The Importance of Verifying Database Entries
callsitlikeiseeit
Posts: 8,626 Member
You will often hear us say to check the accuracy of your database selections when logging your food. Being a mostly user generated database ... inaccuracies are more common than not. Whether by user entry error or simply old entries that are simply no longer accurate due to manufacturing recipe changes.
A perfect example of a HORRIBLY inaccurate (almost comical, really) entry happened to me just now. Blueberries. Pretty simple, right? You would think. I eat them all the time. Have entered them for years without issue. I recently renamed all my diary food 'sections' and added sections and now things are all out of whack and I find myself having to 're-find' things in the database all the time. not a big deal.
Until I came to blueberries.
I filled my little bowl with 88 grams of little berries. went to sit down and eat them and log them.
305 calories! The DUCK they are!
ohhhhh MFP....
Find another entry that looks more accurate, compare it against the USDA database, all is good. okay.
Now, if I was new to logging, or simply didn't eat blueberries often, I might never eat them again, thinking that was correct. OR, even worse, continue to eat them (or if it was another item that is eaten regularly and perhaps a key part of your regular diet) and create a larger deficit which could eventually cause health issues. Under eating is bad, y'all....
This is why it is so important to learn how to log accurately, learn how to find accurate database entries, learn how to spot entries that dont look quite 'right', and learn how to VERIFY those entries.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
There used to be a crazy ridiculous entry for garlic, too, if I remember right. Haven't seen any mention of that one in some time. Wonder if it finally got removed from the database LOL
A perfect example of a HORRIBLY inaccurate (almost comical, really) entry happened to me just now. Blueberries. Pretty simple, right? You would think. I eat them all the time. Have entered them for years without issue. I recently renamed all my diary food 'sections' and added sections and now things are all out of whack and I find myself having to 're-find' things in the database all the time. not a big deal.
Until I came to blueberries.
I filled my little bowl with 88 grams of little berries. went to sit down and eat them and log them.
305 calories! The DUCK they are!
ohhhhh MFP....
Find another entry that looks more accurate, compare it against the USDA database, all is good. okay.
Now, if I was new to logging, or simply didn't eat blueberries often, I might never eat them again, thinking that was correct. OR, even worse, continue to eat them (or if it was another item that is eaten regularly and perhaps a key part of your regular diet) and create a larger deficit which could eventually cause health issues. Under eating is bad, y'all....
This is why it is so important to learn how to log accurately, learn how to find accurate database entries, learn how to spot entries that dont look quite 'right', and learn how to VERIFY those entries.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
There used to be a crazy ridiculous entry for garlic, too, if I remember right. Haven't seen any mention of that one in some time. Wonder if it finally got removed from the database LOL
15
Replies
-
And beware, not even green checkmarks guarantee a good result!
8 -
-
cmriverside wrote: »
one of the greatest posts of all time!3 -
I sometimes think these people are illiterate because how do they come up with these figures1
-
-
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
I always double check before using any entries in the database because it really annoying to find out that the numbers are way off, especially if one is trying to lower carbs/sodium or increase protein.
3 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
I always double check before using any entries in the database because it really annoying to find out that the numbers are way off, especially if one is trying to lower carbs/sodium or increase protein.
and yet the MFP gods want us to pay for premium.And given how long I have been here, and how integral it has been in my weight loss and how it likely will always be, I would have no problem doing so, *IF* some of these key issues were resolved first.6 -
I've been spouting off for years that there should be a way to discern the admin-enetered list that was imported from the USDA database back when this site was created. HOW HARD WOULD IT BE to identify it in some way? Different color, a separate list. ANYTHING.
Ugh.
I've been on here long enough that I have almost all my foods vetted or entered into my own list, but every once in a while...like a few days ago - cantaloupe. I buy maybe one every couple years when I happen to be at the store when they're a dollar.6 -
Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.
You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.3 -
Ahhh the infamous garlic 😀 yes I discovered it about two years ago when putting together a recipe for bolognaise, and wondered why my meal was so high in calories! Haven’t seen it since, I miss that garlic.
2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I've been spouting off for years that there should be a way to discern the admin-enetered list that was imported from the USDA database back when this site was created. HOW HARD WOULD IT BE to identify it in some way? Different color, a separate list. ANYTHING.
Ugh.
I've been on here long enough that I have almost all my foods vetted or entered into my own list, but every once in a while...like a few days ago - cantaloupe. I buy maybe one every couple years when I happen to be at the store when they're a dollar.
There USED to be a way - before the green check marks were implemented, there were asterisks and no asterisks to distinguish user-created from admin-created.
You can still see this when using the old recipe builder:
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. A green check mark for USER-created entries just means enough people have upvoted the entry - it is not necessarily correct.
To find ADMIN entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
Use the “SR Legacy” tab - 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.)5 -
goal06082021 wrote: »Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.
