Justin & Meredith Winokur's Kitchen Cooking Notebook
Sitemap ·
Our Recipe Book ·
Steven's Recipe Book ·
Ann's Recipe Book ·
Meal Ideas ·
Copied Recipes
Random ·
Random Links
pages/notes
All sub pages for /pages/notes
About -- back to top
I am have been trying to cook new things and be more adventurous. At the same time, I have also been trying to be healthier. Being a scientists (arguably, in training...but then again, aren't we all?) I decided I needed to document my work. This way I can build from previous successes or failure and use it to gain further inspiration. This is blog is the realization of that.
It is intended as a tool for me, but I certainly welcome anyone and everyone to read it. Please comment and build onto it.
Original Wordpress ID and Date: 2, 2010-08-08_101650
Cookie Scoop Size -- back to top
As of 2019-12-15, this is the only one we have: 2 oz
There is a lot of disagreement on flour weights. LA Times' article talks about it and identifies the following:
| Source | 1 cup flour |
|---|---|
| King Arthur Flour | 120 grams |
| Bake From Scratch | 125 grams |
| Washington Post | 126 grams |
| The New York Times | 128 grams |
| Bon Appétit | 130 grams |
| AllRecipes.com | 136 grams |
| The L.A. Times; Cook’s Illustrated1 | 142 grams |
For the most part, I prefer to follow King Arthur Flour and, whenever possible, I measure by weight as specified in the recipe. So if a Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen has a recipe calling for "3 cups of flour or 15 oz" (where 15 oz is 425.243 grams), I will use 15 oz and not 12.7 oz (360 grams @ 120 grams/oz).
For my Dad's recipes, he seems to use the 142 as well. Again, go by weight (unless I note otherwise)
And presumably America's Test Kitchen, Cooks Country, etc ↩
Homebrew specific equipment
Original Wordpress ID and Date: 6501, 2013-08-19_112618
I am looking more deeply into Weight Watchers (WW) Smart Points Formula.
There are all ready some great discussions on the web. See most notably:
(with local PDF copies hosted here. However, I wanted to deduce the formula myself.
Here I present my methodology and thoughts behind how I do it.
WW asks for 7 pieces of information as listed below. However, it seems as only those I have in bold count.
The fundamental assumption is that the calculation is linear. That is, if item A has, say, 10 points, and item B has 12, if you enter the information together, (with the exception of rounding), it should have 22 points.
I think this is a safe assumption, though as I will mention later, some numbers get a bit strange at higher values. I think this is due to a bug though.
The biggest limitation is that the values are rounded. This essentially reduces the number of significant digits and introduces error. For example, 49 calories are 1 point and 50 are 2. Therefore, when I work out the formula, I will do two things:
The other limitation is that there is a limit to how large of a number I can use. The calories are limited to 9999 and the grams of nutrients are limited to 999. Plus, the value is limited to 999 as well. Finally, There does seem to be some bugs when using high calories with high protein (needed since protein is negative and another limitation is that you can't have negative points.
I will therefore collect many data points (at the boundaries of rounding for more accuracy) on all contributors. I will set the others to zero (except when I do protein where I will fix calories). I can then do a linear fit of the form ax+b. For all but protein, I expect b to be zero, but this may or may not be the case due to rounding. Either way, I am only interested in a
The process was made easier from my earlier investigations and from the above-linked sites. I was able to guess close to the value to start. For protein, I needed to start with some calories. I choose 8993 calories (for 273 points). This is exactly on 8992.5 --> 272.5 border so it worked well
Below are my results and those from the above-linked sources. Note that the actual values should be a coefficient (that is multiply the number of grams/calories). Instead, I am inverting it to look at whole numbers.
Therefore, these are values of g/point (or cal/point)
| Source: | My Results | Weight Watcher Geek | Calorie Lab |
|---|---|---|---|
| calories/point | 33.05 | 32.79 | 33.00 |
| g. sat fat/point | 3.666 | 3.636 | 3.667 |
| g. sugar/point | 8.064 | 8.333 | 8.250 |
| g. protein/point | -10.29 | -10.20 | -10.31 |
We are all pretty close. And if you read the Calorie Lab description, I gain more and more confidence in their formula, especially when you consider their methodology and thought process. I think I will use their formula in my calculations
Weight Watchers does not give you the option to enter grams of alcohol. Therefore, I am left to try to determine it myself. These should be taken with a huge grain of salt as they rely on too many assumptions and unknowns.
