verified food - oh nooooooo!
yirara
Posts: 9,944 Member
Why try to fix something that doesn't need fixing? Now the asterixes are gone, and the number of verifications are gone. I have no idea which entries are USDA-ones (well, I can guess), I have no idea if someone verified his own food or if many people agreed. What the... this website has just gone down from usable with some caution to completely useless!
0
Replies
-
I can still see the number of confirmations?0
-
Hmm.. I don't. I only see a green thingy and the note: verified. Great.0
-
Over the past week, my database has been going back and forth between using checks and using asterisks. I don't care how they do it, but I would prefer the system generated USDA entries be easily identifiable and at the top of the search. With the check system, I can't be sure of the system generated USDA entries.0
-
Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.0 -
Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.
That's what I mean with the database changed to completely useless. We'll see a lot more people logging stuff just because it's 'verified'. Btw, the USDA entries have been all over the place for me as well. For the last week or so I could not find chicken breast raw without skin anymore and I have to use an old entry of mine.0 -
oh great, another total success:
Almarai - Yogurt
This food is verified. Learn more
when I click on Nutritional Info I get: Confirmed by 0 users.
The amounts given there, together with the calories btw don't make sense with any of their products. *sigh*
0 -
Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.
That's what I mean with the database changed to completely useless. We'll see a lot more people logging stuff just because it's 'verified'. Btw, the USDA entries have been all over the place for me as well. For the last week or so I could not find chicken breast raw without skin anymore and I have to use an old entry of mine.
The chicken one stumped me for a bit because they have renamed it as chicken broilers or fryers raw without skin. If you search with the key words Chicken broilers raw you should get he USDA range of options
0 -
But a broiler is a whole/half chicken, isn't it? I'm just looking for breast.0
-
Hmm.. I don't. I only see a green thingy and the note: verified. Great.
I see the check mark as verified, but guess what? I have found those are not always accurate either. I know this because I basically know the calorie counts of the foods I regularly eat.
Verified just means so many people say it's correct, which is not always so.0 -
But a broiler is a whole/half chicken, isn't it? I'm just looking for breast.
It may be, not sure because I am from the UK and don't use that term. However the breast or thigh only entries all start "chicken broilers or fryers" just select the one you want from the list that comes up
0 -
Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.
Looks like you pointed that out too.
I find it better to just do my own research on foods that are not in my own food database, which I have researched and verified myself.0 -
Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.
Looks like you pointed that out too.
I find it better to just do my own research on foods that are not in my own food database, which I have researched and verified myself.
Agree ^^ if its not a raw food direct from the USDA database I recommend always checking what the site says against the packaging as well.
Also a lot of people take the barcode scanner results as gospel, but again you are often taken to completely inaccurate member entries
Its a minefield out there :-)
0 -
The database has become a total joke - I don't even know what's what anymore. Another example is that I saw some food item the other day (admittedly, can't remember what), but it was marked green as "Verified", but looking at the nutritional info, it was 50 calories, with 25g of protein. That math doesn't even work.0
-
ChrisM8971 wrote: »Some of the verified entries are bona fide crap too.
I saw a verified entry last week of "Chinese Buffet, 1 plate" at 1000 calories. Yep, I bet that's 100% accurate.
That's what I mean with the database changed to completely useless. We'll see a lot more people logging stuff just because it's 'verified'. Btw, the USDA entries have been all over the place for me as well. For the last week or so I could not find chicken breast raw without skin anymore and I have to use an old entry of mine.
The chicken one stumped me for a bit because they have renamed it as chicken broilers or fryers raw without skin. If you search with the key words Chicken broilers raw you should get he USDA range of options
THANKS! I'd been using an old entry of mine as well.
The new one for breast only is "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted"
0 -
-
That is part of the reason I log in Fitbit now. MFP used to be a pain in the butt but useful, now it's just crazy!0
-
Yeah, I had a "verified" Arby's turkey wrap today, 420 calories for "one wrap." Seems legit. LOL I have to use what they have to log it in my diary because I didn't bring my scale to lunch today but I don't assume that it's accurate for the exact wrap I had.0
-
-
ChrisM8971 wrote: »But a broiler is a whole/half chicken, isn't it? I'm just looking for breast.
