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

SezxyStef

another thing to take into consideration when logging is even labels on packages can be off by up to 20% per guidelines laid out by the government.

And don't think that just because things are scanned into the phone app that the information is correct...I always check those entries as well and about 65% are inaccurate as well.

But that's why I prefer logging on the website as opposed to the app it is easier to check those entries.

Bellodesiderare

bpetrosky wrote: »

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

These suggestions would make the Premium version worth the cost IMO.

Chrysalid2014

chivalryder wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

I've also been told that calorie counts for meat, chicken, fish etc are always only approximate because it can differ slightly from one animal to the next.

If this is how you feel, then there's obviously no point in you counting your calories at all.


In all seriousness, every little itty bitty thing we do with calorie counting is an estimate. How much you burn every day will never be exactly 2000 calories. Some days it will be higher, some days it will be lower.

How much you eat, even if you precisely measure it and track every gram, if going to be off. Heck, the nutritional informaiton on labels are just averages and are rounded numbers. (Look at a bottle of coke for example. 65g of sugar =/= 240 calories).

It's all about averages. Get it close enough every day and you'll lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then you're going to have to drop your target a bit.

It's not how I feel; it's just a fact.

Another poster asked me to provide "proof". The following is an email I received from the customer service department of my local supermarket after I contacted them to ask for nutritional information for their Outdoor Reared Pork Steaks. I assumed they have no reason to lie about it.

Thanks for your patience in getting this information.

Our suppliers do not hold the information you are looking for but have provided the following estimated amounts.

per 100g raw wt
Energy (kcal) 157
Energy (kJ) 658
Crude protein 21.5g
Total sugars <0.1g
Total fat 7.9g
of which saturates 2.9g
Fibre <0.5g
Sodium <0.1g

The estimates are based on another retailers equivalent product and is likely to be very similar to the nutritional values you have asked to know. However it is important to make clear that these are estimates and each piece of meat will have slightly different amounts due to the natural variance in animals.

We appreciate you taking the time to get in contact and we hope to have another chance to serve you soon.

Kind regards

| Sainsbury’s Careline
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd | 33 Holborn, London | EC1N 2HT
customer.service@sainsburys.co.uk | 0800 636 262

But yes, the point you made I agree with: you can never know exactly how many calories you're consuming, so leave a good margin of error.

SezxyStef

Bellodesiderare wrote: »

bpetrosky wrote: »

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

These suggestions would make the Premium version worth the cost IMO.

absolutely.

JustSomeEm

Hey guys, a couple of points:

1. Anyone wishing to become a moderator, please feel free to contact Olivia the MFP Community Manager and let her know you'd like to volunteer to moderate.
2. This thread has been cleaned up a little to remove some off-topic posts.
3. If you feel a post is in violation of community guidelines, please report it (hit the Flag icon at the bottom of the offending post, select Report, select the reason for the report, fill any extra info in you want, hit submit) and the moderation team will take a look. There are far more posts than moderators, so unless something is reported we're likely to miss it.
4. Our community guidelines are located here (please review them): http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
5. Violating the community guidelines may result in disciplinary action.
6. Our explanation of the flag/report/disciplinary system is located here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points?
7. If you have any questions, please feel free to send me (or any moderator or MFP Staff member) a PM.

Cheers,
davis_em

460mustang

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

I've also been told that calorie counts for meat, chicken, fish etc are always only approximate because it can differ slightly from one animal to the next.

If this is how you feel, then there's obviously no point in you counting your calories at all.


In all seriousness, every little itty bitty thing we do with calorie counting is an estimate. How much you burn every day will never be exactly 2000 calories. Some days it will be higher, some days it will be lower.

How much you eat, even if you precisely measure it and track every gram, if going to be off. Heck, the nutritional informaiton on labels are just averages and are rounded numbers. (Look at a bottle of coke for example. 65g of sugar =/= 240 calories).

It's all about averages. Get it close enough every day and you'll lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then you're going to have to drop your target a bit.

It's not how I feel; it's just a fact.

Another poster asked me to provide "proof". The following is an email I received from the customer service department of my local supermarket after I contacted them to ask for nutritional information for their Outdoor Reared Pork Steaks. I assumed they have no reason to lie about it.

Thanks for your patience in getting this information.

Our suppliers do not hold the information you are looking for but have provided the following estimated amounts.

per 100g raw wt
Energy (kcal) 157
Energy (kJ) 658
Crude protein 21.5g
Total sugars <0.1g
Total fat 7.9g
of which saturates 2.9g
Fibre <0.5g
Sodium <0.1g

The estimates are based on another retailers equivalent product and is likely to be very similar to the nutritional values you have asked to know. However it is important to make clear that these are estimates and each piece of meat will have slightly different amounts due to the natural variance in animals.

We appreciate you taking the time to get in contact and we hope to have another chance to serve you soon.

Kind regards

| Sainsbury’s Careline
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd | 33 Holborn, London | EC1N 2HT
customer.service@sainsburys.co.uk | 0800 636 262

But yes, the point you made I agree with: you can never know exactly how many calories you're consuming, so leave a good margin of error.

It comes down to some people like to be as precise as possible and others not so precise. The problem is some people feel there way is the only way or the best way. So any slight deviation will be shot down in flames. For me the calorie counter raised my awareness of the calories in different foods and how one little dessert can blow your count out of the water. So far, the way I do it is working for me. The scale keeps going down, so I am happy. If it stops going down then I will dial it in more. Your mileage may vary!

lemurcat12

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

chivalryder wrote: »

Chrysalid2014 wrote: »

I've also been told that calorie counts for meat, chicken, fish etc are always only approximate because it can differ slightly from one animal to the next.

If this is how you feel, then there's obviously no point in you counting your calories at all.


In all seriousness, every little itty bitty thing we do with calorie counting is an estimate. How much you burn every day will never be exactly 2000 calories. Some days it will be higher, some days it will be lower.

How much you eat, even if you precisely measure it and track every gram, if going to be off. Heck, the nutritional informaiton on labels are just averages and are rounded numbers. (Look at a bottle of coke for example. 65g of sugar =/= 240 calories).

It's all about averages. Get it close enough every day and you'll lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then you're going to have to drop your target a bit.

It's not how I feel; it's just a fact.

Another poster asked me to provide "proof". The following is an email I received from the customer service department of my local supermarket after I contacted them to ask for nutritional information for their Outdoor Reared Pork Steaks. I assumed they have no reason to lie about it.

Thanks for your patience in getting this information.

Our suppliers do not hold the information you are looking for but have provided the following estimated amounts.

per 100g raw wt
Energy (kcal) 157
Energy (kJ) 658
Crude protein 21.5g
Total sugars <0.1g
Total fat 7.9g
of which saturates 2.9g
Fibre <0.5g
Sodium <0.1g

The estimates are based on another retailers equivalent product and is likely to be very similar to the nutritional values you have asked to know. However it is important to make clear that these are estimates and each piece of meat will have slightly different amounts due to the natural variance in animals.

We appreciate you taking the time to get in contact and we hope to have another chance to serve you soon.

Kind regards

| Sainsbury’s Careline
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd | 33 Holborn, London | EC1N 2HT
customer.service@sainsburys.co.uk | 0800 636 262

But yes, the point you made I agree with: you can never know exactly how many calories you're consuming, so leave a good margin of error.

I agree with you that it's of course an estimate.

For the most part--based on my own experience--you really don't have to build in a margin of error, as if you log conscientiously it tends to even out, and you can always see how your results compare with your calories logged and reduce if it seems you need to.

Part of logging is having to accept that it's all an estimate and imperfect at some level.

I was thinking about this last night because I had some ribeye. Mine wasn't "lean only" like some of the entries in the database (and I kind of wonder what that means for ribeye), but it also was grassfed from a farm and the grassfed entry I found (weirdly, the only such entry I found from the USDA specified Australian) had calories close to the "lean" one. I decided to play it safe and choose the 1/8 fat one, but it made me think how often with certain kinds of meat it's really a huge guessing game. Yet I've consistently made these kinds of judgments and it's not seemed to affect my ability to lose.