Gram units of 1 vs Gram Units of 100

newheavensearth
newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi. So I saw in another thread that when choosing entries it is best to use entries in units of 100.0 g due to rounding and not 1g units. For example, I weighed a banana and entered 1.23 serving using 100g, then used an entry of 123 servings using 1g and got a discrepancy of about 30 calories higher for the 100g entry (USDA entry).

Which method is correct? I honestly thought using 1g was easier and correct. I use the 1g serving method for recipes. Now I think I've been screwing myself for months which explains a lot of my problems. :/:|

Thanks

Replies

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Tht's not about methods, it's a bug, if you want to earn karma points, report it to Support.
  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    Tht's not about methods, it's a bug, if you want to earn karma points, report it to Support.

    Thanks. Just referring to a post a saw on the thread about weighing fruits and veggies.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    edited January 2018
    There are dozens, if not hundreds, of items in the MFP Food Database for "bananas."

    Did you use the "official" MFP item for "Bananas, raw?" If so, MFP broke that one years ago and tried many times to correct it, but it kept getting messed up. I think the MFP database admins just gave up on that one.

    If you did not use the "official" MFP item, did you log the exact same item for your two examples? If not, there may be differences in the two different database items.

    General MFP rule: "Don't trust, verify everything."
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    It’s because creating a 1g entry may result in rounding amounts. If a banana has (as a completely made up set of numbers) 1.6 calories per gram, the person entering that in the database might round that to 2 calories per gram-or maybe truncate to 1 calorie per gram for a single digit in the calories spot.

    Either way, if you eat 100g of banana-your log would either show 100 or 200 calories because it’s starting from the rounded 1 or 2 calories per gram number and not the actual 1.6 calories/gram.

    The 100g database entry can show 160 calories per 100 grams. So when you log it in your diary, you’re logging accordingly.

    Using 1g serving sizes for your recipe builder is fine. The recipe builder has all the info to start with and records decimal places for nutrient and calorie values. So if your recipe has 1.4 calories/g, mfp will log 140 calories in your diary for 100g consumed.

    I don’t know if this helps at all.
  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    It’s because creating a 1g entry may result in rounding amounts. If a banana has (as a completely made up set of numbers) 1.6 calories per gram, the person entering that in the database might round that to 2 calories per gram-or maybe truncate to 1 calorie per gram for a single digit in the calories spot.

    Either way, if you eat 100g of banana-your log would either show 100 or 200 calories because it’s starting from the rounded 1 or 2 calories per gram number and not the actual 1.6 calories/gram.

    The 100g database entry can show 160 calories per 100 grams. So when you log it in your diary, you’re logging accordingly.

    Using 1g serving sizes for your recipe builder is fine. The recipe builder has all the info to start with and records decimal places for nutrient and calorie values. So if your recipe has 1.4 calories/g, mfp will log 140 calories in your diary for 100g consumed.

    I don’t know if this helps at all.

    Yes this is the perfect explanation for the rounding. So would this be considered undercounting my calories or just a fluke?
  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    CyberTone wrote: »
    There are dozens, if not hundreds, of items in the MFP Food Database for "bananas."

    Did you use the "official" MFP item for "Bananas, raw?" If so, MFP broke that one years ago and tried many times to correct it, but it kept getting messed up. I think the MFP database admins just gave up on that one.

    If you did not use the "official" MFP item, did you log the exact same item for your two examples? If not, there may be differences in the two different database items.

    General MFP rule: "Don't trust, verify everything."

    I did use the official USDA entry both times. I'll verify more often.
    Thanks.
  • Duck_Puddle
    Duck_Puddle Posts: 3,237 Member
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    It’s because creating a 1g entry may result in rounding amounts. If a banana has (as a completely made up set of numbers) 1.6 calories per gram, the person entering that in the database might round that to 2 calories per gram-or maybe truncate to 1 calorie per gram for a single digit in the calories spot.

    Either way, if you eat 100g of banana-your log would either show 100 or 200 calories because it’s starting from the rounded 1 or 2 calories per gram number and not the actual 1.6 calories/gram.

    The 100g database entry can show 160 calories per 100 grams. So when you log it in your diary, you’re logging accordingly.

    Using 1g serving sizes for your recipe builder is fine. The recipe builder has all the info to start with and records decimal places for nutrient and calorie values. So if your recipe has 1.4 calories/g, mfp will log 140 calories in your diary for 100g consumed.