You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.
Yes, there is a glitch in some admin-created entries that list 1 g when the values are actually for 100 g.
I exclusively use the USDA site for meat - have you found issues with their entries there?0 -
And while you're checking calories, don't just rely on the calorie count alone. There are at least two entries where the calorie count is (as far as I could tell) accurate, but there are no nutrient counts given at all. 66 calories (for one slice of a particular bread, I think it was), but no carbs, no fat, no protein, no fiber given.1
-
I knew there "used to" be a way, but I didn't know you could still see asterisks on the old recipe builder...however, those "USDA" or "Generic" asterisked ones are not admin-entered, so that's not much of a fix. The admin-entered ones never use the qualifiers of USDA or Generic, nor the lookup numbers (like the 20444.) Those are user entered - which is not to say they are not correct, they may be.
Why can't they just go back to the real asterisks? I mean, that was a major mistake to take those asterisks away. It got corrupted an an update and never fixed.
HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE????????
I keep posting about this (shouting when I feel like it!) every chance I get with the hope that one day the right person will understand what I'm saying and go, "Oh, well that's an easy fix, [click]" and it will work again.
3 -
And while you're checking calories, don't just rely on the calorie count alone. There are at least two entries where the calorie count is (as far as I could tell) accurate, but there are no nutrient counts given at all. 66 calories (for one slice of a particular bread, I think it was), but no carbs, no fat, no protein, no fiber given.
That's a user-created entry by someone who only cared about the calories, which is why I use user-created entries as seldom as possible.
There is another glitch with some entries MFP pulled from the USDA database - 0 calorie entries, like for this cup of pecans:
I wonder if enough people flag "nuts, pecans" as inaccurate they will take a look at it?1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I knew there "used to" be a way, but I didn't know you could still see asterisks on the old recipe builder...however, those "USDA" or "Generic" asterisked ones are not admin-entered, so that's not much of a fix. The admin-entered ones never use the qualifiers of USDA or Generic, nor the lookup numbers (like the 20444.) Those are user entered - which is not to say they are not correct, they may be.
Why can't they just go back to the real asterisks? I mean, that was a major mistake to take those asterisks away. It got corrupted an an update and never fixed.
HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE????????
I keep posting about this (shouting when I feel like it!) every chance I get with the hope that one day the right person will understand what I'm saying and go, "Oh, well that's an easy fix, [click]" and it will work again.
In that example, no asterisks = admin-created
2 -
oooooh....well, sure, that's intuitive @kshama2001
1 -
At least that would give the syntax. I can see that being useful, but too many clickities.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »goal06082021 wrote: »Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.
You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.
Yes, there is a glitch in some admin-created entries that list 1 g when the values are actually for 100 g.
I exclusively use the USDA site for meat - have you found issues with their entries there?
That's where I usually end up, yeah. I figure if I'm going to trust anyone to be accurate it's the USDA, I guess.
Also I want some of those magic 0-calorie pecans, LMAO1 -
goal06082021 wrote: »
Also I want some of those magic 0-calorie pecans, LMAO
right?
that was a macro person. the macros are there. EXCEPT the calories LOLOLOL
1 -
I have learned to verify the items I use regularly. But it is definitely a pain in the patootie. I would not pay for the premium service for exactly that reason. I actually thought of going to mynetdiary for that reason, but again, I do not want to pay just to track. So I get my info from them and correct any incorrect items here as I find them.
It is especially onerous when I am trying to input a recipe and I have to verify a beaucoup quantity of ingredients. GRRR!
Too bad they cannot simply delete the old database and install the new USDA information. A fresh start, so to speak.
1 -
The new USDA is not heading uphill with increased reliance on manufacturers to self report... which sometimes results in "interesting" numbers!2
-
cmriverside wrote: »I knew there "used to" be a way, but I didn't know you could still see asterisks on the old recipe builder...however, those "USDA" or "Generic" asterisked ones are not admin-entered, so that's not much of a fix. The admin-entered ones never use the qualifiers of USDA or Generic, nor the lookup numbers (like the 20444.) Those are user entered - which is not to say they are not correct, they may be.
Why can't they just go back to the real asterisks? I mean, that was a major mistake to take those asterisks away. It got corrupted an an update and never fixed.
HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE????????
I keep posting about this (shouting when I feel like it!) every chance I get with the hope that one day the right person will understand what I'm saying and go, "Oh, well that's an easy fix, [click]" and it will work again.
The asterisks indicate it's NOT an admin-entered entry. The ones with asterisks were entered by users.1 -
I use macros, mainly carbs, but with a calorie limit too. I know I've put in corrections, quite a few times, when I have a label in front of me. Then when you do it, it says you can add the corrected one, and when I log it, it puts the old one in my diary. Seem to have to correct it 2-3 x till it puts the corrected one in.1
-
How is it that a number of solid foods only have fluid units available? I wanted to enter canned peas one time, and several of the items had dropdown units menus that had cups, fluid ounces, and milliliters. No solid units.
