Discouraged in reporting of foods being accurate from MFP verses a couple other nutrition sites. :(
Replies
-
I now see eating more of a lifestyle thing instead of a counting thing. Yes we need to be aware of what we eat but where a food item adds 150, 200 or even 250 calories for that day should not be an issue. My daily body weight is my only real concern if I am eating healthy macros.
As one that mainly eats out two meals a day I seldom know my calorie count which is a non issue as long I am eating balanced and my body weight results are on my target on average.
The little half and half coffee creamers are labeled at 15 cals each on one source and 20 cals from another source. I had 27 yesterday. Was that 405 calories or 540 calories?
This morning my weight was about the same as for the past week so I could care less where the cream was 405 or 540 calories.
The meal where I had 5 cups of coffee was made up of 5 over easy medium eggs, 3 slices of bacon and 2 pieces of sausage. The 3 slices of bacon are never the same size or cooked the same way so their calorie count is all over the board I am sure.
Another point is I have gone two months without by body weight changing by even one pound net but still lost a notch on the belt. Weight loss is more about net results in my view.
There is no chart of calories per item that is CORRECT for what one actually consumes at any given meal. They are for a reference ONLY based of some average at best and just made up at worse.
0 -
I have been following this thread with great interest because of the many discrepancies. Why can't MFP just set up a database using the USDA stats. At least as an option. It is public information after all. They could have both as options if people want to "customize". Or maybe develop some software that could be run regularly to check a basic entry like " 6 oz. chicken thigh with bone and skin = 280 calories, etc. (I just made that up, so dont yell at me). with the USDA, AND default it to the first entry on the search. Nothing will ever be perfect because we aren't comparing widgets but it could be reasonably accurate and consistent. I have forced myself to take the time to weigh and measure carefully and would like some help on the other end. These are simple calculations and I don't want to feel like it is a waste of time on and I am sure everyone doesn't want to waste their time either. Shades, I started logging on paper a few days ago after thinking about your frustration!
0 -
I really wish the entries with the most confirmations would show up earlier in results, too. I frequently look through 3-4 of the same entry before finding the one with the most confirmations.0
-
I added three pork loin raw to my foods. Check pork Loin raw even within MFP Data base how would you know which was correct because none match the USDA numbers. ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/2605?manu=&fgcd=
I believe the whole point to logging foods is to be accurate. The first thing some one says they are not losing weight every one says Are you weighing /measuring correctly?? Logging all your foods. Putting the blame all on them for not maintaining accuracy. Over and over I read this and it is true one cup is less than one and a quarter cup by eyeball.
I think the MFP site is great but it needs a total re-do of the foods database and not allow people to add their version. Or as yturie says let the USDA be the first choice.
Too many of my foods do not have nutrition labels on them.
Yturi try Excel or Open office is a free version if you do not have Excel. It is simple to use.0 -
I don't use anything pre-entered on MFP unless it exactly matches the label in my hand. I also don't use the barcode scanner, because it doens't guarantee you'll get the right version or most recent. I keep my phone in my back pocket and take a pic of a food label as I cook if it's something I haven't used before. I'd much rather use the "my foods" tab and know the labels are accurate than trust something that was entered 2 years ago and confirmed by 200 people didn't change their recipe this year and add 3 carbs with a smaller serving size.0
-
I logged some flank steak this afternoon (just for giggles) and the fat is lower than it should be according to the USDA. They say it should be around 66g for the amount I had (and 270g for the protein). MFP gives me 75 and 190 grams for each (respectively). That's a pretty significant difference.
Edit: good thing I am not worried about excess protein.0 -
So Goat which one are you going to believe? This is a bit of my point. Who do we believe. MFP with user enter or USDA. I know I do not trust the Gov any more than any one else but who do I believe?0
-
You changed your numbers. Still it is significant difference. Who do you believe? Which Flank Steak did you log and how much. I can only find lean trimmed and lord knows you would not be bothered with that.0
-
shadesofidaho wrote: »So Goat which one are you going to believe? This is a bit of my point. Who do we believe. MFP with user enter or USDA. I know I do not trust the Gov any more than any one else but who do I believe?
I did change the numbers. First numbers were Chuck steak. In either case, the protein is still way off.
I am going to believe that the truth could be something in between or neither. It was pretty lean. Came trimmed.
I don't track macros or worry about them, so this stuff does not really bug me anymore. It used to bug me as much as you though.
0 -
The protein discrepancy is probably a huge issue for some keto people who restrict that macro.0
-
Well I think we crashed the USDA site. IT is down right now. I was trying to be cautious of protein. My system is so sensitive I need to watch everything right now. Mostly carbs though and I am keeping them low. Shrug. No idea what to do other than track my own using the USDA if it comes back. It is crazy to be so cautious with weight and measure only to come up with crazy numbers. Pointless. I am not giving up this WOE Just giving up the way I was tracking it.0
-
With a tick box to change that to other country's figures for those of us in other countries pretty please. I know we have UK, Australia and Japan represented in this group alone. Perhaps there are more? It's possible (I'm not certain) that the USDA stats are as useless for me as the user submitted information. I suppose nothing is exact science in this field without a scientific kit on each of our kitchen benches.Why can't MFP just set up a database using the USDA stats. At least as an option. It is public information after all.
