - is that what you meant?

or do you mean - aim for 120-135g serving since I need about 34g pro/meal?

yes - that's more or less how I do it -

however, meat isn't sold in US by metric weight - but by decimal pounds - so I have to look at a package that says 1.11 lbs or 0.93 lb (with bones or waste) and reckon if that is enough for me & the other eater in the house after cooking or not. That's when the 7g/oz weight is handier (1 oz being about 28 g - so about 25% -- same thing)

[mcsblues]

Well yes, but I would do it the other way round 1 lb is roughly 500g, an ounce again roughly 30g ... it really does make life easier, and of course our packaged food labelling laws require a nutritional breakdown for both a 'serving" - (which I ignore) and per 100g - which of course automatically gives you percentages to easily compare different foods. That and the fibre being separately calculated and listed, so the ECC is also done for you ...

Is there any suggestion that the US is going to catch on to the metric system any time soon?

[LisaS]

it is everywhere in science - it is only common usage that is not using it - labels, recipes, food purchases, gasoline, etc - so most people I know just use both - easily switching from one to the other (or mentally converting) as needed -

for example, the USDA food database gives for 100g portions and "common portions" depending on the food - so you can look up "1 apple" or look up 100g of apple and compare to the weight of your own apple.

it's weighing in stones and reckoning in the (older) English money that gets me - I have mental pictures of how big/small someone is who weighs XX kg, - but 12 st - no clue until I do the math.

[laughingW]

Wow, I seem to be odd woman out. I use the volume method just like the picture. Only I use multiples to get my actual needs. For example, 5 oz of animal protein is like a palm and a half. This allows me to eyeball anywhere.

I did spend some time with a scale at first and checking with Fitday on all my favorite foods. For example, 20 grams of white meat turkey protein takes up much less space than 20 grams of Porterhouse protein. FWIW.

[miralin]

I do the same thing laughingw - but I know I'm aiming for 5-6oz of protein per meal, which is .... roughly two palms, so I know what that looks like.

If I get to the point where I'm trying to reach a goal and I'm challenged, I will probably get a scale then, but I've never bothered with one and seem to do OK.

[Mitra]

As far as food's concerned, I'll use metric or imperial weights. Most things here are sold by metric weight, and labels are all metric. Like Malcolm, I find the nutritional analysis for 100g very useful, and found it really irritating in the US that it was virtually impossible to compare two foods because the numbers were given for some arbitrary "portion size." Packet sizes aren't entirely rational, though. My supermarket stocks three different brands of organic milk. My first choice comes in 750 ml cartons. The supermarket's own brand, which is my second choice is in multiples of 568 ml (a pint - that's a 20 fl oz pint) and the third choice (because it's homogenised, unlike the other two) comes in litres.

If I'm checking portion sizes I'll use grammes, if I follow a recipe, I'll use whatever units it was written in.

I'm not really used to using anything but stones for weighing people, though. I know my own weight in pounds and in kg, but when I see numbers that are much different from my weight I have to convert them to get an idea what it really means. It's the same with length. I'm quite happy to use metric lengths for pretty much anything except people. For some reason, height gets measured in feet and inches, whereas waist/hip etc are just in inches.

[LisaS]

are stones decimal or do you use something else (pounds?) for the remainder?
Do the scales weigh in stone or pounds?

[Mitra]

The remainder is in pounds eg 9 stone 5 pounds, though you might well talk about 10 1/2 stones. Scales weigh in stones. Analog ones have 14 divisions for each stone, the digital ones use stones and decimal pounds (there's usually some way of switching them over to kg).