    I don’t know if this helps at all.

    Yes this is the perfect explanation for the rounding. So would this be considered undercounting my calories or just a fluke?

    I’d call it a matter of having a database that is built with user entries-some correct, some not-like a “verified” entry for pop tarts with a serving size of 1 cup.

    It’s probably not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things because some will be low, some will be high, and it’ll probably end up as a wash. But I also am willing to accept that all logging is an estimate and accept that there’s a level of error involved no matter what.

    You can start using the 100g entries if you want to be super sure you’re using the USDA info as closely as possible.

  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Duck_Puddle wrote: »
    It’s because creating a 1g entry may result in rounding amounts. If a banana has (as a completely made up set of numbers) 1.6 calories per gram, the person entering that in the database might round that to 2 calories per gram-or maybe truncate to 1 calorie per gram for a single digit in the calories spot.

    Either way, if you eat 100g of banana-your log would either show 100 or 200 calories because it’s starting from the rounded 1 or 2 calories per gram number and not the actual 1.6 calories/gram.

    The 100g database entry can show 160 calories per 100 grams. So when you log it in your diary, you’re logging accordingly.

    Using 1g serving sizes for your recipe builder is fine. The recipe builder has all the info to start with and records decimal places for nutrient and calorie values. So if your recipe has 1.4 calories/g, mfp will log 140 calories in your diary for 100g consumed.

    I don’t know if this helps at all.

    Yes this is the perfect explanation for the rounding. So would this be considered undercounting my calories or just a fluke?

    I’d call it a matter of having a database that is built with user entries-some correct, some not-like a “verified” entry for pop tarts with a serving size of 1 cup.

    It’s probably not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things because some will be low, some will be high, and it’ll probably end up as a wash. But I also am willing to accept that all logging is an estimate and accept that there’s a level of error involved no matter what.

    You can start using the 100g entries if you want to be super sure you’re using the USDA info as closely as possible.

    Thanks for your help!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,092 Member
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Hi. So I saw in another thread that when choosing entries it is best to use entries in units of 100.0 g due to rounding and not 1g units. For example, I weighed a banana and entered 1.23 serving using 100g, then used an entry of 123 servings using 1g and got a discrepancy of about 30 calories higher for the 100g entry (USDA entry).

    Which method is correct? I honestly thought using 1g was easier and correct. I use the 1g serving method for recipes. Now I think I've been screwing myself for months which explains a lot of my problems. :/:|

    Thanks

    I suspect that it was my post in another thread that you're referring to. Just to clarify, my point is that it is far easier to verify that an entry for a 100 g serving is correct by comparing it to the USDA data for 100 g of banana or whatever. If you try to compare a 1 g serving size on MFP to the USDA data, you don't know what's going on, between the MFP rounding and the fact that macros for a 1 gram serving size will round to 0 or 1.

    It's not a "method" issue. It's an issue of being able to verify that the MFP entry you're using is correct.
  • newheavensearth
    newheavensearth Posts: 870 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Hi. So I saw in another thread that when choosing entries it is best to use entries in units of 100.0 g due to rounding and not 1g units. For example, I weighed a banana and entered 1.23 serving using 100g, then used an entry of 123 servings using 1g and got a discrepancy of about 30 calories higher for the 100g entry (USDA entry).

    Which method is correct? I honestly thought using 1g was easier and correct. I use the 1g serving method for recipes. Now I think I've been screwing myself for months which explains a lot of my problems. :/:|

    Thanks

    I suspect that it was my post in another thread that you're referring to. Just to clarify, my point is that it is far easier to verify that an entry for a 100 g serving is correct by comparing it to the USDA data for 100 g of banana or whatever. If you try to compare a 1 g serving size on MFP to the USDA data, you don't know what's going on, between the MFP rounding and the fact that macros for a 1 gram serving size will round to 0 or 1.

    It's not a "method" issue. It's an issue of being able to verify that the MFP entry you're using is correct.

    I understand. Thank you.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I stay away from the 1 g entries, because if the person did not put it in correctly (say 1.2345 cal) and just rounded down (1 cal), then when you put in an amount more similar to what people actually eat (65 g or 123 or whatever), it can be way off.

    If you know it's the official USDA it should be okay, but I'd run it on the USDA site to be sure it's right.

Categories