The Importance of Verifying Database Entries
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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!
Search a food, click the SR Legacy tab on the search results page, pick from the list that appears. Left side of the page, second and third lines in the table. The label is "Energy," it's listed in kcal (second line) and kJ (third line).2 -
goal06082021 wrote: »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!
Search a food, click the SR Legacy tab on the search results page, pick from the list that appears. Left side of the page, second and third lines in the table. The label is "Energy," it's listed in kcal (second line) and kJ (third line).
maybe I misunderstood the question LMAO I thought he meant how to search for the foods (insert a headpalm emoji ) lol0 -
It took me a minute the first time I used it, too - you're looking for the word "calories" and that's not how the database lists that information.0
-
Or 1ml could weigh less than 1g for items high in fat. This gets particularly interesting in Canada where ice cream is listed in ml and 1ml of ice cream definitely weighs way less than 1g.
And by the way the scales that list milliliters.... are lying! They have no way to measure volume. They are just assuming that 1 ml is 1 g and displaying it as such.4 -
I stand corrected! Thank you for reminding me that 1 ml of water definitely weighs more than 1 ml of say Oatmeal!
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions