The most common mistakes using MFP and how to avoid them

snowflake954

snowflake930 wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

jodidari wrote: »

I actually prefer measurements such as 1 cup, 1/4 cup and so on for certain things. An example is the other day I was looking on a burger patty and the person used grams, however the package I had said calories for 1 patty which is 1 serving. When this person used grams, I had to go out of my way to retrieve the package, calculate how many grams would be in one patty (since the package gave me grams for all the patties) and then adjust. It would have been simpler if that person had used the exact thing under nutrition facts rather than converting.

In the same way, if you are using Jodi's flour and someone searches for calories in 1cup of Jodi's flour, they should understand that this flour may be milled differently from Zach's flour. They should also understand that 1cup may vary in grams based on density, air etc but use 1 cup keeping this in mind. The other day I saw a post with 1 cup of chicken breast, this annoyed me because I use a whole chicken breast as placed in the package, I don't cut it up and ensure it's 1 cup. Also the amount of chicken that fills 1 cup may vary based on how it is cut, if it is flattened and so on. So it really is essential how these are entered.

Sometimes I really do have access to the package but I would rather not enter all the details myself so I search mfp for this. I feel like many people make things complicated for me when they use a measurement that isn't the typical one used under the nutrition facts on a package. Also many people make things more complicated when they try to perfect the calorie logging system rather than understanding it is a guestimate and more than likely we are inaccurate either way. The whole way calories in food are measured now is more inaccurate than it was 20 years ago, do your research and you'll find out many companies guess rather than actually do tests to determine this.

Keep in mind not all of us have a scale which is able to measure grams or milliliters so yes it should be an option but what you consider vague serving sizes are useful for us that only have the more popular measuring tools. It's also not affordable or easy for many of us to access the tools that would make this more accurate.

It is said our recorded calories may be up to 25% less than what we actually take in. We need to account for these margin of errors in our activities rather than complicating matters.

Wow--are you losing weight doing this? Alot of "guesstimating" going on. Sorry, but I need to know alot more about my calorie imput. Everyone where I live weighs food. All recipes are by weight. Meat cuts are sold by weight. A cup of chicken breast just boggles the mind. Accounting for margin of error , and not complicating things is not a good excuse for inaccurate logging--a recipe for disaster.

Not a recipe for disaster for a lot of us. I have been cooking since I was about 12, using American standards for measuring. You get to know by sight how much a cup, TBSP, tsp actually is. A serving of meat is the approximate size of a deck of cards. A little bit over or under, no biggie. Some of us do not live that close to the edge of our calories. Anyway, I managed to lose over 160# and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years, so it works for me, and it can be done. Not everyone needs to be that accurate. Guidelines are just that. We are all different, with different ways to do things that shouldn't be labeled wrong just because some others can not use the same measuring practices and lose. Whatever works, go with it.

If you read her profile, she is having a bit of difficulty--maybe you could help out? I used cups, spoons, etc until I was 30 yrs old and transfered, so I know how that works (been there, done that). Her post is full of guesstimating--is it too much? That's up to her to decide. I couldn't log that way, you and millions of others could, and do and are successful. But not all are, and sometimes you need to rethink things when something isn't working. The thread that's running on "kitchen equipment that helps with dieting" is full of digital scale as a must for logging accurately--to the gram.

GeertH

I think we're seeing a bit of a divide between the camp of "keep things as accurate as possible" and "just give me convenient serving sizes". One approach is always gonna be awkward for the other group. If you insist on 100 grams for entries then you'll have to check what one serving size actually is and convert. If you use a standard serving size on the package, people who want to go by precise weight are gonna face more work.

Things would be easier for both groups if MFP seemed to offer some way of indicating different measures and units. For example, you could state you're working by 100 grams and enter the values for that, but add a list of serving sizes you'd like the selection box to show (e.g. a single 57 gram serving). Or you could enter a serving size and then indicate MFP should also show values for 100 grams (e.g. add values for 57 grams and have MFP do the math for making a 100 gram option). There's some automation, but it's not really sufficient. And since you're entering the value and unit in the same field, there's an algorithm that identifies the number and scales options based on that. But this doesn't always work perfectly. Being given a list of options for units would be better. It's not like there's that many units out there which you'd actually use for food (like I said in my original post, "1 slice" of something is usually highly inaccurate).

The reason I stated that making entries in weight and preferably 100 grams is preferable is because I consider it "best practices", not an unyielding rule. When I eat a mini cupcake from a box that states each cake is 12 grams and gives values for that, sure, that's exactly how I enter it. I'm not gonna bother calculating the 100 gram values (MFP would make a 1 gram option anyway). But serving sizes can be misleading. You're inclined to think it is one unit of the food, but I've often seen labels where the "serving size" is 2 or more of an item, or actually less than you might think. Take a Twix, for example. It may vary per location, but around here the package lists calories for one of the two bars in the package on the front, instead of both.