Reliable site for calorie calculations?

nooboots

I am not finding this site particularly accurate or consistent for calorie counts.

As an example, I wanted to look up fresh raw salmon per 100g. There seem to be various different numbers in this website.

So I then looked at Tesco as an example to find that different products (which are all fresh raw salmon) also had different measurements for raw salmon per 100g. Very annoying.

The problem is that if I google it, I get either results from this site or other weight management sites which are all prone to the same problems

Any idea? Its scottish farmed salmon if that makes any difference.

deannalfisher

i use the USDA website - regardless of if you are overseas or not, it will give you decent inputs

then search
USDA, salmon, raw (and potentnially with or without skin) - the more specific you can get, the better

Commander_Keen

What about the bar code on the bottom/back of the package.

Kathryn247

Here's the USDA website:
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

Information based on the bar code was entered into MFP by users and isn't always correct.

nooboots

Commander_Keen wrote: »

What about the bar code on the bottom/back of the package.

Well, yes I go by that, but am slightly mistrustful so like to have a range so that I can work out whether the package is correct or not. On the package I am cooking this evening it says 100g 196 calories. However when I was searching here for the product it was coming up between 170 per 100g and 260 per 100g, all raw.

I suppose it is somewhere in the middle at least

kshama2001

Unfortunately, the "verified" green check marks in the MFP database are used for both user-created entries and admin-created entries that MFP pulled from the USDA database. To find admin entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.

Note: any MFP entry that includes "USDA" was user entered.

For packaged foods, I verify the label against what I find in MFP. (Alas, you cannot just scan and assume what you get is correct.)

nooboots

I dont know what scan means?

But I will have a look at that website in future for clarification.

heybales

You can scan a bar code and that's tied to an entry in the database.

Problem is manufacturers so many times keep the same SKU but change the nutritional makeup of a product - so the label info has changed, but not in the database.

Not even sure how it would get changed unless so many users tagging it as incorrect causes a manual correction by Admins.

I don't even bother scanning - try to get several terms in the name and find the right searched item.

Commander_Keen

nooboots wrote: »

Commander_Keen wrote: »

What about the bar code on the bottom/back of the package.

Well, yes I go by that, but am slightly mistrustful so like to have a range so that I can work out whether the package is correct or not. On the package I am cooking this evening it says 100g 196 calories. However when I was searching here for the product it was coming up between 170 per 100g and 260 per 100g, all raw.

I suppose it is somewhere in the middle at least

For me, it wouldn't matter, as long as I am consistent.
You can also google Nutrition for Salmon ( for example) and use that.. But again, if I eat a salmon, I would use that same info..

nooboots

heybales wrote: »

You can scan a bar code and that's tied to an entry in the database.

Problem is manufacturers so many times keep the same SKU but change the nutritional makeup of a product - so the label info has changed, but not in the database.

Not even sure how it would get changed unless so many users tagging it as incorrect causes a manual correction by Admins.

I don't even bother scanning - try to get several terms in the name and find the right searched item.

I wouldnt even know how to scan some food, what with?

Kathryn247

@nooboots if you use the phone/app version of MFP, there's an option to use your camera phone to scan the barcode on a package of food to log it. It's still a good idea to compare the scan results to what's on the nutrition information panel, though, because the scan results were entered by MFP users and may not be accurate. Sometimes they are and it's helpful, but you still have to confirm it.

Gisel2015

Commander_Keen wrote: »

What about the bar code on the bottom/back of the package.

You can scan a product if you use the MFP app on your phone. If you use the web version/PC (like I do), then scanning is not possible.

lemurcat2

If there is package information on your salmon I'd find the matching information. There is likely a reason for the differences you are seeing (different types of salmon, perhaps). If not, I also tend to use the USDA source.

If you eat lots of whole foods, Cronometer is actually an easy place to log (although it lacks the community here, which is why I log there, hang out here). It can be annoying when you do need something packaged, since you more often than not have to add it yourself.

nooboots

Thanks, no I dont have an app on my phone

Well I eat a real mixture of packaged foods and whole foods. I recently was trying to work out the calories in 120g of tuna in oil which is not drained, doesnt even seem to exist on the manufacturers website, it was john west. They assume you drain and waste the oil whereas I use it for cooking the rest of the meal in, it adds to the flavour

heybales

nooboots wrote: »

Thanks, no I dont have an app on my phone

That's why you don't see anything about scanning bar codes on food packages.

Just keep the comments in mind for if you ever do.

lemurcat2

nooboots wrote: »

Thanks, no I dont have an app on my phone

Well I eat a real mixture of packaged foods and whole foods. I recently was trying to work out the calories in 120g of tuna in oil which is not drained, doesnt even seem to exist on the manufacturers website, it was john west. They assume you drain and waste the oil whereas I use it for cooking the rest of the meal in, it adds to the flavour

Typically, couldn't you use the information on the package itself? Usually you can look the product up on MFP and find a version that matches your package. If not, you can add it from the package information.

Here, for the extra cals from the oil, I'd just log whatever extra amount you think you used of whatever kind of oil it was.

nooboots

Yes as I said, I do use the package information but I like to double check on some things as my experience has been so varied with say 'salmon', or 'apples'. I measure everything from the 100g calculation but dependent on what site you use or company or supermarket there is such variation.

Yes with the oil I had to make a best guess but even then 'tuna in oil - drained' again varies across producers and packages so much. Its hard to know if the amounts of the package are accurate, I mean where do they get their information from?

stricklee11

I use the USDA Database along with the recipe calorie counter and label/menu information. If something still seems too low, I just do a quick add.

https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

yirara

I scanned a tin of bean soup today and wondered about the calories. Turns out the given calories was for 15gr of vinegar crisps So yeah, always double check when using the barcode scanner.

lemurcat2

nooboots wrote: »

Yes as I said, I do use the package information but I like to double check on some things as my experience has been so varied with say 'salmon', or 'apples'. I measure everything from the 100g calculation but dependent on what site you use or company or supermarket there is such variation.

I'd take the package as more accurate than a secondary source for most packaged things (not apples, I'd use the USDA for the type of apple and usually don't even bother specifying type since apples aren't that caloric -- I do put in the weight of the apple based on weighing it myself). However, in the US apples aren't sold with a nutrition label.

Salmon will vary based on type of salmon and sometimes other factors (smoked, obviously); chicken will vary if you buy one with a saline solution, beef varies based on fat context, who knows. The USDA or what not is good and the source I mainly use (since I don't buy that much packaged and the packaged stuff I buy doesn't seem to vary much), but it's for a broad average so also is not going to be perfect for whatever specific piece of chicken breast or whatever.

kshama2001

nooboots wrote: »

Thanks, no I dont have an app on my phone

Well I eat a real mixture of packaged foods and whole foods. I recently was trying to work out the calories in 120g of tuna in oil which is not drained, doesnt even seem to exist on the manufacturers website, it was john west. They assume you drain and waste the oil whereas I use it for cooking the rest of the meal in, it adds to the flavour

I prefer tuna in oil as well.

My brand - Genova - lists serving size = 2 oz (drained) / 56 g. 2 per container. Calories per serving = 100.

So anything over 112 g (56 x 2 servings) would be oil and I add that in separately.

nooboots

lemurcat2 wrote: »

nooboots wrote: »

Yes as I said, I do use the package information but I like to double check on some things as my experience has been so varied with say 'salmon', or 'apples'. I measure everything from the 100g calculation but dependent on what site you use or company or supermarket there is such variation.

I'd take the package as more accurate than a secondary source for most packaged things (not apples, I'd use the USDA for the type of apple and usually don't even bother specifying type since apples aren't that caloric -- I do put in the weight of the apple based on weighing it myself). However, in the US apples aren't sold with a nutrition label.

Salmon will vary based on type of salmon and sometimes other factors (smoked, obviously); chicken will vary if you buy one with a saline solution, beef varies based on fat context, who knows. The USDA or what not is good and the source I mainly use (since I don't buy that much packaged and the packaged stuff I buy doesn't seem to vary much), but it's for a broad average so also is not going to be perfect for whatever specific piece of chicken breast or whatever.

Well I wouldnt expect that smoked and non smoked would be similar, they are very different goods.

I suppose I feel slightly paranoid and suspicious about manufacturers sources because in many cases they might not want to put the real calorie values on products and look like their food is 'healthier' than it is what with all the government focus on products needing to cut their fat/sugar/salt etc down. (in the UK at least)

lemurcat2

But that focus is why they basically have to be honest or they will get in trouble. Not that there aren't mistakes and there's likely an accepted error rate (as in the US, but that's more for amount in the package).