Bogus calories and macros in database

Options
13

Replies

  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official

    Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.

    Not difficult, but incredibly time consuming. And that comes with a monetary cost. This is a free app (with the option to pay for more features if one chooses). How do you propose they pay for the substantial cost of completely overhauling the database?
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    Options
    AliceDark wrote: »
    The MFP database allows users to create their own entries, so some are more accurate than others. Nobody is able to double-check entries, so it's a "buyer beware" kind of situation. Generally speaking, look for entries that have the green check mark or include the phrase "USDA" to find more-accurate entries. Stay away from any entries marked generic or homemade, because there's no way to know whether your homemade food matches someone else's. Also, stay away from entries that describe a whole dish (like "1 PB&J" or "scrambled eggs") because, again, who knows whether you make scrambled eggs in the same way as anyone else.

    even some of the green check marked entries are off. so it pays to cross reference between the label you have for a product and the green check marked entry info, also info on packaging changes from time to time so what may have been correct may not be now
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    Options
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official

    Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.

    ok so what if they were to clean up the database and then the info for some food packaging changed? which it does from time to time? they would then have to take the time to change things yet again. as for making recipes and not adding it to the database you can make your own and not add it and it will be in your recipes. users probably thought they were doing others a favor by adding their info for recipes. the thing is we dont know whats in those "homemade" or other recipes and the the macro counts.
  • Scubdup
    Scubdup Posts: 104 Member
    Options
    I have to agree with the OP. I love MFP, but I hate their database, or rather its ergonomics.

    It's such a relatively straight forward thing to add some sort of crowd-based verification/correction/flagging system, and yet it's been this poor for years.

    Even the system for adding foods is very bad - the lack of clarity there is the cause of a lot of the bad entries in the database - all the mix ups between portions, servings, numbers of servings in a packet etc.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.

    This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.

    The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).

    I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.

    Which value should be used in the MFP database?

    What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?

    Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    I scan a lot of food when I can (other than fresh produce) using the barcode but never cross checked it and assumed it was accurate, I might start paying more attention.

    Depending on type of food item - possibly not.

    Manufacturers keep the same SKU but change the makeup of the food, and there goes the nutrition label.

    I'm not sure how MFP ties existing SKU & database entry to a newer more accurate entry.

    I've had a bunch of frozen rice vegetable dishes go inaccurate when the package size got smaller and recipes redone.
    Soups change, as well as bread very often.

    I stopped using the SKU's years ago when I noticed my Balance bars were changed at some point before I started eating them, and SKU was based on that ancient package.

    If the label ever says "Taste better" "less sugar" "no _____ fat" then the nutritional label almost always changed.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,846 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.

    This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.

    The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).

    I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.

    Which value should be used in the MFP database?

    What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?

    Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.

    Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle :smile:

    The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.

    MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    Options
    Bogus entries aside, you hit on one of the hardest cases: The calories you consume from pork depends strongly on how much of the fat you include. It is certainly dismaying!

    I typically eat pork loin or a pork chop at least once a week. When I was tracking carefully to lose weight, I trimmed off the fat and bone and weighed my portion, using "Tyson boneless pork chop" to record it. This is a verified entry at about 33kcals/oz. Now that I've done it many times, I just look at the chop and guess the weight. I've gotten pretty good at it!
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    edited September 2017
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.

    This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.

    The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).

    I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.

    Which value should be used in the MFP database?

    What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?

    Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.

    Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle :smile:

    The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.

    MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.

    I'm sorry, I misread you--I had it in my head that the board and the rep were correlating with each other. Yep, you're screwed. In this case, I would send an angry note to Wendy's HQ and possibly angle for free food coupons. :D (Having worked at a factory making Ben & Jerry's in my college days, I know some companies also give out free food coupons for compliments.) Anyway, MFP has an excuse, Wendy's doesn't.

    ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.
  • LiftHeavyThings27105
    LiftHeavyThings27105 Posts: 2,086 Member
    Options
    And, yes - I understand the irony in my statement about "not blindly assuming that everything is correct" given my recent "lesson learned" with respect to BMR and AMR.......
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    Wendy's in Canada now has to list calories on their in store menu boards.

    This started THIS YEAR and their in store board lists a small chili at 220 Cal.

    The Canadian web site nutritional information lists a small chili at 190 Cal (which is the value I have been using these past few years).

    I texted customer support (neat, first time I see an option to text a 1-800 number). They said that their 2017 nutritional guide lists the small chili at 170 Cal.

    Which value should be used in the MFP database?

    What about Wendy's in the US? Australia?

    Just find the appropriate Canadian entry (or five) and correct them, noting that it was updated for 2017.

    Nope. Because the oral update on the nutritional guide is not quite believable when the store sign that was made this year is that much different. so on balance... the web site is in the middle :smile:

    The example does demonstrate, however, how it can be very difficult to arrive at "one" value.

    MFP *could* leverage the good-will of site users and "crowd-source" corrections or even a new database-all it would take would be a flag to denote a new type of entry. It would take one or two full time staff to coordinate and act as final decision makers in terms of disagreement. Heck... possibly even a single staff member.

    I'm sorry, I misread you--I had it in my head that the board and the rep were correlating with each other. Yep, you're screwed. In this case, I would send an angry note to Wendy's HQ and possibly angle for free food coupons. :D (Having worked at a factory making Ben & Jerry's in my college days, I know some companies also give out free food coupons for compliments.) Anyway, MFP has an excuse, Wendy's doesn't.

    ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.

    the wendys near me doesnt add sour cream or cheese unless you ask for it
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,846 Member
    Options
    ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.

    No cheese or sour cream as free options as far as I'm aware... but, you MIGHT be on to something as the store usually serves the chilli with a 2 pack of Zesta saltines (24-25 Cal) and, officially, a hot sauce packet (5 cal). 190 (web site) + 30 condiments would bring it to the 220 (board). But it still leaves the 170 on their internal nutritional guide!

    Good idea though!
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    ETA: I have just been thinking on this, and I believe Wendy's serves its chili with sour cream and a sprinkle of cheese...? If this is the case, maybe the higher amount reflects the add-ons. I now I have been annoyed at fast food places because what is posted on the board reflects every add on, whereas the nutritional guide gets granular. Just a possibility.

    No cheese or sour cream as free options as far as I'm aware... but, you MIGHT be on to something as the store usually serves the chilli with a 2 pack of Zesta saltines (24-25 Cal) and, officially, a hot sauce packet (5 cal). 190 (web site) + 30 condiments would bring it to the 220 (board). But it still leaves the 170 on their internal nutritional guide!

    Good idea though!

    For TWO packs (four crackers) wouldn't it be 50 cals then, and account for the 170?

    (We are such nerds! :D )