Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

For "Add a food", allow entering both actual serving size *and* nutrition values based on 100 g

DodanonnoneDodanonnone Posts: 1Member, Premium Member Posts: 1Member, Premium Member
Today it is only possible to enter nutrition values based on the entered serving size, but often nutrition values are often only specified based on 100 g. This makes it cumbersome to enter actual serving size and nutrition values since you either have to enter a incorrect serving size of 100 g *or* manually recalculate the nutrition values from 100 g to the actual serving size.

Replies

  • kimny72kimny72 Posts: 11,209Member Member Posts: 11,209Member Member
    You can get your correct serving size by manipulating the # of servings you add. So if the serving size is listed as 100g, and you are eating say 125g, you would enter 1.25 servings. If you are eating 90g, you would enter 0.9 servings.

    Alternately, you can create your own database entry and set it with whatever serving size you want to work with, then remove the check to make it available publicly so you aren't adding to the dupes in the system.
  • deannalfisherdeannalfisher Posts: 4,649Member, Premium Member Posts: 4,649Member, Premium Member
    100g calorie calculations are soo much easier to deal with than logging compared to say 1 serving is 54g - o at least for me
  • paixienpaixien Posts: 4Member, Premium Member Posts: 4Member, Premium Member
    I use a kitchen scale to measure quantities of every ingredient in homemade things. Although your database of brand items is AMAZING — I have found obscure Taiwanese brands of canned smoked eel as well as several types of Korean noodles I use — I find myself continually frustrated by the lack of gram serving sizes available, as I have my scale set to grams as a default because I use it for European bread and other baking recipes, which are almost universally by weight, in grams, rather than in cup measures like American recipes, because of the differing density of various flours and the effect of flour density on the rising of dough — they are much more foolproof recipes because of that, I never have loaves like bricks — and it helps account for the different water content if American vs. European butters, etc. it’s also easier to be precise about quantities of things that aren’t always easily measured in tablespoons, like peanut butter. It’s even more Important for things like whole fruits, vegetables, nuts, olives, etc, that vary in size but clearly do have a standard macronutrient profile per gram that would be far more accurate than saying “10 olives” or “12 pistachios”. I like grams because it is more precise for in-between measures than fractions of ounces or cups that don’t have markings below a certain split. But mostly, a lot of the information out there about metabolism, nutrition, calories, and macronutrients, especially with regard to diabetes, which (along with weight loss) is a concern for me, talks about these using grams as a universal basis of comparison. In fact, your own app’s food diary tracks the total grams of macronutrients over the course of the day.

    Every commercial product I can think of actually lists the weight in grams of a serving size in parentheses when it tells you the serving size. So it wouldn’t be hard to include a choice of of “X g” as a serving size for the product (1g would be even more useful, as it then lets you input number of grams as number of servings without doing more math, but I recognize that would require data entry to do the math for me). If I could just get what the standard serving size in grams, then I could do the simple multiplication or division to get # of servings based on how many grams I am eating. As it is, I have to go look at the label to check the grams per serving or look up on the net how many grams a tablespoon of hummus contains, then figure out what percentage of a tablespoon (or quarter cup/cup/pint/whatever, or liquid ounce, or dry ounce) I’m eating based on how many grams it is.

    Even though I grew up with it and it’s ok for cooking, I’m beginning to think the rest of the world is right, America’s measurement system is irrational, and it’s *not* great for facilitating healthy eating because it makes comparisons among foods more difficult. It’s just so much easier to see how your macros stack up against each other (and base a decision about what to eat on that) when you measure everything in the same way.
  • estherdragonbatestherdragonbat Posts: 4,641Member Member Posts: 4,641Member Member
    The database is either completely or mostly user-sourced. You're free to input your own (gram) entry if there isn't one already. Or edit the existing.
Sign In or Register to comment.