wildly different macros between apps
DrDarkMatter
Posts: 2 Member
So I use both MFP and cronometer, I have a band I was given that wont connect to MFP but it works with Cronometer. I have an existing band that connects to MFP but I HATE the interface. So in using both I see huge variations in macros even for something simple like fried eggs medium size. I see cronometer gets its data from:
'NCCDB (Nutrition Coordinating Center Food & Nutrient Database) or USDA SR28 (United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference) in the Common Foods Tab. These entries along with those found from the CNF (Canadian Nutrient File) and IFCDB (Irish Food Composition Database) have compiled results from lab analyses and research papers to provide us with a comprehensive nutrient profile.'
I can find the exact source of macro data for MFP, I did have a look at the forums and a nice pinned post about some data. But can someone explain the disparity between something as simple as fried eggs?
'NCCDB (Nutrition Coordinating Center Food & Nutrient Database) or USDA SR28 (United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference) in the Common Foods Tab. These entries along with those found from the CNF (Canadian Nutrient File) and IFCDB (Irish Food Composition Database) have compiled results from lab analyses and research papers to provide us with a comprehensive nutrient profile.'
I can find the exact source of macro data for MFP, I did have a look at the forums and a nice pinned post about some data. But can someone explain the disparity between something as simple as fried eggs?
0
Replies
-
MFP's food database is crowd-sourced: Any user can enter a food, "publish" it for others to use. Some people research carefully, others wing it (perhaps with major wishful thinking). There are some entries that were loaded by the MFP staff from USDA when the app first started, but those aren't marked in obvious ways. (There are some rules of thumb for finding/identifying them . . . anything with "USDA" in the name is *not* one of them.)
For something like "fried eggs" specifically: What size eggs? Heck, what type of eggs: Chicken, for sure, or not (could be duck, goose, quail . . . )? How much fat/oil used to fry them? If you use an entry like that, that someone else created, you're buying into their assumptions about questions like that. Better: Log something like "3 eggs, large", "10 grams butter" . . . after checking the entries you use, for accuracy (after that, they're in your frequent list, come up first when searching).
Plus of crowd sourced database: Lots of entries, usually there's an accurate entry there for even pretty new commercial products, all the basic foods . . . you just have to find it. Downside: Lots of erroneous entries, or from another country with different sizing standards or product formulations (even for same-name products).
Databases in more tightly-controlled apps are usually not as comprehensive, or quickly updated with new food products. It's a tradeoff.
4 -
well crap, thats terrible. I wont be using it anymore I guess. I knew that at least some was user added content. thank you for your reply, I appreciate it very much. I will go use an app that at least I know has a common reference for macro data. (I mean as sure as I can be from what they claim)0
-
For foods that are well labeled, it's not hard to find an accurate entry in MFP. Or if needed, create your own. I expect you're probably eating similar meals from month to month so once you have a base down of entries that you use, from there it's easy to copy and paste as needed.1
-
I enter 95% of my own data for my food. I don't share it with the Community, so my information can't be "changed." I'm very fast, and it saves/saved me a lot of headaches. I have a vast foods list. It was worth it to me, as not everyone is interested in the micronutrients I track. Not for everyone, but it has been very useful and effective for me. Not to mention I'm grateful to be close to goal!!3
-
The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.0
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.
Don't wish for changes in the database, because I guarantee you are underestimating the ways in which newly created errors will outweigh any benefits. For example, I'm willing to bet that your wish to delete unused database entries would eliminate from my "frequent" list many carefully checked entries originally entered by MFP staff and derived from the USDA database, but which no longer exist in the main database. Can't be found there. I can only continue to use the entries that I've used for years for things like coffee and eggs because I've previously logged them. They disappeared in a database "improvement" effort several years back. So they're not being "used" so far as database metrics would go, and I have no trust that they would write the code for "fixing" this to not sweep in foods from "frequent" lists.2 -
DrDarkMatter wrote: »well crap, thats terrible. I wont be using it anymore I guess. I knew that at least some was user added content. thank you for your reply, I appreciate it very much. I will go use an app that at least I know has a common reference for macro data. (I mean as sure as I can be from what they claim)
The thing is though: every app you use makes some assumptions and there's no way for you to verify it properly. Lets get back to your fried egg: do you know what's in it in any other app? How many eggs, how much fat, what kind of eggs and what size? No, you don't. So you're stuck with the same problem there as well. Here you can at least build your own meals easily.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.
Don't wish for changes in the database, because I guarantee you are underestimating the ways in which newly created errors will outweigh any benefits. For example, I'm willing to bet that your wish to delete unused database entries would eliminate from my "frequent" list many carefully checked entries originally entered by MFP staff and derived from the USDA database, but which no longer exist in the main database. Can't be found there. I can only continue to use the entries that I've used for years for things like coffee and eggs because I've previously logged them. They disappeared in a database "improvement" effort several years back. So they're not being "used" so far as database metrics would go, and I have no trust that they would write the code for "fixing" this to not sweep in foods from "frequent" lists.
Well, I have to agree that expecting stupid people who have in the past made a fundamental mistake, to correct it without a glitch is wishful thinking. But, the database is so bad and the fix so simple that I'd have to take the chance. I think an adolescent could write the code to drop the bottom least used 10% of entries off the list every month and add the most used entries. About your old
'carefully checked" items, uh, . . .0 -
For something like "fried eggs" specifically: What size eggs? Heck, what type of eggs: Chicken, for sure, or not (could be duck, goose, quail . . . )? How much fat/oil used to fry them? If you use an entry like that, that someone else created, you're buying into their assumptions about questions like that. Better: Log something like "3 eggs, large", "10 grams butter" . . . after checking the entries you use, for accuracy (after that, they're in your frequent list, come up first when searching).
This. You do need to learn to check MFP's database to identify the likely correct entries (the ones MFP added from the USDA), compare any packaged stuff with your package, and so on, but choosing an entry like "fried eggs" is just not going to work to start with. Like Ann said, choose the regular egg entry, include size (if standardized large or extra large or medium works fine), and add separately whatever fat you add, if any, when cooking. If the macros are way off, either one of the entries is wrong or one includes added fat, most likely.3 -
Thanks for mentioning Cronometer. Not being very heavily invested but arrived at basic comfort with MFP's diary, the biggest spend (waste) of time with it is sorting new entries through the mess of badly or incompletely entered or illogically alphabetized entries - much of what was listed in first weeks of use had to be deleted and replaced. I wouldn't be averse to changing horses probably at the New Year. From what I gather Cronometer reviews user submitted food items and has been around long enough to likely not disappear soon - maybe worth testing out, (If there is a subset of items from good sources reliably certified by MFP's own staff don't know why it doesn't flag and prioritize them on the search list.)1
-
I enter 95% of my own data for my food. I don't share it with the Community, so my information can't be "changed." I'm very fast, and it saves/saved me a lot of headaches. I have a vast foods list. It was worth it to me, as not everyone is interested in the micronutrients I track. Not for everyone, but it has been very useful and effective for me. Not to mention I'm grateful to be close to goal!!
This has nothing to do with your post. Just the Stellar's Jay. I have several I've got eating out of my hands at this point. Some are loners, some come in pairs... and then there's a group of about 4 that seem to travel together. They are my favorite birds! Well, OK, I also like Ravens but I haven't been able to get any to eat out of my hand like I can with the Stellar's... LOL
0 -
Thanks for mentioning Cronometer. Not being very heavily invested but arrived at basic comfort with MFP's diary, the biggest spend (waste) of time with it is sorting new entries through the mess of badly or incompletely entered or illogically alphabetized entries - much of what was listed in first weeks of use had to be deleted and replaced. I wouldn't be averse to changing horses probably at the New Year. From what I gather Cronometer reviews user submitted food items and has been around long enough to likely not disappear soon - maybe worth testing out, (If there is a subset of items from good sources reliably certified by MFP's own staff don't know why it doesn't flag and prioritize them on the search list.)
On the Android app, it does, at least in some cases. (I can't remember the exact wording, but it has sometimes shown one entry at the top of the search list labeled as preferred or recommended, then the others after a separator line.)
The green checks are supposed to help find good entries, but that has limitations, too. The green check appears when enough people agree with the entry, IMU. Some people will agree with anything, or the entry may be correct for another country, or a different product formulation from the past.
The original USDA load is recognizable, often, by the following: Really specific bureaucratic-sounding names few users would enter** ("Rice, brown, long-grain, raw", "Chicken, broiler or fryers, breast, skinless, boneless, meat only, cooked, grilled"), often a default serving of 1 cup even when that's a dumb way to measure the food (watermelon, hard-boiled eggs), but a drop down serving list that includes multiple *types* of measurements (can include weights, fluid measures, per-piece, inch-sizes, etc.). Usually, they're green-checked, too.
** If you do see user-entered items with these names, it's a hint that they may've copied them from USDA, so higher odds of correctness, especially given that the user didn't shorten up the name. Entries that include "USDA" as title or manufacturer are user-entered.
After a while, one starts to recognize them, just from the name format.
If you start from USDA data base **** and constrain the search to "SR legacy" (it's a tab on the search results page), copy/pasting that syntax for the name into MFP will usually get you a good entry.
**** https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html
As someone else said, even in these, some quantities are messed up, from a previous database conversion. They're so far off that it's easy to see, though like thousand-calorie garlic for a small amount; and normally other serving sizes on the list work fine.
Yes, this is fussy, until one's frequent/recent foods are populated with good stuff, then it's not a big deal for new items . . . especially given the bureaucratic-names pattern. One even gets to the point of good guessing about what the bureaucratic name will be, to start the search.
IME, the easiest-to-recognize thing with user-entered items that has best correlated with correct/complete data in the record, is meticulously accurate and complete manufacturer and product names with proper capitalization and no abbreviations different from what's printed on the label. There's no real reason those entries would be more often correct, but I'd speculate that meticulous people are meticulous generally.
