Volume Vs. Weight.

My take on this.. use both measurements, if you are both tracking your intake and also controlling for volume in your sleeve. Your sleeve doesn't fit things in it by weight, it uses volume.

So in regards to what you can fit in your sleeve, use volume for measuring because that will tell you what fits in it. Yes the volume might be slightly different when you have shredded versus cubed, but it's a minor difference and probably not worth noting.

Also the volume I can eat can vary day by day and depends on the density of the food. If you are undereating your sleeve, also you are never "testing" what can fit, you are only putting in what you measured.

Use weight for tracking calories, protein, etc. because that is what nutrition trackers measure by.

By undereating your sleeve I mean never get to the point where you are totally full or seeing what you can fit.. you are eating what you need and what makes you comfortable not stuffed.

This is hard for me to do personally but good advice if you can manage it! Also these measurements are not an exact science, and you'll learn over time your personal sleeve limits with foamies, different food densities, what foods work for you and which don't.

Each person is different and what works for me may not work for you, but I understand when you are trying to be diligent and follow directions it's hard when you don't have exact directions. Go slowly with new foods to see what you can tolerate, eat slowly and chew well, and you'll get a good feel for your sleeve over time.

Hope that makes sense and helps?

I say screw volume. Eat until you are no longer hungry - NOT until you are full.

I can eat 1-2 oz of hamburger meat and 3 oz of all-meat chili - same meat.
1 oz of grilled chicken and 3 oz of Elina's chicken soup - same meat.
1 oz of ham and 3 oz of my homemade pork green chili - same meat.
2 oz of tuna salad.

You are overthinking this. If you are trying to figure out how much of something you are eating, measure before you eat it and after you eat it. whatever the difference is is what you ate.

Stop at satisfied.

JMO of course.

One of the problems of the English measuring system is that we have ounces of volume and ounces of weight (or mass to be pedantic,) which are not the same thing unless we are talking abou****er, which by definition has a density of one ounce of mass per ounce of volulme. Since most of our foods have a lot of water in them, their density tends to be similar until we consider packing - just what is a half cup of spinach (how finely chopped, how tightly packed....) At least in the metric (or SI) system they have cubic centimeters (cc's) or liters (litres in the UK?) for volume which is harder to confuse with grams or kilos of weight.

hrford is right on the packing density problem - when I measure out the various protein powders that I have used, a scoop is invariably somewhat light from the stated measurement on the package. If the package says that a scoop is 34g, I measure out 34g and not a scoop.

That said, I almost exclusively measured by weight out of convenience (it's a lot easier to throw multiple ingredients into a bowl on a taring scale than fussing with multiple measuring cups and spoons,) and under the premise that most of our foods end up being compacted in the stomach to near water density. That, and our stomachs (or at least mine, and it seems like most o rmany others as well,) handle different amounts (whether by weight or volume) of different types of food differently - about 3 oz weight of meat is my capacity, but upwards of double that of lower density (but still measured by weightf) fruit or veg which the stomach tends to move thru fairly quickly.

The measuring cup approach is a good teaching tool early on to get a feel for what the amounts are that we can handle in the post-op world, but in time we all find the way that works best for us.