Did someone enter the item, put "cups", and then some algorithm assumed the food was a fluid?
I did manage to find a good entry with grams that had valid nutrition data, but I just wondered.0 -
How is it that a number of solid foods only have fluid units available? I wanted to enter canned peas one time, and several of the items had dropdown units menus that had cups, fluid ounces, and milliliters. No solid units.
Did someone enter the item, put "cups", and then some algorithm assumed the food was a fluid?
I did manage to find a good entry with grams that had valid nutrition data, but I just wondered.
Man, who even knows. I never trust those entries, I just find one with grams instead.3 -
How is it that a number of solid foods only have fluid units available? I wanted to enter canned peas one time, and several of the items had dropdown units menus that had cups, fluid ounces, and milliliters. No solid units.
Did someone enter the item, put "cups", and then some algorithm assumed the food was a fluid?
I did manage to find a good entry with grams that had valid nutrition data, but I just wondered.
A cup (in the US/imperial scheme) is 8 fluid ounces, by definition, so programatically it makes perfect sense to give fluid ounces as alternative units for something some user has decided to put in the database as 1 Cup (without giving a weight-ounces or grams alternate). There's no good programmatic way to convert something entered as a volume measure (like cups) to a weight measure (like the other kind of ounces, or grams). How the user entered it is still the root problem in the case you're talking about.1 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »You will often hear us say to check the accuracy of your database selections when logging your food. Being a mostly user generated database ... inaccuracies are more common than not. Whether by user entry error or simply old entries that are simply no longer accurate due to manufacturing recipe changes.
A perfect example of a HORRIBLY inaccurate (almost comical, really) entry happened to me just now. Blueberries. Pretty simple, right? You would think. I eat them all the time. Have entered them for years without issue. I recently renamed all my diary food 'sections' and added sections and now things are all out of whack and I find myself having to 're-find' things in the database all the time. not a big deal.
Until I came to blueberries.
I filled my little bowl with 88 grams of little berries. went to sit down and eat them and log them.
305 calories! The DUCK they are!
ohhhhh MFP....
Find another entry that looks more accurate, compare it against the USDA database, all is good. okay.
Now, if I was new to logging, or simply didn't eat blueberries often, I might never eat them again, thinking that was correct. OR, even worse, continue to eat them (or if it was another item that is eaten regularly and perhaps a key part of your regular diet) and create a larger deficit which could eventually cause health issues. Under eating is bad, y'all....
This is why it is so important to learn how to log accurately, learn how to find accurate database entries, learn how to spot entries that dont look quite 'right', and learn how to VERIFY those entries.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
There used to be a crazy ridiculous entry for garlic, too, if I remember right. Haven't seen any mention of that one in some time. Wonder if it finally got removed from the database LOL
I think I may be an imbecile, BUT- Where are the calories listed under the USDA link you posted?? I see everything except that!0 -
Second line in the table with the nutritional info?0
-
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »You will often hear us say to check the accuracy of your database selections when logging your food. Being a mostly user generated database ... inaccuracies are more common than not. Whether by user entry error or simply old entries that are simply no longer accurate due to manufacturing recipe changes.
A perfect example of a HORRIBLY inaccurate (almost comical, really) entry happened to me just now. Blueberries. Pretty simple, right? You would think. I eat them all the time. Have entered them for years without issue. I recently renamed all my diary food 'sections' and added sections and now things are all out of whack and I find myself having to 're-find' things in the database all the time. not a big deal.
Until I came to blueberries.
I filled my little bowl with 88 grams of little berries. went to sit down and eat them and log them.
305 calories! The DUCK they are!
ohhhhh MFP....
Find another entry that looks more accurate, compare it against the USDA database, all is good. okay.
Now, if I was new to logging, or simply didn't eat blueberries often, I might never eat them again, thinking that was correct. OR, even worse, continue to eat them (or if it was another item that is eaten regularly and perhaps a key part of your regular diet) and create a larger deficit which could eventually cause health issues. Under eating is bad, y'all....
This is why it is so important to learn how to log accurately, learn how to find accurate database entries, learn how to spot entries that dont look quite 'right', and learn how to VERIFY those entries.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
There used to be a crazy ridiculous entry for garlic, too, if I remember right. Haven't seen any mention of that one in some time. Wonder if it finally got removed from the database LOL
I think I may be an imbecile, BUT- Where are the calories listed under the USDA link you posted?? I see everything except that!
you type what you are looking for in the search box. that box should be right there, fairly obvious. are you not seeing that box? from there you then click on SR Legacy foods (Which I believe is what the MFP mods used when they initially set up the database)
this should be what you see when you click on that link
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions