How do you know how many calories are ACTUALLY in fruit and veg?
Anita4548
Posts: 39 Member
What I mean by this is ... for example I wanted to find out how many calories in parsnips. I've never ever had parsnips before so got some from a farmers market no packaging to try. Googled it and the calories differ everywhere. One place says 66cal per 100g. Other says 85. Who do I trust? Also is that for raw parsnips?
Another example is frozen peas. On the back of the packet, it shows nutritional values but doesn't say if it's for 100g frozen or boiled or what?
And a third example that I struggle with often is apples.. there are SO many different "apple" entries on MFP and even if I measure how much my apple weights I have got the option to log 65 to 85 to 150 calories.
I know they only differ by a little bit but I really want to track everything very accurately. What is your opinion?
Another example is frozen peas. On the back of the packet, it shows nutritional values but doesn't say if it's for 100g frozen or boiled or what?
And a third example that I struggle with often is apples.. there are SO many different "apple" entries on MFP and even if I measure how much my apple weights I have got the option to log 65 to 85 to 150 calories.
I know they only differ by a little bit but I really want to track everything very accurately. What is your opinion?
6
Replies
-
33
-
The USDA website is great, and you can enter their code number for the food product into the MFP database and get good matches. As far as prepared versus frozen, I weigh it however it's packaged/before cooking. Those will be really slight differences, and as long as you're consistent you shouldn't notice a difference.
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list8 -
look for the USDA verified entry
2 -
I use the USDA database. You can specify raw or cooked and varieties to your heart's content. Then I compare back to MFP database to find the best entry. MFP's database is user-sourced, thus the multitude of conflicting entries.
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
At the end of the day, it's all a bit of guesswork. Your results will be your guide as to how well you're logging.8 -
I see I'm not alone! 3 -
Oh wow thank you very much, everyone for this website, it's very useful. That's exactly what I wanted - one place that I can reffer to. And I know it's a bit of guesswork but I want to guess as best as I can
8 -
I can live with entering my apple as a medium or large. But a lot of people prefer to be more accurate, and the best way to be accurate is to weigh, after peeling and/or coring your fruit. You can also create custom entries to use in your diary, if the ones already in the database seem inaccurate. And quite a few are inaccurate and repetitious.9
-
Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I can live with entering my apple as a medium or large. But a lot of people prefer to be more accurate, and the best way to be accurate is to weigh, after peeling and/or coring your fruit. You can also create custom entries to use in your diary, if the ones already in the database seem inaccurate. And quite a few are inaccurate and repetitious.
Yes that's exactly what I mean. I don't know which entries to trust on MFP. Especially if one says Apple 100g - 85 cal and another says Apple 100g - 105 calories. I know the green tick means it's not user generated but if there isn't one that has a green tick then you have to pick another one. And as I don't have a huge amount of weight to lose, even a couple of hundred calories can make a difference1 -
Fatty_Nuff wrote: »I can live with entering my apple as a medium or large. But a lot of people prefer to be more accurate, and the best way to be accurate is to weigh, after peeling and/or coring your fruit. You can also create custom entries to use in your diary, if the ones already in the database seem inaccurate. And quite a few are inaccurate and repetitious.
Yes that's exactly what I mean. I don't know which entries to trust on MFP. Especially if one says Apple 100g - 85 cal and another says Apple 100g - 105 calories. I know the green tick means it's not user generated but if there isn't one that has a green tick then you have to pick another one. And as I don't have a huge amount of weight to lose, even a couple of hundred calories can make a difference
Unfortunately the ones with the green tick mark can be user generated and just enough people "verified" the entry to give it the mark. You have to check those too. Sorry!
And I weigh my apples but I use Gala for all of them instead of the actual variety. I figure it is close enough.10 -
I eat a ridiculous amount of vegetables; a large chunk of my daily calories comes from veg intake.
I lose weight as expected and I always verify which data base entries I select against what the USDA data base says.10 -
And, after everyone, just about, mentioning it, here is an excellent guide to how to use the USDA.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1
Cheers, h.12 -
This^^^0 -
With time, you'll get a sense of which entries came from the USDA. They tend to have lots of options, and are apparently the only ones that can have both weight and volume. They can be convoluted, like "Rice, white, long-grain, regular, cooked, unenriched, with salt".
For apples, I use "Apples, raw, with skin".
Entries for foods that can be raw or cooked which came from the USDA will always have a choice of raw or cooked. I just put in a variety of fruit that I wouldn't cook, and they all came up [fruit], raw in the USDA db.7 -
I overestimate to be on the safe side.7
-
Use USDA website. Everything else looks like facebook MLM anti-vaxxer moms spreading false calorie counts.18
-
-
The thing to remember with nutritional data is that it is all based around averages (even that published on packets). Unprocessed food is not a homgenous mass and will vary slightly from batch to batch, crop to crop, with seasonality, storage periods etc etc. When confronted with varied data the best bet is to assume a value somewhere in the middle. Although we tend to treat the nutritional data as incontrovertible fact when logging, the truth is that some batches/crops will be a little above the values and some a little below. Take somewhere in the middle and don't worry about it too much.
8 -
Honestly when it comes to fruit and veg I don't worry overly much. Cause most veg, especially, are pretty low in calories-by-weight overall so I don't mind if I'm off by a few cals. I figure, I just really strictly measure the high cal density foods, 'cause those are the ones where an unmeasured spoonful can really throw off your accuracy. Having your daily log be 20 or 30 cals off 'cause of veg estimates isn't going to make much of a difference in the long run, really.10
-
Cant_think_of_a_username wrote: »The thing to remember with nutritional data is that it is all based around averages (even that published on packets). Unprocessed food is not a homgenous mass and will vary slightly from batch to batch, crop to crop, with seasonality, storage periods etc etc. When confronted with varied data the best bet is to assume a value somewhere in the middle.
It does vary, but that's not why the entries in MFP are all over the place. They are all over the place because people put in some bad entries (and most of the entries people put in are also likely to be lacking in some of the relevant nutrition facts). So in this case taking an average or going somewhere in the middle isn't as good of an approach as just using the USDA entries. Also, if you are consistent over time, it's not going to be a problem -- you can adjust overall calories based on result.9 -
middlehaitch wrote: »And, after everyone, just about, mentioning it, here is an excellent guide to how to use the USDA.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1
Cheers, h.
This thread, all day long.
And those green check marks are pretty meaningless, too. The Admin-entered entries in the database are not the only ones with green checks and lots of those green checks disagree with the USDA list...which...can also be confusing.
Once you use an entry it will be in your Recents and Favorites list, so choose carefully that first time you use it and you won't have to keep looking.7 -
You also need to weigh the veggies if you want to be accurate1
-
There is such a wide variety of sweetness to individual pieces of fruit I just assume a certain level of inaccuracy. Let's face it some gala apples are sweeter than other gala apples. My thoughts are the sweeter one has more sugar and therefore more calories. I don't know if that is right, but it makes sense to me.1
-
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.28
-
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.
Vegetables have a widely varying amount of calories. Vegetables like corn and peas are well worth counting and even lower calorie vegetables like cauliflower and broccoli can contain enough calories to be worth considering especially for people with smaller deficits.
Telling someone they can eat vegetables "until they explode" isn't really accurate when you don't understand what vegetables they might be eating, how large their appetite is, and how large their deficit is.
For someone on a 250 calorie deficit, a head of cauliflower and an orange would typically be enough to cancel it out.18 -
AoifeFitzy wrote: »Honestly when it comes to fruit and veg I don't worry overly much. Cause most veg, especially, are pretty low in calories-by-weight overall so I don't mind if I'm off by a few cals. I figure, I just really strictly measure the high cal density foods, 'cause those are the ones where an unmeasured spoonful can really throw off your accuracy. Having your daily log be 20 or 30 cals off 'cause of veg estimates isn't going to make much of a difference in the long run, really.
There's some of us who eat a lot of veg/fruit though, and it definitely adds up in calories. Today I'll be over 500 calories just in veg/fruit, out of a 1,400 calorie allotment. That's a pretty significant chunk of my calories for the day. Not saying you have to weight out every spinach leaf, but just be aware that veg/fruit do have calories and it all counts 12 -
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.
They definitely have an impact on my calories which is why I'm mindful of them and fit them in, just like any other food.2 -
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.
Advice like this is why there are people who subject themselves to diets of nothing but chicken breast and copious amounts of fruit and vegatables and wonder why they're still not losing weight. Fruits and vegetables, even lower calorie ones, aren't free for alls.17 -
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.
This is terrible advice. I eat roughly 3 pounds of vegetables a day and it can easily add up to 400+ calories depending on what I am eating.12 -
In veggies? Nearly nothing. You can eat them until you explode. (this excludes white potatoes). Fruits, mostly the same, except certain ones like avocado and banana.
This doesn't make sense. Vegetables have calories just like all other foods and I eat several hundred calories of vegetables every day. If I didn't track them I would easily go over on calories.8 -
@ReneeKatz I believe I understand your point. When the differences are 20 or 30 calories either way I agree it's not the end of the world. That's the point I was trying to make by saying individual pieces of fruit or veggies are going to vary by that much anyway. That being said I don't think it's a good idea to go crazy. I try to be sensible and error on the high side. I'd rather guess- keep in mind without equipment to test the calories in everything we track, it is a guess. A well researched and informed guess but still a guess. So I will post 60 calories when it might have only been 30 and I'm ok with that because next time I'll post something as 60 and in reality its 90. As long as the number on the scale is going down0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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