Cooking Light Diet Recipe Discrepancies

robertmwarriner
robertmwarriner Posts: 4 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I've been using the Cooking Light Diet meal plan for the last couple of weeks and have noticed some wide variability in the recipe's nutrition information versus MFP calculated nutrition information. For example, I just made their "Tuna-Quinoa Toss" recipe which indicates 374 cal, 35g Carb, 27g Protein, and 14g Fat. Importing the recipe into MFP results in 588 cal, 69.2g Carb, 35.8g Protein and 18.6g Fat. A significant difference to say the least. I've checked and re-checked the ingredients being matched by MFP and everything looks correct. This isn't the first recipe to result in a significant difference.
Has anyone else seen this or am I just building up the recipes in MFP wrong? Cooking Light Diet does not allow a direct import into MFP so I must enter things by hand or (preferably) scan the barcode of each ingredient's package.
Ultimately who's nutrition information is correct and how do I know?
«1

Replies

  • robertmwarriner
    robertmwarriner Posts: 4 Member
    True, I had to correct it's crumbled feta entry. MFP indicated 1 tsp had 133g protein in it. I wish it were so but sadly there's not nearly that much in 1 tsp of feta. lol.
    I try to scan the ingredient barcodes when possible to ensure the nutrition information for my execution of the recipe is accurate to what I'm actually using (versus generic ingredients).
    Guess I'll just keep an eye on it and use what-ever number is higher as a conservative entry.
  • robertmwarriner
    robertmwarriner Posts: 4 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    True, I had to correct it's crumbled feta entry. MFP indicated 1 tsp had 133g protein in it. I wish it were so but sadly there's not nearly that much in 1 tsp of feta. lol.
    I try to scan the ingredient barcodes when possible to ensure the nutrition information for my execution of the recipe is accurate to what I'm actually using (versus generic ingredients).
    Guess I'll just keep an eye on it and use what-ever number is higher as a conservative entry.

    I suggest that rather than using the higher number, you learn the workarounds to find accurate entries:

    Unfortunately, the 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.

    The USDA recently changed the platform for their database and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but SR Legacy - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.

    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 with your phone and assume what you get is correct.)

    When you say you paste the USDA info into MFP, is that a quick entry or some other process?

    I generally (that is most of the time) cross-check the prepackaged stuff against the package's nutrition label. So far the ones I've scanned have generally been accurate to what the package label has (whether that's correct is another rabbit hole). The discrepancies generally arise when I'm trying to decide which out of the 40 quinoa entries (that are all different) to use.

    I'd almost say don't allow user-created entries in the _public_ database, only in a personal database. I'm sure that notion has been mentioned before. I'm a recent arrival into this world so bear with me.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    True, I had to correct it's crumbled feta entry. MFP indicated 1 tsp had 133g protein in it. I wish it were so but sadly there's not nearly that much in 1 tsp of feta. lol.
    I try to scan the ingredient barcodes when possible to ensure the nutrition information for my execution of the recipe is accurate to what I'm actually using (versus generic ingredients).
    Guess I'll just keep an eye on it and use what-ever number is higher as a conservative entry.

    I suggest that rather than using the higher number, you learn the workarounds to find accurate entries:

    Unfortunately, the 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.

    The USDA recently changed the platform for their database and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but SR Legacy - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.

    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 with your phone and assume what you get is correct.)

    When you say you paste the USDA info into MFP, is that a quick entry or some other process?

    I generally (that is most of the time) cross-check the prepackaged stuff against the package's nutrition label. So far the ones I've scanned have generally been accurate to what the package label has (whether that's correct is another rabbit hole). The discrepancies generally arise when I'm trying to decide which out of the 40 quinoa entries (that are all different) to use.

    I'd almost say don't allow user-created entries in the _public_ database, only in a personal database. I'm sure that notion has been mentioned before. I'm a recent arrival into this world so bear with me.

    One of MFP's main selling points is the size of their database -- most foods can be found in it and the vast majority of those entries were created by users. I don't really see them limiting themselves in that way, as they don't want to have to pay people to do what we do for free. The number of useless entries really is frustrating though.
  • girlwithcurls2
    girlwithcurls2 Posts: 2,257 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    The MFP Recipe Importer https://www.myfitnesspal.com/recipe_parser is laughably inaccurate. You have to double check every single entry. Sometimes I use the old recipe builder https://www.myfitnesspal.com/recipe/calculator as it is easier to find good entries when you are adding items one at a time, but I do like the thumbnail you get from the importer, so I go back and forth.

