Frustrated with lack of consistency of Calorie counts for foods on MFP

Options
24

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    flamingblades wrote: »
    Thanx for the tip on that nutrition website. When you get several thousand people adding info on the data base, there are bound to be discrepancies. That's why when I add something to the database, I add "from label" in the description. If nothing else, to be able to find my own submission instead of some of the others.

    I just wished MFP didn't force us to share it..which they do. I have tried to uncheck "add to database" but it "rechecks" when I hit submit.
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »
    68pgeligzxva.jpg
    Sorry, not breast, but I plugged that in and got 370 calories for 8 ounces cooked.

    I looked up chicken breast skinless raw 8 oz and it was 272 calories on the USDA website. I don't think its going to increase in calories simply because it is thrown on a BBQ. How would they know what kind of seasoning I'm using? How does it go from 272 calories raw to 370 cooked?
  • OhMaryMack
    OhMaryMack Posts: 11 Member
    Options
    Since there no way to request corrections to obviously erroneous nutrition information found in the database, it's no surprise that it is so full of discrepancies. I realize this service is free, but in order for it to be useful, it needs to be somewhat accurate. It's too bad they don't have a mechanism for corrections.
  • thankyou4thevenom
    thankyou4thevenom Posts: 1,581 Member
    Options
    If you use the app the items with green ticks have been verified and therefore should be correct. If you're on the website look for the ones without stars. A star means user submitted.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted: 100g = 165 calories
    Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, raw: 100g = 120 calories

    Off by almost 38%.

    Think about that...for every 1000 calories you THINK you are consuming, it's actually 1380.
    On a 2000-calorie diet, you're consuming 2,760.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    Bshmerlie wrote: »

    I looked up chicken breast skinless raw 8 oz and it was 272 calories on the USDA website. I don't think its going to increase in calories simply because it is thrown on a BBQ. How would they know what kind of seasoning I'm using? How does it go from 272 calories raw to 370 cooked?


    Because 8 ounces raw becomes lighter after you cook away the water and fats inside it. Your 8-ounce piece of raw breast meat would only be ~5 ounces cooked.
    So, if you cook your chicken breast and then measure out 8 ounces, you are eating what started out as a raw 11-ounce piece.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    If you start with an 8-ounce piece of raw chicken, cook it and eat it, then yes, you'll still be at 272 calories. However, the weight of your chicken was less than 8 ounces at the time you ate it.
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    So how does meat gain calories by roasting it? I'm assuming thats a rotisserie? Doesn't make sense.
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    Now...wait a second....your top one (roasted) doesn't say skinless.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    Options
    It doesn't gain calories by cooking it. We are talking about when you measure your 8 ounces.
    Are you measuring out 8 ounces BEFORE you cook it? If you are, then you're consuming the 272 calories.
    If you are measuring out 8 ounces AFTER you cook it, then you are eating 370.
  • Bshmerlie
    Bshmerlie Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »
    Bshmerlie wrote: »

    I looked up chicken breast skinless raw 8 oz and it was 272 calories on the USDA website. I don't think its going to increase in calories simply because it is thrown on a BBQ. How would they know what kind of seasoning I'm using? How does it go from 272 calories raw to 370 cooked?


    Because 8 ounces raw becomes lighter after you cook away the water and fats inside it. Your 8-ounce piece of raw breast meat would only be ~5 ounces cooked.
    So, if you cook your chicken breast and then measure out 8 ounces, you are eating what started out as a raw 11-ounce piece.

    First off, I measure all my meats for weight when they are raw. I don't reweigh them after they are cooked.
  • Allterrain_Lady
    Allterrain_Lady Posts: 421 Member
    Options
    It drives me crazy too!!! I used to have an app on my Android phone that allowed me to create my own database and nobody would touch it. I haven't found one for Iphone.
    I might change phones again just for that app!
    Plus, when you find an item that's accurate, it can be changed afterwards without notice and it's not right anymore.
    I spend a lot of time "re-checking" food items to make sure I'm still on top of things.

    Supposedly, when you create an item, you can uncheck the "let other members use it" case.
    That way, they won't be able to change it. I tend to do that lately.
    But, it feels selfish and against the core of a shared database...
  • juliet3455
    juliet3455 Posts: 3,015 Member
    Options
    asflatasapancake wrote: »
    The concept of 'eat less than you burn' is easy. The execution is not. Once you find the right formula for your body, things will come easier. Starting out, I had checked multiple sources for accurate information. I tried some that worked. Others that didn't, so I had to adjust them. After about one month or two, it gets better. You get to know your body better. After more than I year, I don't even put much thought into it. Persistence and determination will get you there.

    Spot on. It took me about 2-3 months when I started - but about 6 months before I found some of the great posts, such as the one by @SezxyStef ( Thanks Stef ) and her comments ring so true " I made the post about "logging accurately" and I often mention "are you choosing the correct entries". No confirmations = Questionable. 100 confirmations - good to go unless 100 people are all telling lies.

    I tend to pass on the "Important posts to read" and select others to any Newbies struggling with the site.
  • TheLegendaryBrandonHarris
    TheLegendaryBrandonHarris Posts: 502 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    If you weigh them before you cook them, then you are good. I was messing up by measuring mine after I cooked them.
    I'm going to poke around more when I get the chance, because, as you pointed out, "meat only" might not mean "meat only" lol.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,973 Member
    Options
    Yes, I will look for a listing for raw or cooked depending on when I am weighing it. It's cooked unless it's single serve or part of a casserole or stir fry - I put those ingredients into the recipe builder, and then get the total weight of the cooked dish and divide to get portion sizes.
  • bhawk102
    bhawk102 Posts: 36 Member
    Options
    I wish the MFP database was a bit more streamlined. They need to excise things that have 0 confirmations or at least have us filter results by higher confirmations and such. It's just so much of a hassle finding the right foods sometimes even with the scanner.
  • Teenie0916
    Teenie0916 Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I try to use the system generated listing, and get irked at so many people's need to put in their own listing. I can't even find the system's listing for chicken breast any more. Fortunately, it was in Frequent for lunch so I was able to copy it into breakfast.

    I do wish the database would get cleaned of duplicate entries.

    +1 on this. I have trouble finding the most basic foods sometimes. I would even volunteer some time to help clean up the database. :smile:

  • 460mustang
    460mustang Posts: 196 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »
    208 grams of protein...I wonder what that person was thinking when they entered it.

    Definitely compare to USDA's nutritional information. This thread will also help you weed those kinds of things out: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide

    Good info, I was frustrated trying to log homemade food. For store bought I scan the barcode with MFP phone app then choose the servings I ate. Allot of the recipes on the internet now have nutritional values included, but I don't know how accurate they are.
    I do know my weight scale keeps going down, so I'm happy
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    Options
    This has been a bugbear of mine with MFP for as long as I've used it. The idea of crowdsourcing the growth of the food database is good up to a point, but the implementation here has been broken for a long time, and MFP doesn't seem to care to change it at all. In all reality, if LoseIt or MyNetDiary had better support I would have defected some time ago just to see if they had a better handle on it.

    Some things I'd love to see:
      [
    • A way to add your own food item and make sure it doesn't go into the larger database (no one needs to see my homemade kimchi in the DB.
    • A mass import from the USDA or other agency of standardized food.
    • A submission process where an user submitted item gets vetted a little bit first (no macros, no pass, etc)
    • Search filters that allow you to only see non-starred items, items imported from USDA or items that have member upvotes. Frequently I search for things and find nothing that is not starred.
    • A method of downvoting items so that they get suppressed from the default search results

    Honestly, I think the MFP site managers do not like us to see the search filters because then we could see how paltry the native DB has been.

Categories