Look at 40% ABV Scotch. With CalorieKing.com
Use 100 fl oz. This is 6414 calories and 927.4g. Note that Wolfram Alpha says 933 grams (probably based on the density of ethanol). We will go with Calorie King to at least be consistent. (But also note below what WW says)
We know from prior calculations that 6416 calories alone is 194.42 Smart points.
If we put in 100 fl. oz. Scotch into WW, we get 231 points. If we put in 1000, we get 2313. Therefore 100 fl. oz. is 231.3 points. Also note that WW says this should be 64667 calories or 6466.7 for 100 fl. oz. We will address this soon.
Use Calorie King's calorie value:
Difference in points is 231.3 - 194.42 == 36.88. With 927.4 grams of alcohol, that is 36.88 points/927.4 grams or 0.0398 points per gram (or 25.15 grams/point)
Using WW' calorie values, we have 100 fl. oz scotch as 6466.7 calories which we find to be 195.96 points alone. Therefore the alcohol adds 35.34 points. Again, use Calorie King's 927.4 grams of alcohol, we find 0.0381 points per gram (or 26.24 grams/point).
We note that all servings of alcohol are approximately the same (0.40 ABV * 1.5 fl. oz = 0.60 fl oz. in scotch. 0.05 ABV * 12 fl. oz = 0.60 fl oz. in beer). Again, sticking with Calorie King, this means that there are about 14 grams of alcohol in a serving. That add about half a point. Really not as bad as it used to be.
Weight Watcher's Points -- back to top
This page is to serve as an explanation and note about point values. All posts before 11/30 are the old point system. All posts after that date will be noted as to which system (if not both), was used.
The Points Plus is supposedly based on a better understanding of how the body processes food. It is based on fat, fiber, protein and carbohydrates. In general, most items go up except or proteins, which remain about the same and fruit, which becomes free. While things go up, so does the daily allowance.
The point calculation is more complicated but, after a good bit of playing, I deduced a working model for it. Note that it may not be perfect, but it does seem to work in every situation I have encountered and tested (including very high values and values near rounding points.
The formula is as follows. Note that, at least as of this writing and based on Weight watchers.com, there does not seem to be a cap on fiber, but it does not take much away.
Points = round( (Fat)(9/35) + (Carbs)(19/175) + (Protein)(16/175) (Fiber)(2/25) )
Please make sure to leave a comment if anyone finds where this does not work.
A less accurate version that can be easily done in your head is as follows:
Points=round( (Fat*3 + Protein + Carbs - Fiber)/10)
It is not overly accurate but it is easily doable in your head.
Another in-your-head method that is a bit strange and hard to test looks at how carbs, protein, fat and (I think), fiber contribute to calories. It is great because it can be done when only caloric information is available.
Calories/40+fat/20
It should be fat/28 but it is easier to be fat/20
There is no clear way to deal with alcohol because they do not tell us. However, as noted in the Wikipedia talk page, if 1.5 oz whiskey (which is 40% ABV) is 4 points. 15 ounces (10 shots) is 36 points so each shot is 3.6. According to Wolfram Alpha, 0.6 fl oz (40% of 1.5fl oz) is 14 grams of ethanol (alcohol). If 14 grams of alcohol is 3.6 points, take grams/3.89 into the points calculation.
The old system, phased out on November 28, 2010, was based on calories, fat and fiber. It can be roughly thought of as 50 calories/point with a bias towards fiber and away from fat.
The exact point calculation is:
round( (calories/50) + (grams fat/12) - (min(4 or grams fiber)/5) ).
This is mathematically identical to counting each gram of fat as 50/12 calories and fiber as 10. Then add the "fat calories" to the calories and subtract the "fiber calories" but no more than 40 "fiber calories". Divide that by 50 and round.
While not exact, it is easier to count fat as 5 calories instead of the actual 50/12=4.166. This is an over estimate but it is easier to do in your head.
In addition, vegetables are basically zero even if they have some calories, but I do start to count things if there is a lot
Original Wordpress ID and Date: 679, 2010-11-30_100529