Irritating logging data (venting)

2t9nty

So I will sometimes eat a can of mackerel for lunch. I scanned the can and entered one can for the unit. It gave me 350 calories, and 65 g of protein. This has always seemed like a lot for 350 calories, but I never thought much about it.

Today I just had a can of mackerel for lunch. I am looking at the back of the can and it says 80 calories per serving, 8 g fat, and 12 g protein. The math teacher in recovery can't help myself. 8*9 + 12*4 = 120 not 80. The can says 8 servings, and I check the scanned entry. It is based on a smaller can. Grrr...

It does not do much good to log if the data is wrong. I am not sure why I believe the protein and fat numbers per serving.

The can size, number of calories, and similar problems elsewhere could explain a plateau. I have to actually think about these things I just enter off the list - sigh...

canadjineh

Yeah.... if you take a closer look at the Nutrition Facts on the sides of containers you can see that they can choose whatever 'serving size' they want to manipulate the data and make it look like something is low fat/low carb/low cal etc. That's why breakfast cereal servings can be anywhere from 1/2c to 1c - let's face it, people (generally) fill a bowl and call it a serving. Same for most foods. I eat a whole 120g wt drained can of tuna and call it a serving, but the side of the can says it's two. My husband will eat about 1/3 of a can, since that's what fits in his sandwich and he calls that a serving. We just have to peer at the containers and work out the numbers ourselves I think and forget the scan.

2t9nty

I am pretty good about figuring the actual weight/volume. I can see how this could be a gotcha too. I still like the mackerel, but it has had me over my calorie limit in the past, and I did not know it.