    We had a long thread on this in Forum Feedback, which was a sticky for years, but when the Powers that Be decided that nothing was going to be done to improve the recipe builders, it was unstickied.

    But hey, we have badges now :lol:

    ^This.
    I have about 12 pages of recipes that I pull from. I am usually successful importing (I cook a ton of Cooking Light), but you have to really double check ingredients, or at least look for red flags. Also, double check the number of servings. It might import 4, but it's really 6. That's going to use up those calories. I find the old recipe builder easy enough to use, maybe because I have put so many recipes in that way before.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    True, I had to correct it's crumbled feta entry. MFP indicated 1 tsp had 133g protein in it. I wish it were so but sadly there's not nearly that much in 1 tsp of feta. lol.
    I try to scan the ingredient barcodes when possible to ensure the nutrition information for my execution of the recipe is accurate to what I'm actually using (versus generic ingredients).
    Guess I'll just keep an eye on it and use what-ever number is higher as a conservative entry.

    I suggest that rather than using the higher number, you learn the workarounds to find accurate entries:

    Unfortunately, the 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.

    The USDA recently changed the platform for their database and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but SR Legacy - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.

    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 with your phone and assume what you get is correct.)

    When you say you paste the USDA info into MFP, is that a quick entry or some other process?

    I generally (that is most of the time) cross-check the prepackaged stuff against the package's nutrition label. So far the ones I've scanned have generally been accurate to what the package label has (whether that's correct is another rabbit hole). The discrepancies generally arise when I'm trying to decide which out of the 40 quinoa entries (that are all different) to use.

    I'd almost say don't allow user-created entries in the _public_ database, only in a personal database. I'm sure that notion has been mentioned before. I'm a recent arrival into this world so bear with me.

    One of MFP's main selling points is the size of their database -- most foods can be found in it and the vast majority of those entries were created by users. I don't really see them limiting themselves in that way, as they don't want to have to pay people to do what we do for free. The number of useless entries really is frustrating though.

    Since I eat mostly whole foods I would pay for Premium if the Premium database were different from the free database and all it had were entries that came from the USDA. I understand that this would not work for the majority of users, though, so is not a viable solution.

    @robertmwarriner I wanted to emphasize that the free and premium versions share the same cluttered database.

    That would be amazing - I'd consider paying for that as well.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,884 Member
    edited February 2020
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    True, I had to correct it's crumbled feta entry. MFP indicated 1 tsp had 133g protein in it. I wish it were so but sadly there's not nearly that much in 1 tsp of feta. lol.
    I try to scan the ingredient barcodes when possible to ensure the nutrition information for my execution of the recipe is accurate to what I'm actually using (versus generic ingredients).
    Guess I'll just keep an eye on it and use what-ever number is higher as a conservative entry.

    I suggest that rather than using the higher number, you learn the workarounds to find accurate entries:

    Unfortunately, the 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.

    The USDA recently changed the platform for their database and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but SR Legacy - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.

    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 with your phone and assume what you get is correct.)

    When you say you paste the USDA info into MFP, is that a quick entry or some other process?

    I generally (that is most of the time) cross-check the prepackaged stuff against the package's nutrition label. So far the ones I've scanned have generally been accurate to what the package label has (whether that's correct is another rabbit hole). The discrepancies generally arise when I'm trying to decide which out of the 40 quinoa entries (that are all different) to use.

    I'd almost say don't allow user-created entries in the _public_ database, only in a personal database. I'm sure that notion has been mentioned before. I'm a recent arrival into this world so bear with me.

    One of MFP's main selling points is the size of their database -- most foods can be found in it and the vast majority of those entries were created by users. I don't really see them limiting themselves in that way, as they don't want to have to pay people to do what we do for free. The number of useless entries really is frustrating though.

    Since I eat mostly whole foods I would pay for Premium if the Premium database were different from the free database and all it had were entries that came from the USDA. I understand that this would not work for the majority of users, though, so is not a viable solution.

    @robertmwarriner I wanted to emphasize that the free and premium versions share the same cluttered database.

    That would be amazing - I'd consider paying for that as well.

    Interacting with Support would be less frustrating when I want to let them know about glitches. Formerly it went like this:

    Me: Hi, I want to report an error in a MFP system-created entry. (Gives details.)
    Support: Sorry, we don't make fixes to user-created entries. You can edit it.
    Me: Yes, I realize that. This not a user-created entry. It is an entry MFP created from the USDA database. I am not able to edit these.
    Support: [something that makes me give up in frustration]

    I see I emailed them 6 times in 2016 about two issues with the entry for "cheese, cream". (The problem there was not the support person's ability to understand my issue like in the example above, but his ability to get it fixed.)

    I'd like to be a good citizen, but the process was too frustrating.
  • robertmwarriner
    robertmwarriner Posts: 4 Member
    :#
    It _is_ a bit frustrating. I had thought part of the subscription was providing access to a higher quality database. I like easy and if I'm going to have to go to the above effort _anyway_ there are other options I may review that I had discounted because of MFP's purported database size (it was one of the selling points that resulted in my subscription and convincing my wife to get a subscription).

    For now, I'll continue to plug away at it and use the tips above to ensure as much accuracy as possible.

    As a related question, if a recipe (from a reputable site, not joe blow's super duper recipes) posts nutrition information can that be used to gauge the accuracy of what MFP generates. So in my original example would cooking light's statistics be considered truth (or at least close to)?
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,884 Member
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    :#
    It _is_ a bit frustrating. I had thought part of the subscription was providing access to a higher quality database. I like easy and if I'm going to have to go to the above effort _anyway_ there are other options I may review that I had discounted because of MFP's purported database size (it was one of the selling points that resulted in my subscription and convincing my wife to get a subscription).

    For now, I'll continue to plug away at it and use the tips above to ensure as much accuracy as possible.

    As a related question, if a recipe (from a reputable site, not joe blow's super duper recipes) posts nutrition information can that be used to gauge the accuracy of what MFP generates. So in my original example would cooking light's statistics be considered truth (or at least close to)?

    The source is not the issue. The problem is that the importer is not good. For example, I will start importing a recipe and change entries to reflect ones I absolutely positively know are in the MFP database, and it will still get them wrong once I submit. For example, I used "water, bottled, generic" and got watermelon water >.< Then when I edited it and searched for "water, bottled, generic" I was able to get that.
  • albryce744
    albryce744 Posts: 22 Member
    I cook from cooking light cookbooks all the time, and if that's where the diet plan pulls recipes from, I've found that a lot of the recipes are already in mfp's database.

    My two caveats... The older the recipe the more likely it seems to be in the system.

    And if 100% accuracy / weights are what you need/want, it still might not work for you.

    Goodluck, they have some great dishes. Amy
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,541 Member
    robertmwarriner wrote: »
    :#
    As a related question, if a recipe (from a reputable site, not joe blow's super duper recipes) posts nutrition information can that be used to gauge the accuracy of what MFP generates. So in my original example would cooking light's statistics be considered truth (or at least close to)?

    I don't consider most manufacturer's entries to be "true" in that a whole whack of them seem to be in the business of trying to make their stuff look "better". Or, at times, deliberately worse than the name brand that has manufactured their no name product (else explain the different caloric values with the same ingredients). Or disingenuous (here's looking at you 0 Cal oil spray--yes, you're better than pouring, but you're not zero my friend!)

    Having said that, in the big scheme of things, and other than being egregiously wrong... at some point of time it is just easier to go with what the manufacturer says, though I much prefer to find a Legacy or Foundation USDA entry.

    In a classic case of greener grass, I will sometimes use a European 100g entry from Tesco or Sainsbury (why would I trust them more than Walmart is an open question!)

    Nutritiondata.com often provides a good sanity check for entries.

    As a shout-out to my government's attempt to help: https://food-nutrition.canada.ca/cnf-fce/index-eng.jsp
  • coffegirl1962
    coffegirl1962 Posts: 1 Member
    I agree with all of the above comments re:MFP recipe importer/calculator. I spent an hour last night going over inaccurate details MFP "matched" in my imported recipe. Even when I tried to "replace" the food , I was given a limited choice of inaccurate entries. Very frustrating since I just purchased Premium.
  • bmeadows380
    bmeadows380 Posts: 2,981 Member
    I've seen this problem on a lot of recipes, including the ones that come up from MFP. I always double check the individual entries, especially as I am usually doctoring the recipe to get calories cut.

    I didn't know, though, that the ones that were labeled "USDA" were actually user entries. I have a devil of a time figuring out which entries are valid on the USDA website.

    Still, I think the recipe builder is still a useful tool, even with all its limitations - it sure beats me sitting down and trying to build it in by hand! And I'd much rather use the new one than the old one - even if I have to edit each individual entry, it does seem to go quicker being able to just list all the ingredients at one time and then edit the entries, rather than trying to enter each one in individually.

Categories