Accurate Counting

kimaboyd

How do you all manage the variances in food items listed? You just pick one and hope it is as close as possible? I know it is about measuring but if you looked up steamed carrots for example there are huge variances for the same weights - same for potatoes and such - same for boneless skinless chicke know thighs....so what method do you suggest for these generic type items?

peleroja

When in doubt, try to look for a USDA entry. You can also Google "USDA boneless skinless chicken" or "USDA carrot raw" or whatever to verify, but I find that's usually the easiest way to find an entry that isn't user-created and has accurate gram amounts etc.

I also always make sure that I'm using raw weights when weighing raw and cooked weights if weighing cooked, as this can have a HUGE impact on counts. I also never use user-added stuff like "mashed potatoes" or whatever, and instead weigh and add my raw potato, then my butter, then my milk, etc etc (because you never know how someone else prepared something to come up with that count.

jessicapk

I second the note about USDA and using raw weights only. If all else fails, go with an average entry, neither too high or too low, steer clear of "homemade" entries, and err on the side of too high calorie counts on food and too low on exercise.

dhemond

Using the bar code scanner in the app is very helpful! I use it as often as I can to get more of an accurate calculation (i.e. bagged apples, mushrooms, mustard, etc.) Then you can change any variances (measurements, ounces, etc.) as necessary.

bubbagump1952

I have found that more often than not the accuracy of the macros in the foods listed are inaccurate, whats the point of using MFP if you have to go to another site to look it up anyway and then on top of that pay 49.99 for a premium membership

berolcolour

I've found it tends to average out. So I'll pick the actual listing (store I bought it from), a verified listing, the average listing, but if all else fails I pick the top one that has all the macros, if it's reasonable. After a while you get a sense of what things "should be" so if I eat cake I know that's around 300 without icing and 400 with icing for a slice. If there's something there with those figures I stick with it. If it's a restaurant meal I pick another restaurant meal from the list. Calories aren't really accurate down to each one. No two carrots will be identical nutritionally anyway!

Francl27

USDA entries and food scale.

jemhh

bubbagump1952 wrote: »

I have found that more often than not the accuracy of the macros in the foods listed are inaccurate, whats the point of using MFP if you have to go to another site to look it up anyway and then on top of that pay 49.99 for a premium membership

MFP's food log should be used as a journal, not a reference source. Look up a food in the USDA Nutrient Database once, use the matching entry repeatedly, and it becomes a default entry. It's all free.

cee134

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

Michael190lbs

I enjoy cooking and food prep its become a life style you will learn with time what looks right and what doesn't but until then I agree with the above

hansklamp2112

Measure raw and use that compared to the USDA.

Raw carrots and cooked carrots are the same thing minus whatever nutrient change it may endure as long as you aren't adding stuff to it. Same goes for potatoes, etc.

At the end of the day, 100% accuracy is pretty tough; however, if you're honest with your entries you're going to be fine. And for people who are saying "focus on eating healthy rather than measuring," I am sorry, but this is absolutely 100% false. Calories in and calories out is what dictates weight loss.

Yes, newbie weight losers can generally lose weight if they're heavy enough and change their diet for the better without even counting a single calorie. I did this myself in the beginning and dropped from 250 to 205. But it will get harder as you lose more weight and you are lighter, meaning your body burns less from just existing, so you need to accommodate for that by being more precise in how much you eat.

People can lose 100 lbs not counting because they have 100 lbs to lose without disappearing. Once you get into that range of 160-190 depending on your body comp, it will get more challenging and you will definitely want to be counting if you're an eater. Some people eat like birds and might not have to, but between general hunger and workouts, I eat a lot so measuring is a necessity to get me to the goals that I want to be at which is continue burning some fat while keeping the muscle I have in the 185-195 range.

StealthHealth

cee134 wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

Well done on the loss it is a fantastic achievement but, when someone has a large amount to lose these general measuring systems are fine. When you're battling against the last few percent of fat that logging/monitoring system is unlikely to be enough.

