Premium?
Options
Replies
-
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
No system entry anywhere near the top for "chicken breast, cooked" either:
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:
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.
So, not even going to consider paying for Premium until they get this basic stuff straightened out.
If you create your own entry, with your own supplied data (only takes a minute to add nutrients in), every time you put that item in to count it, your entry will pop up first.
Cmon, people. Don't be lazy because of the idiots.0 -
Why pay for premium features? The site is just as effective without the extras. I have lost 40 pounds on FREE MFP which is more than I can say for other sites I have used that required a paid subscription.4
-
Chef_Barbell 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.
That's cool. As for me, I'm not paying to do extra work. I'm paying for features I find more convenient/helpful than the free version.2 -
kshama2001 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.
Agreed. I, personally, just don't find it all that troublesome or problematic as once I log an accurate item, it's in my personal database for easy reference later. And really, it's the features I pay for- not the free database:
Ad-Free
Focus on meeting your goals without distraction
Macronutrients by Gram
Set macronutrient goals by either gram or percentage
Quick Add Macronutrients
Quick Add users can now add macros to their calorie entries
Different Goals by Day
Set custom calorie and macronutrient goals for any day of the week
Home Screen Dashboard
Easily keep an eye on your nutrient goals rather than focusing solely on calories2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
No system entry anywhere near the top for "chicken breast, cooked" either:
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:
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.
So, not even going to consider paying for Premium until they get this basic stuff straightened out.
If you create your own entry, with your own supplied data (only takes a minute to add nutrients in), every time you put that item in to count it, your entry will pop up first.
Cmon, people. Don't be lazy because of the idiots.
This is what I do, but since I have to do that, I wouldn't pay for it. I'm doing most of the work doing it this way and I'm not paying a premium price for having to do my own grunt work.
Doesn't make me lazy - just not going to pay premium for a sub-premium service.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »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.
No system entry anywhere near the top for "chicken breast, cooked" either:
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:
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.
So, not even going to consider paying for Premium until they get this basic stuff straightened out.
If you create your own entry, with your own supplied data (only takes a minute to add nutrients in), every time you put that item in to count it, your entry will pop up first.
Cmon, people. Don't be lazy because of the idiots.
I have to do extra work. And therefore will not pay for the service. If the database functioned as designed, I might reconsider.1 -
kshama2001 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.
Agreed. I, personally, just don't find it all that troublesome or problematic as once I log an accurate item, it's in my personal database for easy reference later. And really, it's the features I pay for- not the free database:
Ad-Free
Focus on meeting your goals without distraction
[snip]
My browsing experience has been ad-free for years, thanks to a free program the name of which is now censored when I attempt to post it.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »My browsing experience has been ad-free for years, thanks to a free program the name of which is now censored when I attempt to post it.
"Block This" works for me on my Samsung S5.
It's banned from GooglePlay but you can download ir direct from the maker.
Just Google it. LOL!!!1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kshama2001 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.
Agreed. I, personally, just don't find it all that troublesome or problematic as once I log an accurate item, it's in my personal database for easy reference later. And really, it's the features I pay for- not the free database:
Ad-Free
Focus on meeting your goals without distraction
[snip]
My browsing experience has been ad-free for years, thanks to a free program the name of which is now censored when I attempt to post it.
Awesome!0 -
I've been a tester for it this month, honestly it is a huge waste of money for how much you need to pay. It' doesn't offer enough. I'd save my money.1
-
It's way to expensive. It cost more than Netflix.1
-
kshama2001 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.
Agreed. I, personally, just don't find it all that troublesome or problematic as once I log an accurate item, it's in my personal database for easy reference later. And really, it's the features I pay for- not the free database:
Ad-Free
Focus on meeting your goals without distraction
Macronutrients by Gram
Set macronutrient goals by either gram or percentage
Quick Add Macronutrients
Quick Add users can now add macros to their calorie entries
Different Goals by Day
Set custom calorie and macronutrient goals for any day of the week
Home Screen Dashboard
Easily keep an eye on your nutrient goals rather than focusing solely on calories
I use an ad-blocker for years and haven't seen an ad in a long time and that's free. The other stuff does not interest me enough to pay for it. *shrug*0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions