Weight vs measurement of foods, which to go by?

I know the more logical answer is weight but I have a problem accepting that the weight is more accurate whenever it lets me eat more than I thought the serving was supposed to be.

An example:

Oatmeal, usually people take more than the half cup serving by weight when scooping it out with a measuring cup but earlier I weighed my half cup serving dry before cooking and it was around 8g too little so I went to add a little more but it was more than the half cup size (very slightly, but still) so I didnt add to 40g because I was afraid maybe I should just go by measurement rather than weight because it was more.

I hope that made sense.

Same thing with packaged foods. If I weigh my pre-packaged things and they are under by weight I trust that its the right serving size anyway because it was packaged that way and I record the printed nutritionals.

Is it always safer to go by weight?

Or I guess I should ask, are the nutritionals always the same by weight? (Lord knows measurements arent)

Would 40g of dry, uncooked, oats that fit into 1/3 cup have the same stats as 40g that filled 3/4 cup?
Same question goes for any food, when the weight is the same but the volume is different. Like two fillets of the same type of raw fish at different sizes and identical weights.

Original Post by decempt:

Or I guess I should ask, are the nutritionals always the same by weight? (Lord knows measurements arent)

Would 40g of dry, uncooked, oats that fit into 1/3 cup have the same stats as 40g that filled 3/4 cup?

Yes.  Weight is always at least as accurate as volume.  For liquids, it doesn't make much difference (one cup of skim milk always weighs the same) but, for solids, it's most accurate to weigh.  And, yes, that occasionally means you get to eat more than you thought because your oatmeal happens to be fluffier than average.  Because that "extra" volume is really just air. 

When we were little kids my Dad used to ask us a trick question..... "Which is heavier?  A pound of iron or a pound of feathers?".... 

Weight is always weight.... volume varies depending on the density of the material.

They call this a obsessive compulsive habit and many of these occur when we diet and get to hung up on the details.  It becomes an obsession! 

Just read all the questions in this form.  You will see repeated responders to the questions who claim to be experts of sorts.  But in actual fact are obsessive themselves.  They copy, repeat and suggest things without any medical qualifications or experience.  So in these Forums you must determine for yourself..."will this apply to me?".  It is a think tank only here.

..compulsive dieters are everywhere and many are anorexic or suffering from malnutrition and do not know it.  This can lead to mental obsessions, like dieting.

Dieting is a state of mind and we all have to be relaxed with any diet and not make it a curse.   So relax! Ask yourself,  "is this that important?

Unless your chronically ill, I think this stress you are adding to your weight control is excessive.  You can actually affect organs, digestion and weight gain or loss.  

 Your answer is best found at your  Doctor's office and not here.

Original Post by themassageguy:

They call this a obsessive compulsive habit

That's a mental health diagnosis only a doctor can make and, once again, you're taking things completely out of context  & posting messages likely to alarm a poster with no good reason whatsoever.  The question was whether to measure foods by weight or volume... quite simple really...  The answers (except your peculiar little diatribe) were fairly appropriate to the question.  How 'relaxing' or visiting a doctor helps anyone determine whether they're about to put 100g of pasta or 150g into the pot I'm not sure .... but maybe that's how people cook where you live...

Very seriously... I don't think you can at all substantiate the claim that people (like myself) who respond to these posts are obsessive.  (Just because we dare to disagree with your pearls of wisdom there's no need to get nasty.)  CC members generally share common experiences and offer support.  Since you r accusation falls into the bracket of 'personal insult' and therefore disallowed under CC's posting guidelines I will report your post as a violation.

Original Post by themassageguy:

Just read all the questions in this form.  You will see repeated responders to the questions who claim to be experts of sorts.  But in actual fact are obsessive themselves.  They copy, repeat and suggest things without any medical qualifications or experience.  So in these Forums you must determine for yourself..."will this apply to me?".  It is a think tank only here.

And yet, here you are, setting yourself up as some kind of expert, giving a diagnosis without any credentials I can see.  Read the Advice section!  That's where a lot of what other members are saying comes from.  And also, drawing on personal experience is important to share.  We haven't heard a word from you about your own personal experience.

themassageguy- Thank you for your concern, however Im just asking the question so that I can set aside my confusion and have a more accurate intake.

gi-jane - Thats very true, I understand that part. I was wondering if density ever goes into play also?
Like 100g of, hm, cabbage? persay. The greener outside leaves are lighter than the whiter dense insides (Ive noticed anyway haha) so would the larger volume 100g of the leafy parts be the same as the volume dense 100g white parts of the same food? Or does density change the stats?

100g of cabbage is 100g cabbage...  Floppy outer leaves or firmer inside leaves, it doesn't really matter... it's all the same stuff and the same calories per 100g.  When a food is more dense the usual thing missing is water... and water doesn't contain calories.

Take 1oz of dry pasta as another example.... 100 cals.  Cook it in water and you might end up with 2 or 3oz cooked pasta... and it'll still contain 100cals because all you've added is water.

A 1oz slice of bread also contains 100 cals..... stick it in the toaster and dehydrate it for a few minutes and you might end up with a 3/4 oz slice of toast.... and it'll still contain 100 cals because all you've taken away is water.

gi-jane - I have NO idea why I didnt even think about the water ratio factor. That completely answered my question for all the reasons I was confused. I understood that theyre the same but not why, you know?
So technically it would matter when you weighed though Im guessing. 50g of fresh strawberries will be plumper with water weight and have less calories than slightly older and dried out strawberries taking up the same 50g only now they have less of the water to account for those same grams.
Interesting.

Thank you for explaining that.

In the case of slightly less fresh strawberries it's probably too minimal a difference.  But if you think of difference in calories of raisins vs grapes then you can see the ultimate result of removing most of the water.