It may be, not sure because I am from the UK and don't use that term. However the breast or thigh only entries all start "chicken broilers or fryers" just select the one you want from the list that comes up
I don't think we use that term in the US, either...do we? Anyone? It's the first time heard it, and I wouldn't think it would apply to a certain cut of meat. A breast lobe isn't a broiler or a fryer. It's just a breast.0 -
My feed keeps toggling back and forth between the two. I just go through the entries, "verified" or not, and find one with the nutritional info I want. Then I just use that.0
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »ChrisM8971 wrote: »But a broiler is a whole/half chicken, isn't it? I'm just looking for breast.
It may be, not sure because I am from the UK and don't use that term. However the breast or thigh only entries all start "chicken broilers or fryers" just select the one you want from the list that comes up
I don't think we use that term in the US, either...do we? Anyone? It's the first time heard it, and I wouldn't think it would apply to a certain cut of meat. A breast lobe isn't a broiler or a fryer. It's just a breast.
The term broilers ("mature, young chicken of either sex produced for meat; the terms "broilers," "fryers," and "young chickens" are used interchangeably") is used by the US Department of Agriculture for chickens under 13 weeks old that are used for commercial production. The terms broilers and fryers are also used in the USDA National Nutrient Database.
References:
ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/glossary.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broiler
ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search0 -
I just love how some of the entries are supposed to be verified as correct, but they don't match what is on the package or listed by the restaurant on their website, but there's no way to correct the entry or flag it as incorrect.0
-
The current MFP-suggested method is for the user to gather all required correct information, such as screen captures, pictures of Nutrition labels, etc. and then open a Case with Customer Support, who will eventually send that information to their database team who may or may not edit the item correctly. Then the Customer Support team will immediately close your Case because they simply forwarded it to the database team. Grrrrrrr.TimothyFish wrote: »I just love how some of the entries are supposed to be verified as correct, but they don't match what is on the package or listed by the restaurant on their website, but there's no way to correct the entry or flag it as incorrect.
0 -
The current MFP-suggested method is for the user to gather all required correct information, such as screen captures, pictures of Nutrition labels, etc. and then open a Case with Customer Support, who will eventually send that information to their database team who may or may not edit the item correctly. Then the Customer Support team will immediately close your Case because they simply forwarded it to the database team. Grrrrrrr.TimothyFish wrote: »I just love how some of the entries are supposed to be verified as correct, but they don't match what is on the package or listed by the restaurant on their website, but there's no way to correct the entry or flag it as incorrect.
I usually just add fractions of a serving until the calories match. Sometimes I log 1.2 pitas or 3.45 baby carrots, etc. I want the food and the calories to match and I don't sweat the macros or micros.0 -
How the hell is "stew-meat" a verified entry?? No wonder newbies wonder why they aren't losing when they use generic entries...
0 -
My favorites are the entries, where people cannot calculate at all and the serving sizes are completely useless, even if the nutrition labels are correct. Like 100kg packages of bread or 10kg protein bars.0
-
Why try to fix something that doesn't need fixing? Now the asterixes are gone, and the number of verifications are gone. I have no idea which entries are USDA-ones (well, I can guess), I have no idea if someone verified his own food or if many people agreed. What the... this website has just gone down from usable with some caution to completely useless!
Totally agree.
Well, it did need fixing, as there should have been a way of limiting a search to the non-asterisk entries or getting them first, but this is NOT an improvement.
Also, the 100 gram serving size seems to keep dropping out of the ones where it used to exist (most recently I noticed this with brussels sprouts). Luckily I have most of the ones I need in frequent foods, but it seems a weird thing to happen constantly.
0 -
The database has become a total joke - I don't even know what's what anymore. Another example is that I saw some food item the other day (admittedly, can't remember what), but it was marked green as "Verified", but looking at the nutritional info, it was 50 calories, with 25g of protein. That math doesn't even work.
Considering that 1 gram of protein is 5 calories.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »I just love how some of the entries are supposed to be verified as correct, but they don't match what is on the package or listed by the restaurant on their website, but there's no way to correct the entry or flag it as incorrect.
That's when I start entering the correct nutritional information into my own food database with my initials in the entry.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions