Worst database entries?
Replies
-
I found a butter entry once for 1cal/gram. Noooooo . . . . . also, I wish!1
-
-
Has no one else ever created a really stupid entry? I do have to confess to a particularly bad entry, way back when I first started and was still very confused: Frosted Mini Wheats, Full Bowl. If anyone really wants to use it, it is actually two servings of Wheats plus a cup of milk. I have tried to go back and delete or edit it, but don't see a way to (normally I can edit other people's recipes under the nutrition tab), so it lives on like a sad ghost, haunting me (although it IS pretty darn handy to log!)12
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »There was a verified garlic clove for 10,000 calories.
I have fallen victim to this garlic clove! Was matching ingredients for a manual-add recipe and figured out something was wrong when it calculated out to about 24,000,000 calories for some stir-fried veggies...
16 -
Ahahaha, these are great! Especially the chicken "beast" (probably would be very large though....). I read about another item "Tears of my Enemies" on another post. Zero calories, but I'm guessing the sodium is pretty high on that one.
16 -
-
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
It all depends. Some processors brine their frozen chicken breasts in a salt water solution, so it will have a lower calorie count per ounce since it has more water than fresh chicken breasts from the meat case.2 -
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I had boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast tonight. I searched "USDA chicken breast boneless skinless grilled" and got a value of 43 calories an ounce. I noticed the packaging said 4 oz=120 calories, but that was for raw and I don't weigh out raw chicken breast unless it's going in a recipe raw. USDA entries will generally be the most reliable with meat & fresh produce.2 -
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
Raw? If cooked, how? With or without skin?
Your best bet is to find what you want in the USDA database and plug that exact syntax into the MFP database.
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list?qlookup=&qt=&manu=&SYNCHRONIZER_URI=/ndb/search/list&SYNCHRONIZER_TOKEN=7f6672de-2cc1-4708-be92-24dafc9aec95&ds=Standard+Reference
7 -
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I had boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast tonight. I searched "USDA chicken breast boneless skinless grilled" and got a value of 43 calories an ounce. I noticed the packaging said 4 oz=120 calories, but that was for raw and I don't weigh out raw chicken breast unless it's going in a recipe raw. USDA entries will generally be the most reliable with meat & fresh produce.
You asked me this before about a cut of chicken I used. It was a premeasured cut of chicken breast that was 4 oz raw with brine. So it would have less than 43 calories per ounce because part of the weight was water. So 120 calories might make sense if you account for 3 oz meat and 1 oz water.3 -
newheavensearth wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I had boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast tonight. I searched "USDA chicken breast boneless skinless grilled" and got a value of 43 calories an ounce. I noticed the packaging said 4 oz=120 calories, but that was for raw and I don't weigh out raw chicken breast unless it's going in a recipe raw. USDA entries will generally be the most reliable with meat & fresh produce.
You asked me this before about a cut of chicken I used. It was a premeasured cut of chicken breast that was 4 oz raw with brine. So it would have less than 43 calories per ounce because part of the weight was water. So 120 calories might make sense if you account for 3 oz meat and 1 oz water.
Absolutely. And then if you weigh cooked, once the water is cooked out, 4 oz of just meat would have a higher calorie count.0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I had boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast tonight. I searched "USDA chicken breast boneless skinless grilled" and got a value of 43 calories an ounce. I noticed the packaging said 4 oz=120 calories, but that was for raw and I don't weigh out raw chicken breast unless it's going in a recipe raw. USDA entries will generally be the most reliable with meat & fresh produce.
You asked me this before about a cut of chicken I used. It was a premeasured cut of chicken breast that was 4 oz raw with brine. So it would have less than 43 calories per ounce because part of the weight was water. So 120 calories might make sense if you account for 3 oz meat and 1 oz water.
Absolutely. And then if you weigh cooked, once the water is cooked out, 4 oz of just meat would have a higher calorie count.