We don't know anything about OP so we don't know whether she is 230lb aiming to lose 100lb or 140lb aiming to lose 10lb.

juliet3455

@kimaboyd Good tips from everyone ^^^.
Some have had great success not weighing others have found there success started when they started weighing.
I was struggling until I bought a simple scale and weighed in gms ( easier doing portion sizing since USDA has listing in 100gm's. ) When I look at food items one of the things I key on is the portion sizes listed, if they have a 100gm option this is probably a more accurate item as that usually means someone has taken the time to enter the information from the USDA or equivalent database.

I offer up my generic answer which is there are some great posts that have been stickied at the top of each of the Message Boards . An example is the Important Posts to Read which is an Index of great posts.

One that helped me and I still refer back to is Logging Accurately. MFP has changed the way they display Food items since this was posted but the concepts are still valid. I am hoping that @SezxyStef is able to do an edit/repost at sometime.

This one is listed in the Important posts to read and is an eye opener for some people. You're probably eating more than you think

I also refer to a MFP Hello Healthy called The Beginner’s Guide to MyFitnessPal. There are some embedded links in it to other great information.

I agree with @jessicapk

jessicapk wrote: »

I second the note about USDA and using raw weights only. If all else fails, go with an average entry, neither too high or too low, steer clear of "homemade" entries, and err on the side of too high calorie counts on food and too low on exercise.

I usually take what ever Exercise Calories MFP assigns and cut it in half.

Its a lot of great information to read and get through but has been helpful to me.

extra_medium

dhemond wrote: »

Using the bar code scanner in the app is very helpful! I use it as often as I can to get more of an accurate calculation (i.e. bagged apples, mushrooms, mustard, etc.) Then you can change any variances (measurements, ounces, etc.) as necessary.

Still a good idea to compare the entry that comes up with the label, as these are also user created.

cross2bear

cee134 wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

Congrats on your losses, but screw you - I dont want your pity. For me to be successful, I will measure and weigh thank you.

SezxyStef

cee134 wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

I feel sorry for people who are trying to lose that last 10lbs and just can't do it because they refuse to use a food scale and are eating more than they think...

oh wait no I don't....they made that choice let them live with the consequences.

OP I double check against this website
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/3700

then I look at this post
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately

and it's done.

janejellyroll

cee134 wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

No need to feel sorry for me. It only takes a few seconds out of my day and it made it incredibly easy for me to reach my goal and maintain my weight loss. I *like* this method. That anyone would feel sorry for me because I reached my goals with the help of a cheap and easy-to-use tool is kind of . . . confusing.

Maxematics

cee134 wrote: »

I feel sorry for the people that measure out all there food, weight it, and log every ounce of sauce. That gets old very quick. I lost 100 lbs by using a general system for measuring (your fist = 1 cup, a deck of cards = 3 oz of meat).

It's better to focus on eating healthy then measuring everything. For anything that wasn't in there, I just logged it as close as possible. As long as I was losing weight I knew I was fine.

I feel sorry for the people that have so much weight to lose that they don't even have to be that accurate with their food diary. Do you see how awful that appears when it's reversed? Do you feel sorry for people that use a scale to see if they lose weight? Can't they just use the general system that looser clothes = weight loss and tighter clothes = weight gain? No, most people want precision.

People log food for many reasons and many people use MFP to either gain or maintain their weight. I went from 139 pounds to 108 pounds and I still weigh my food. Before I got my food scale, I was underestimating. Getting a food scale made me realize how much more I could actually eat; it helped me get over my fear of food. It takes me no longer than 10 seconds to weigh out my meals. When I go out to eat, of course I don't use a food scale but thanks to my food scale I've become far better at estimating proper portion sizes. I know about the fist, deck of card, and thumb tricks but those aren't going to give me more accurate data points than a food scale. A food scale usually solves most problems for people that think they can't lose the last ten pounds either.