Can MFP be wrong

markrhodes87

Hi guys. Just started tracking my foods with MFP, and most of it seems accurate, but I've just used a tortilla wrap and MFP tells me it had 200g of saturated fat in just one tortilla!
Surely this is wrong?
Has anyone else noticed times when MFP might not be accurate??

Alatariel75

Hell yes. The database is primarily user added and can be massively inaccurate. I don't trust entries that I haven't double checked against packaging, or USDA entries, or another trusted source. People put some whacky, whacky entries in the database and then "helpfully" share it to the public.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

markrhodes87

Thanks guys. Also this was a barcode scanned entry that I scanned myself.
The packaging on the tortillas says 2g of saturated fats, but everything else from the scan I.e calories, carbs, proteins etc adds up to the packaging

Alatariel75

markrhodes87 wrote: »

Thanks guys. Also this was a barcode scanned entry that I scanned myself.
The packaging on the tortillas says 2g of saturated fats, but everything else from the scan I.e calories, carbs, proteins etc adds up to the packaging

Yeah, the barcode scans are no more trustworthy than any other- most of them are also user entered. The barcode itself does not carry any nutritional information, it is just linked to the nutritional information entered into the database.

markrhodes87

I'll stop worrying now. 200g seems excessive for one wrap.
Thanks guys

TonyB0588

markrhodes87 wrote: »

I'll stop worrying now. 200g seems excessive for one wrap.
Thanks guys

I just checked a website and saw 94 calories and 0.586g Saturated Fat

Alatariel75

markrhodes87 wrote: »

I'll stop worrying now. 200g seems excessive for one wrap.
Thanks guys

For the wrap to have had 200g of saturated fat, it would have to weigh at least 300g. That's one big darn wrap.

markrgeary1

Sadly the database is often wrong! Wait till you come across the 600 calorie garlic clove!
IT people with a database background cry when we see this kind of data.

ryansworld731

https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/

You can cross reference stuff there. Most things if you put usda in the name when searching it will show some items that people have put in there from the usda database.

ryansworld731

Question: why doesn't myfitness pal have an API to the usda database and have all the usda items in their data too!

CafeRacer808

ryansworld731 wrote: »

Question: why doesn't myfitness pal have an API to the usda database and have all the usda items in their data too!

There are tons of USDA entries in the database. If you tag your search with "usda", you'll find them.

PaulaWallaDingDong

markrhodes87 wrote: »

Thanks guys. Also this was a barcode scanned entry that I scanned myself.
The packaging on the tortillas says 2g of saturated fats, but everything else from the scan I.e calories, carbs, proteins etc adds up to the packaging

The next time you scan something and it doesn't match, hit "find a better entry" then "create food." The info you enter will replace the previous entry so it'll be correct next time.

CyberTone

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

markrhodes87 wrote: »

Thanks guys. Also this was a barcode scanned entry that I scanned myself.
The packaging on the tortillas says 2g of saturated fats, but everything else from the scan I.e calories, carbs, proteins etc adds up to the packaging

The next time you scan something and it doesn't match, hit "find a better entry" then "create food." The info you enter will replace the previous entry so it'll be correct next time.

Unless MFP added new functionality, I am fairly sure a user can not do that in the mobile app. The "Find a better match" function only allows a user to re-associate the barcode with another existing public Food Database item. If a better match is not found, the user has to use the web version to edit an existing or create a new food item and make it public, then rescan the barcode and re-associate the barcode with the newly created Food Database item.

I do this occasionally, and I have always had to either edit the barcoded item on the web version, create a new food item, or edit another existing item using the web version, then go back to the mobile app to re-associate the barcode. It is time consuming and very frustrating.

Budjola

just scan barcode, that is the safest way

Alatariel75

Budjola wrote: »

just scan barcode, that is the safest way

Actually if you read above, he did, and it isn't. Barcode is just as unreliable as the rest.

Strudders67

I posted a separate query, a couple of hours ago, as I'm trying to find a way of determining which ingredient is making a 68 calorie cauliflower/courgette/onion/herbs mix give me 2600+ % of my daily vitamin C. And that's after I adjusted the calorie count for 1tsp of ground cumin from over 400 down to the more accurate figure of 8. If it doesn't look right, it probably isn't. I edit things regularly.

crackpotbaby

I am actually surprised that basic food items (fruits, veg, meats etc) don't had mfp verified entries by weight in both metric and imperial as part of the database.

crackpotbaby

Budjola wrote: »

just scan barcode, that is the safest way

This feature is only really useful to people who eat stuff that comes in a packet with a barcode.

lynn_glenmont

lizery wrote: »

I am actually surprised that basic food items (fruits, veg, meats etc) don't had mfp verified entries by weight in both metric and imperial as part of the database.

When I started using MFP in August 2013, you could find database entries that reflected USDA nutrient database entries, including choices of a variety of serving units (e.g., for pineapple you would have options like 100 g, 3 oz., 1 cup sliced, 1 cup chopped, 1 cup diced, 1 slice with linear measurements, etc.). Looking for entries that had both volume and weight serving size options, along with data for potassium and non "round" numbers for vitamins and minerals were my short-cuts for verifying an entry as accurate when I didn't feel like I had time to actually compare them to the USDA nutrient database. Over the last couple of years, it's been getting harder to find those entries.

I think a while back there was an intentional effort to add metric or imperial options to entries that were originally one or the other, possibly just by running an algorithm on the MFP database, but maybe an unintended consequence was to eliminate volume or weight from some of the entries that had both, or split them apart into separate entries. All I know is that the database seems a lot worse now in terms of being able to find accurate entries for "whole foods" than it was when I started.