Multiple calorie values for food items

caddir

How do you log? I have just looked up babybel light - now they are standard sizes, and none of the values have stars on so I am guessing that they are not values added by MFP users, so why are there so many options - one standard cheese and it varies from 42-50.

I used the higher value, of course, since it was not so much variation but some things, listed as a specific make can vary hugely.

My problem yesterday was not a standard item, so I was unsurprised that fresh sardines were very variable (and I put in a midrange value)

How do you more experienced dieters do it, please?

Liftng4Lis

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think#latest

Sued0nim

Google calorific values

Double-check against package

Only select entries with multiple member confirmations

Need2Exerc1se

I found many of the non-user entries were incorrect when compared against the USDA nutrient search. Usually not far off, but over a week, it could add up. I stopped using this site for logging since I had to look elsewhere for the calories and nutrients to verify.

CyberTone

caddir wrote: »

How do you log? I have just looked up babybel light - now they are standard sizes, and none of the values have stars on so I am guessing that they are not values added by MFP users, so why are there so many options - one standard cheese and it varies from 42-50.

Asterisks only display when searching for food items using the Web version. Every entry on the Web version for "babybel light" has an asterisk.
The mobile apps do not show asterisks for any food items. That is why I prefer to search for food items using the Web version, so that I can verify if the item is user-entered (has an asterisk) or is MFP-entered (has no asterisk).

ana3067

This is why I created my own private database. MFP database sucks many balls.

blbst36

Use the package in your hand. It is the most accurate

rileysowner

There are a few reasons:

1. User error entering the item, usually looking at the confirmations of a item will give you a more accurate entry.

2. Items from different countries. The items like the Baby Bell or the like will often be different based on which country they are purchased in. This is largely due to different food rules in different countries that change the make up of the item or change the rounding allowed for calories or other information.

3. Different product sizes. That is why I find the majority of entries here frustrating. Sure, the nutritional information panel gives an estimate of the amount of the item that will make the weight of the serving size, but when the item is tested in the lab it will be based on weight or for liquids volume. An entry like "One Baby Bell" is useless unless you are sure the weigh is the same, and that is often not the case. Companies will often change the size of items in small ways that people would not notice and for calorie dense things like cheese, that small change they make to maximize profits or to provide a slightly larger item to satisfy customer feedback and keep those customers can make a big difference in calories.

There are probably more things that could result in variations that I am not thinking of right now. For these reasons it is important to compare the label to the entry you are using the first time you use it.

I would be nice if people would enter the country they are entering the food from when they add entries, and I wish the database required both the weight/volume along with the estimate of the product that would meet that weight volume so that one can use the weight/volume if they so desire

Thankfully, most people eat many of the same things month to month. That means once you have found the item that matches you don't have to check the information or search through all the items in the database. Personally I have the meals I usually eat that all have the correct entries from the database saved as meals so I can easily select them and then modify the amounts in the diary if needed. Once you have what you normally eat put together with the correct database entries, it becomes even easier.

blankiefinder

I was entering something in my log last night that had probably 8 entries and none of them matched the calories on the package, so I just used the MFP phone app to add it, using the barcode, and bam, it gave me the right # of calories

PammieSuzyQ

using the phone to scan and add seems to be the best way. now if only frakking restaurants and local craft beer brewers would tell you what their calories are!

caddir

Ah, thank you. Really useful

SandyCoils

I like to use the barcode scanning option from my phone or iPad to enter and log my calories. That way I am getting the info right from the package. Although the calories may be "off" on a lot of the items, the whole idea of logging cals and being responsible and planning my meals instead of just unconsciously eating whatever I want has helped me tremendously and helped me lose 5 pounds since beginning here 2 1/2 weeks ago. If I'm eating something and can't get to the barcode to log it, I choose the one with the larger cal count to be safe. Works for me, but probably not for those who are a bit more strict.

cerad2

SandyCoils wrote: »

I like to use the barcode scanning option from my phone or iPad to enter and log my calories. That way I am getting the info right from the package.

Sadly, the barcode number itself does not have nutrition information. It's just an identifier. So you are not actually entering data from the package.

The MFP database is still used to get the information and, as so many others have pointed out, the database is less than reliable. Always check MFP against the package. In many cases, you will probably need to enter the data by hand.

rileysowner

My frustration with people saying the database is unreliable, is that is an inaccurate statement. Other than items that are not in the database at all, I can find the item I am entering, it just takes a bit of time the first time through since there are so many similar entries. Many of those similar entries are not wrong either, just different sizes or formulations depending on regional differences.

By this I am not saying every entry is correct, but that is what the confirmations are for. Frankly, I don't quite understand why there are as many entries for various raw food items as the site has those entered already based on USDA numbers. The ones with the * beside them I generally ignore for raw items since I don't trust the data entry capability of many people over the numbers given without the *.

I think the problem has more to do with the search algorithm MFP uses as I get some results that make no sense for what I searched for, but when I change the search slightly the results change radically. For that matter searching for cinnamon should first result in the official database entry for cinnamon and the like, then all the others. The number of times when I started I had to search for the correct entry until I clued in on how the recent and frequent foods worked, not to mention that if I wanted a spice, "Spices Cinnamon ground" or whatever spice I was looking for would usually get what I wanted from the official site database. However, the learning curve has more to do with me than an inaccurate database. Put the initial work in, and the database works fine and has accurate numbers. A better search algorithm would be a great thing,

Could it be benefited by a cutting down of entries in the public database. Certainly. I think things that receive a lot of negative responses in confirmations by users should be removed from the public database, and left only to the user who added it, but I don't know if they kept that information in the database. If they did, it shouldn't be too difficult to implement such a change.

SandyCoils

cerad2 wrote: »

SandyCoils wrote: »

I like to use the barcode scanning option from my phone or iPad to enter and log my calories. That way I am getting the info right from the package.

Sadly, the barcode number itself does not have nutrition information. It's just an identifier. So you are not actually entering data from the package.

This is not entirely true. It's not "just an identifier". I have scanned plenty of things that gave all nutritional info - just from the barcode. For me, some nutritional info is better than none. Using the database has helped me become more aware of what I am eating and helped me to begin my journey on the right track - by losing weight.

rileysowner

SandyCoils wrote: »

cerad2 wrote: »

SandyCoils wrote: »

I like to use the barcode scanning option from my phone or iPad to enter and log my calories. That way I am getting the info right from the package.

Sadly, the barcode number itself does not have nutrition information. It's just an identifier. So you are not actually entering data from the package.

This is not entirely true. It's not "just an identifier". I have scanned plenty of things that gave all nutritional info - just from the barcode. For me, some nutritional info is better than none. Using the database has helped me become more aware of what I am eating and helped me to begin my journey on the right track - by losing weight.

You are not understanding what is being said. The actual bar code simply identifies the item, the nutritional information is what was entered in the database here are MFP.

The person was not saying that using the bar code you will not get nutritional information when you scan it in. Just that the information is not in the actual bar code.

On that note, I have had several times when I have scanned a bar code and gotten an item that is nothing like the one I am scanning, so it is wise to double check even using the bar code.

cwolfman13

rabbitjb wrote: »

Google calorific values

Double-check against package

Only select entries with multiple member confirmations

Pretty much this^^^

I would add to this, for non-packaged, bulk foods use the USDA tag (i.e. Broccoli - USDA)

CyberTone

cwolfman13 wrote: »

rabbitjb wrote: »

Google calorific values

Double-check against package

Only select entries with multiple member confirmations

Pretty much this^^^

I would add to this, for non-packaged, bulk foods use the USDA tag (i.e. Broccoli - USDA)

For fruits and vegetables, I search in the format "vegetable - raw." I only use USDA in the search if I can not find an entry without an asterisk (only displayed on the Web version, not mobile apps). An asterisk indicates that the food item is user-entered, and may be inaccurate, and as far as I have seen, every item with USDA in the name has an asterisk and could be inaccurate. Also, if you choose the non-asterisk MFP-entered items, they usually have many more serving sizes from which to choose. For example, see the screen shot for the non-asterisk entry for "Broccoli - raw" below.

caddir

Many thanks for your replies. Initially i took it for granted that if I scanned an item using the barcode that this would be perfect. For example, today's scan of a slice of honey sunflower bread (at 53 calories per slice) proved the point - a more thorough search revealed several more values - including some that gave weight in grams. having weighed and checked it I am using a more sensible valueof 207 calories for the 74 grams.

I still haven't fully worked out the frequent and recent list yet, and how to remove an inaccurate entry from them, but it is early days yet.

Thank you all for your help.

PeachyCarol

rabbitjb wrote: »

Google calorific values

Double-check against package

Only select entries with multiple member confirmations

This is exactly what I always do any time I'm selecting something new to me. I'm also sure to add my confirmation to member-confirmed entries to help other users once I've verified something.