0 -
I'm losing weight - errors or not. I think the idea of a usda list coming up separately as a choice is a really good one. Until then, I'll continue to read my labels, and when that isn't giving me calories, get a sense of the most accurate by looking at 3-4 entries, as I've been doing. Just not worth it to me to get wrapped around the axle about this.
-
DO agree it's an issue, just saying (sorry, don't feel well and my don't be too blunt filter goes off in such a case).0 -
GrannyMayOz wrote: »
With a tick box to change that to other country's figures for those of us in other countries pretty please. I know we have UK, Australia and Japan represented in this group alone. Perhaps there are more? It's possible (I'm not certain) that the USDA stats are as useless for me as the user submitted information. I suppose nothing is exact science in this field without a scientific kit on each of our kitchen benches.Why can't MFP just set up a database using the USDA stats. At least as an option. It is public information after all.
Oz doesn't have it's own food authority industry to set standards? If so, that's who I'd use if I were you. For those in the UK, Sainsbury's seems to have moderately reliable information.
What does it say about all of us that the processed foods are more accurate on MFP than the REAL FOODS? It think that speaks volumes as to the whole mess here and that we're expected to fall into!!0 -
Right Knit. This is some thing that has been churning in my head too. Very few items I buy have labels. Could be some thing to do with sponsoring.
Edit and OHHHHH me thinks there is a need to keep the people fat to feed the drug companies that keep them alive after they get fat or so the people thik and I need to sign off this one before I really get on a rant.0 -
Sending you a hug, Shades.0
-
@BetterBalance Thanks0
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »GrannyMayOz wrote: »
With a tick box to change that to other country's figures for those of us in other countries pretty please. I know we have UK, Australia and Japan represented in this group alone. Perhaps there are more? It's possible (I'm not certain) that the USDA stats are as useless for me as the user submitted information. I suppose nothing is exact science in this field without a scientific kit on each of our kitchen benches.Why can't MFP just set up a database using the USDA stats. At least as an option. It is public information after all.
Oz doesn't have it's own food authority industry to set standards? If so, that's who I'd use if I were you. For those in the UK, Sainsbury's seems to have moderately reliable information.
What does it say about all of us that the processed foods are more accurate on MFP than the REAL FOODS? It think that speaks volumes as to the whole mess here and that we're expected to fall into!!
TBF, even the processed stuff isn't all that accurate. MFP rounds everything, so it's still wrong. I have good luck with Sparkpeople's database - they use decimals and they incude all micros, not just the 4 on a Dorito's bag.0 -
We do have one - Food Standards Australia New Zealand - it would be fantastic if that database was included in MFP.KnitOrMiss wrote: »Oz doesn't have it's own food authority industry to set standards? If so, that's who I'd use if I were you. For those in the UK, Sainsbury's seems to have moderately reliable information.
It actually surprises me what a high % of Americans are here, I truly thought this site would be more international. Not complaining by any means (there's nothing to complain about!), just surprised. Though I know the relative population of Oz is tiny, what about all the other countries around the world? Rhetorical question, don't worry.
0 -
GrannyMayOz wrote: »
We do have one - Food Standards Australia New Zealand - it would be fantastic if that database was included in MFP.KnitOrMiss wrote: »Oz doesn't have it's own food authority industry to set standards? If so, that's who I'd use if I were you. For those in the UK, Sainsbury's seems to have moderately reliable information.
It actually surprises me what a high % of Americans are here, I truly thought this site would be more international. Not complaining by any means (there's nothing to complain about!), just surprised. Though I know the relative population of Oz is tiny, what about all the other countries around the world? Rhetorical question, don't worry.
We Americans are some fat SOB's. We are very indulgent, compared to the rest of the world, and have higher levels of obesity, per many studies (granted, I haven't personally confirmed this), but my fiance used to live in the UK, and he said the differences in obesity here versus there are unbelievably lower in the UK. Astronomically so! Stands to reason more struggle with extreme levels of obesity here...0 -
I agree with Raventwo "I'm losing weight - errors or not." We have two scales at home - each with different weights, and my doctor's office and gym have different weights on their individual scales - I love stepping on a "light" scale, but as long as I'm losing on any scale, I'm happy. Same for calorie counts - there's no way to make them exact because (in the example of beef) the fat content may vary per animal...I use MFP for an estimate and as long as I'm consistent with entering what I'm eating and the approximate weights (another guess as I don't measure when I'm at work) I feel like I'm doing great. Then when I see "likes" from people I've connected to here on MFP, I know that I'm in good company - whichever plan we're following. For me, just as GaleHawkins mentioned, it's a lifestyle change. I am NOT dieting and I am not going to obsess ever again about every minute crumb I put into my mouth - just going to follow the low carb way and meet my goal of reducing or eliminating my use of metformin.0
This discussion has been closed.