Etekcity 0.1g Food Kitchen Scale Review

It’s real, with an honest catch printed on the listing itself: the scale uses dual increments, reading in 0.1 g steps below 1,000 g and 1 g steps from 1,000 g to its 5 kg capacity. In practice that’s exactly the right trade for weight-loss tracking — the foods where a gram matters (olive oil, nut butter, cheese, spices, protein powder) are almost always weighed in small amounts well under 1 kg, where you get the fine reading, while a full mixing bowl over 1 kg only ever needed 1 g anyway. No other full-size scale in our lineup reads finer.

Because you put wet, oily, sometimes raw food on this surface every day. A 304 stainless-steel platform is food-safe, wipes clean in a second, doesn’t stain or absorb odors, and survives years of daily kitchen abuse — which is why our build-and-material criterion (25% of the score) ranks stainless ahead of tempered glass and well ahead of bare plastic. The Etekcity pairs that platform with a detachable bowl, so sticky or wet ingredients never have to touch the scale body at all. A scale you can hygienically clean is a scale you’ll keep using.

Three things. First, taring: set the bowl on, press tare to zero it out, and weigh only the food — then re-zero and add the next ingredient in the same bowl. Second, containment: oil, yogurt, rice, and chopped ingredients stay off the platform. Third, storage: flipped over, the bowl becomes a protective cover for the scale, which keeps the platform clean in a drawer or on the counter. If you prefer a bare platform and your own bowls, the bowl detaches completely — tare works with any container.

Yes — it’s the most precise full-size option in our lineup, which is exactly what macro tracking rewards. True 1 g resolution is the floor for honest calorie logging, and this scale goes a step further with 0.1 g readings below 1 kg, tightening the number on the small, calorie-dense foods that quietly wreck a deficit: a few extra grams of oil or peanut butter is 30-50 uncounted calories. Weigh in grams, log the exact number in Cronometer or MacroFactor, and your tracking stops being an optimistic guess. The evidence that eyeballing fails is solid — obese adults underreported their actual calorie intake by about 47% in Lichtman 1992 (NEJM).

1. [1] Lichtman 1992 PMID 1454084 — Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. Doubly-labeled-water study: obese adults who reported diet resistance underreported their actual caloric intake by 47% on average and overreported activity by 51% — self-report fails exactly where weighing is exact. The evidence for owning a food scale at all: the eye systematically under-counts, and an exact gram weight removes that error. (Product specs on this page are manufacturer claims, not research.)
2. [2] Lasschuijt 2019 PMID 31255647 — Unaware of the amount consumed: systematic error in estimating food- and drink intake. Estimation error was roughly ten times greater for solid foods than liquids — and solid foods are exactly what a food scale weighs. Reinforces why weighing in grams beats eyeballing, especially for the dense foods where the Etekcity’s 0.1 g mode operates.