No. It was a 3oz piece of meat raw to begin with, which shrank after cooking. Sorry if I didn't clarify.0 -
newheavensearth wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
I had boneless, skinless grilled chicken breast tonight. I searched "USDA chicken breast boneless skinless grilled" and got a value of 43 calories an ounce. I noticed the packaging said 4 oz=120 calories, but that was for raw and I don't weigh out raw chicken breast unless it's going in a recipe raw. USDA entries will generally be the most reliable with meat & fresh produce.
You asked me this before about a cut of chicken I used. It was a premeasured cut of chicken breast that was 4 oz raw with brine. So it would have less than 43 calories per ounce because part of the weight was water. So 120 calories might make sense if you account for 3 oz meat and 1 oz water.
Absolutely. And then if you weigh cooked, once the water is cooked out, 4 oz of just meat would have a higher calorie count.
No. It was a 3oz piece of meat raw to begin with, which shrank after cooking. Sorry if I didn't clarify.
Lol... no, I got it! I was just comparing 4 oz of raw vs 4 oz of cooked
1 -
Apparently there are more calories in a quarter cup than 5 gallons.
7 -
Relevant to this topic discussion: 16 Hilarious foods in MyFitnessPal database
My favorite is the second one, 1 cup of Everything. Calories? 117,548,999,999,999,992,258,692,813,676,615,827,456
Consume that one with caution, obviously.
ETA: The comments on the blog are golden, too8 -
-
newheavensearth wrote: »When I tried to help someone learn to log their food here they couldn't understand that to be accurate they had to weigh, measure, and log each food item separately. So they tried to beat the system by logging a Mc Donalds two cheeseburger extra value meal ( at least 1000 plus soda) as a generic "burger and fries" entry for only a few hundred calories.
I once had someone tell me in all earnestness that they logged their bananas as small - 90 calories and then bought the largest bananas they could so they'd get more banana for the same number of calories.35 -
diannethegeek wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »When I tried to help someone learn to log their food here they couldn't understand that to be accurate they had to weigh, measure, and log each food item separately. So they tried to beat the system by logging a Mc Donalds two cheeseburger extra value meal ( at least 1000 plus soda) as a generic "burger and fries" entry for only a few hundred calories.
I once had someone tell me in all earnestness that they logged their bananas as small - 90 calories and then bought the largest bananas they could so they'd get more banana for the same number of calories.
4 -
Anytime I build a recipe with banana in it, the default banana it gives me is well over 1000 calories for one... seems legit.3
-
meganridenour wrote: »Anytime I build a recipe with banana in it, the default banana it gives me is well over 1000 calories for one... seems legit.
The recipe builder is a thread in itself. I got several thousand calories for dried basil the other day, and you can't enter the generic "olive oil" or you get "chicken breast sauteed in olive oil".
1 -
meganridenour wrote: »Anytime I build a recipe with banana in it, the default banana it gives me is well over 1000 calories for one... seems legit.
How big was your banana? 6 -
Yeah. So much baloney. When I'm in doubt, I google the item and compare it to the entries. Still not infallible, but better than nothing. Also if I can find a USDA entry that helps.1
-
also, KEKs? AHAHAHA! How many Shadilays is that worth?1
-
SkimpyMrsCarter wrote: »
Google says it's 162 if no skin and is baked.1 -
14
-
Wish I could figure out how to post a picture. When I searched cream cheese, 2 T was over 7,000 calories. Wtf?1
-
-
Much more reasonable serving size. 5 -
Much more reasonable serving size.
Yeah, eating an entire human in one sitting is a big ask. I may be a monster, but I'm not supernatural. Plus, originally the entry had no calories either. IIFYM and all that, you know.
5 -
"To calculate the calories of a human being, Cole looked at several studies done in the 1940s and ‘50s that analyzed the protein and fat content of different parts of the human body. From that information, he could calculate how many calories you get from a one-pound heart (650), a four-pound liver (2,569), and three pounds of nerve tissue (2,001). After combining all organs together, you can basically slap a nutritional label on a human corpse that reads: 125,822 calories. At least, within the constraints of those 1940s and ‘50s studies. (They analyzed a total of four men, ranging from 35 to 60 years old, and weighing an average of 145 pounds, so Cole’s caloric count only applies to male Homo sapiens with those parameters.)"
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54099289/cannibal3_1.0.png)
24
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions