Premium?

Options
candice072
candice072 Posts: 21 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Has anyone went premium and is it worth the money? I'd love new friends to motivate and be motivated by. Add me
«1

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    I didn't for the reasons here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10455690/premium-subscription
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    It's worth the money for people who use specific premium features. Are there specific features that you're interested in?
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.
  • tiletha444
    tiletha444 Posts: 9 Member
    Options
    I paid for a one month trial just yesterday. I like the option to set up daily goals; however, that is something I can possibly do mentally. So far, I do not plan on renewing.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.

    I'd settle for a database that had the USDA officially-added entries marked/highlighted in some way. HOW HARD would that be? Can ya just put a little "+" mark by it? Or make it another color? Or put it in its own database? Or put it at the top somewhere?

    Seems so easy yet so elusive.

    Hear hear!!! Or filter out user-added entries.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Options
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.

    This.
    cmriverside wrote: »
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.

    I'd settle for a database that had the USDA officially-added entries marked/highlighted in some way. HOW HARD would that be? Can ya just put a little "+" mark by it? Or make it another color? Or put it in its own database? Or put it at the top somewhere?

    Seems so easy yet so elusive.

    And this.
  • Dano74
    Dano74 Posts: 503 Member
    Options
    I'll break ranks here and say "Yes". As a macro type of guy, the ability to change calories by day and the addition of the macro counter front and center was worth the price alone.

    As for accuracy, you can always find an "accurate" nutritional profile in the database. Considering nutritional labels allow for variance anyway, there will always be variance no matter how accurate one label is compared to the next. Do this long enough and you'll have a pretty good approximation to know what's right and wrong- generally speaking, we're talking relatively accurate ballpark for calorie counts anyway.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    Dano74 wrote: »
    I'll break ranks here and say "Yes". As a macro type of guy, the ability to change calories by day and the addition of the macro counter front and center was worth the price alone.

    As for accuracy, you can always find an "accurate" nutritional profile in the database. Considering nutritional labels allow for variance anyway, there will always be variance no matter how accurate one label is compared to the next. Do this long enough and you'll have a pretty good approximation to know what's right and wrong- generally speaking, we're talking relatively accurate ballpark for calorie counts anyway.

    Yeah... no. I am not paying to do extra work.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    I have no issues paying premium prices for premium apps. I do not feel this is one of them.

    Ya, I pay for subscriptions to America's Test Kitchen and Hulu, and my OH pays for Netflix, and we feel these are worth the cost.
  • upoffthemat
    upoffthemat Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    Agreed, the database is worth what we are paying for it at this point
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    Searching for "chicken breast" gives lots of verified results but the system entry I actually want, 'Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, cooked, roasted' is no where to be found.

    164b694d33f3750589540c3a18bd8473.png

    No system entry anywhere near the top for "chicken breast, cooked" either:

    0f14c47d7cde6abd9cbe89226bd59f7c.png

    Now, I happen to know to get the syntax from the https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods so am able to find the system entry. But when I try to use grams, there is a decimal error:

    8b9907b719ede9d1fc777c8828cce485.png

    No big deal, glitches happen, however I let Support know about this on August 10 as part of my July 29 case about the same issue with "butter, unsalted" and neither issue has been fixed yet.

    9e596284abccdebeabd6e5f45c038937.png

    So, not even going to consider paying for Premium until they get this basic stuff straightened out.


  • upoffthemat
    upoffthemat Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    1 g of chicken breast is 717 calories .... seems legit
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    edited September 2016
    Options
    makingmark wrote: »
    1 g of chicken breast is 717 calories .... seems legit

    Ya, there is a bug that causes some, but not all, of the 1 g entries to actually give results for 100 g.

    There's also a bug that causes some, but not all, solid foods to have liquid measurements like fluid ounces instead of regular ounces and grams. I report these to Support when I find them, with mixed results. Sigh.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Dano74 wrote: »
    I'll break ranks here and say "Yes". As a macro type of guy, the ability to change calories by day and the addition of the macro counter front and center was worth the price alone.

    As for accuracy, you can always find an "accurate" nutritional profile in the database. Considering nutritional labels allow for variance anyway, there will always be variance no matter how accurate one label is compared to the next. Do this long enough and you'll have a pretty good approximation to know what's right and wrong- generally speaking, we're talking relatively accurate ballpark for calorie counts anyway.

    What some of us are complaining about is the inability to differentiate user-created entries based on God knows what vs system entries that were pulled from the USDA database. We were able to differentiate before the Verified update via the asterisk vs no asterisk system. Now, if user-created Verified entries had yellow check marks and the system entries continued to have the green check marks, that would be a start.

    The ridiculous number of duplicates for the same foods should be removed as well.

    tumblr_o193pjL5XH1s9a9yjo1_500.gif
  • jdwils14
    jdwils14 Posts: 154 Member
    Options
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.

    1. You can create every entry you use and add that at each meal
    2. You will probably not find a site like this that has an accurate database.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    jdwils14 wrote: »
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    Repeating what I said in another thread:

    Not at all. I need an accurate database before i pay for a calorie counting site.

    1. You can create every entry you use and add that at each meal
    2. You will probably not find a site like this that has an accurate database.

    3. This is why I won't pay for it.
    4. Lists are annoying.

Categories