Cooking Light Diet Recipe Discrepancies

janejellyroll

coffegirl1962 wrote: »

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.

At least some of the time, when you try to replace the database entries with more accurate ones, the search totally lets you down. I just built a recipe where I got an inaccurate return for mushrooms and when I searched for a better one, my only suggestions were ginger ale and filet mignon. Very helpful!

Duck_Puddle

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.

I don’t understand why they can’t add a simple search filter so one can choose to limit the search results to just the system entries (rather than the entire database).

On the web, you can see a check that indicates which is a system entry (if you can find it amongst the 28499595050605 other entries), but the check on the app means that the entry is “verified” aka-pop tarts with a serving size of 1 cup.

I look for a mix of whole and packaged food and searching for the actual imported usda entries is a pain. If we could just limit results to those, that would be a huge help.

But alas...I also like having my newsfeed load and that seems to be a challenge.

kshama2001

coffegirl1962 wrote: »

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.

Alas, Premium uses the same database as free, so you have no advantage there

kshama2001

bmeadows380 wrote: »

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.

Your wording is a little confusing - all entries on the USDA website should be valid, but it seems like MFP pulled the SR Legacy entries, so I uncheck everything but that.

I've had good luck copying the syntax from SR Legacy entries in the USDA database and pasting that into MFP, but sometimes I do shortcuts, like "onions, raw." I know I don't want the 4th entry, despite the check (and this is in a browser, not the app) because it includes USDA. The entry I want is the second one. One giveaway is the tons of options it includes, although all USDA entries do not have that.



Another clue is a really long description like "Chicken, broilers or fryers, breast, meat only, raw" (which I do not have memorized - I either go to the USDA site for that or find it in my Recents.

I agree that the recipe builder is better than nothing, but the lack of resources MFP/Under Armour is willing to invest in it depresses me.

But hey, we have badges now!

puffbrat

janejellyroll wrote: »

coffegirl1962 wrote: »

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.

At least some of the time, when you try to replace the database entries with more accurate ones, the search totally lets you down. I just built a recipe where I got an inaccurate return for mushrooms and when I searched for a better one, my only suggestions were ginger ale and filet mignon. Very helpful!

This is one of my biggest pet peeves. I don't understand why the recipe builder doesn't pull most of the database. There have been a couple times when I flat out couldn't add an ingredient to a recipe and had to just pseudo add it to my diary instead.