Selecting the correct database item

Whitezombiegirl
Whitezombiegirl Posts: 1,042 Member
edited November 16 in Health and Weight Loss
Hi all

Just a quick vent about the data base- imo there are too many erroneous entries that make it hard to accuratly record calories. For example I was trying to record 71g of pork loin steak (fat removed) and the two best options I found gave me 91 cals and 130cals cals- which should people go for? (I went for the higher cal one).

People give advice to weight food all the time, I think we need to be adding a caveat that we should be careful with our database selection too. I know in the past somone flagging a 120g bananna in somsone's diary for about 50cals- stuff like that.

If you are out by 50cals a few times a day- it could easily set somone back without realising why. End rant. :)

Replies

  • MonsoonStorm
    MonsoonStorm Posts: 371 Member
    you can edit the offending entry if you do so wish, report it as wrong etc.

    But generally I go for the higher entry if I really have no clue as to an item's nutritional value.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,230 Member
    If at all possible, find the one without the *, if not then look for ones with lots of confirmations. It is annoying though.
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    I really love the yogurt entry I posted in the MFP feedback forum...

    5uh11mk69946.png
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,230 Member
    blankiefinder wrote: »
    I really love the yogurt entry I posted in the MFP feedback forum...

    5uh11mk69946.png

    Hey man, don't judge, if I want to snack on a tomato of yogurt, that's my deal.
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    blankiefinder wrote: »
    I really love the yogurt entry I posted in the MFP feedback forum...

    5uh11mk69946.png

    Hey man, don't judge, if I want to snack on a tomato of yogurt, that's my deal.

    Well why wouldn't you, if memory serves, it was only 18 calories!!
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,230 Member
    blankiefinder wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    blankiefinder wrote: »
    I really love the yogurt entry I posted in the MFP feedback forum...

    5uh11mk69946.png

    Hey man, don't judge, if I want to snack on a tomato of yogurt, that's my deal.

    Well why wouldn't you, if memory serves, it was only 18 calories!!

    Bargain!
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Whitezombiegirl wrote: »
    Hi all

    Just a quick vent about the data base- imo there are too many erroneous entries that make it hard to accuratly record calories. For example I was trying to record 71g of pork loin steak (fat removed) and the two best options I found gave me 91 cals and 130cals cals- which should people go for? (I went for the higher cal one).

    People give advice to weight food all the time, I think we need to be adding a caveat that we should be careful with our database selection too. I know in the past somone flagging a 120g bananna in somsone's diary for about 50cals- stuff like that.

    If you are out by 50cals a few times a day- it could easily set somone back without realising why. End rant. :)

    Cross check against 1) Pack nutrition and 2) calorie databases through google

    Choose the most accurate version or add your own

    Report / amend the wrong ones

    Add a member confirmation on the right ones
  • peterjens
    peterjens Posts: 235 Member
    I scan the barcode of the food I am eating if possible. My other source is http://nutritiondata.self.com/ I will check this out first and then go the MFP database and see if I can find the identical data. I am surprised how many foods I find in MFP seem to be created from http://nutritiondata.self.com/
This discussion has been closed.

Categories