Anyone who thinks this database should be a walk in the park to manage has never had a job in data quality management, I'm guessing. 😆 (Have I? Yes.)3 -
DrDarkMatter wrote: »So I use both MFP and cronometer, I have a band I was given that wont connect to MFP but it works with Cronometer. I have an existing band that connects to MFP but I HATE the interface. So in using both I see huge variations in macros even for something simple like fried eggs medium size. I see cronometer gets its data from:
'NCCDB (Nutrition Coordinating Center Food & Nutrient Database) or USDA SR28 (United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference) in the Common Foods Tab. These entries along with those found from the CNF (Canadian Nutrient File) and IFCDB (Irish Food Composition Database) have compiled results from lab analyses and research papers to provide us with a comprehensive nutrient profile.'
I can find the exact source of macro data for MFP, I did have a look at the forums and a nice pinned post about some data. But can someone explain the disparity between something as simple as fried eggs?
As Ann pointed out so well, "fried eggs" is not actually simple. I'd definitely want to only use entries for the type and size eggs I had and the exact amount of oil I used.
Here's my standard answer for finding accurate entries from the MFP database. Using the USDA syntax brings them right up to the top.
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. All ADMIN entries from the USDA will have weights as an option BUT there is a glitch whereby sometimes 1g is the option but the values are actually for 100g. This is pretty easy to spot though, as when added the calories are 100x more than is reasonable.
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.)2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.
Don't wish for changes in the database, because I guarantee you are underestimating the ways in which newly created errors will outweigh any benefits. For example, I'm willing to bet that your wish to delete unused database entries would eliminate from my "frequent" list many carefully checked entries originally entered by MFP staff and derived from the USDA database, but which no longer exist in the main database. Can't be found there. I can only continue to use the entries that I've used for years for things like coffee and eggs because I've previously logged them. They disappeared in a database "improvement" effort several years back. So they're not being "used" so far as database metrics would go, and I have no trust that they would write the code for "fixing" this to not sweep in foods from "frequent" lists.
Well, I have to agree that expecting stupid people who have in the past made a fundamental mistake, to correct it without a glitch is wishful thinking. But, the database is so bad and the fix so simple that I'd have to take the chance. I think an adolescent could write the code to drop the bottom least used 10% of entries off the list every month and add the most used entries. About your old
'carefully checked" items, uh, . . .
Uh ... what? I checked them myself against the USDA database. What are you trying to say?
Edited to add word I failed to type.4 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.
Don't wish for changes in the database, because I guarantee you are underestimating the ways in which newly created errors will outweigh any benefits. For example, I'm willing to bet that your wish to delete unused database entries would eliminate from my "frequent" list many carefully checked entries originally entered by MFP staff and derived from the USDA database, but which no longer exist in the main database. Can't be found there. I can only continue to use the entries that I've used for years for things like coffee and eggs because I've previously logged them. They disappeared in a database "improvement" effort several years back. So they're not being "used" so far as database metrics would go, and I have no trust that they would write the code for "fixing" this to not sweep in foods from "frequent" lists.
Well, I have to agree that expecting stupid people who have in the past made a fundamental mistake, to correct it without a glitch is wishful thinking. But, the database is so bad and the fix so simple that I'd have to take the chance. I think an adolescent could write the code to drop the bottom least used 10% of entries off the list every month and add the most used entries. About your old
'carefully checked" items, uh, . . .
Uh ... what? I checked them myself against the USDA database. What are you trying to say?
Edited to add word I failed to type.
Uh, I was trying not to say that it is not all about you.0 -
Thanks for mentioning Cronometer. Not being very heavily invested but arrived at basic comfort with MFP's diary, the biggest spend (waste) of time with it is sorting new entries through the mess of badly or incompletely entered or illogically alphabetized entries - much of what was listed in first weeks of use had to be deleted and replaced. I wouldn't be averse to changing horses probably at the New Year. From what I gather Cronometer reviews user submitted food items and has been around long enough to likely not disappear soon - maybe worth testing out, (If there is a subset of items from good sources reliably certified by MFP's own staff don't know why it doesn't flag and prioritize them on the search list.)
Cronometer is amazing if you mostly just eat whole foods. I use it and love it. If you eat packaged foods, you will likely have to enter them. Also, you still should not log "fried eggs" but eggs + whatever is added.5 -
I am sure someone already mentioned this but I scan all of my food using the barcodes. I scan the barcode on my eggs and I double check to make sure it matches that of the nutrition label. Even some of the fruits and vegetables have a small barcode on the sticker and it works also. For some things like watermelon for example, I search online for what the macros should be and I use that information to find the right match in the MFP food list. I also eat a lot of the same foods so I put the work in upfront and it makes it easier to update my food diary going forward. 😊1
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »The database is a mess. All they would need to do is drop off the unused database entries and let nature take its course. The most obvious stupid things people have posted are rarely used and they would be gone. But, they are not. So a new user can go on and see a cup of milk as 1 calorie or whatnot and get confused.
Don't wish for changes in the database, because I guarantee you are underestimating the ways in which newly created errors will outweigh any benefits. For example, I'm willing to bet that your wish to delete unused database entries would eliminate from my "frequent" list many carefully checked entries originally entered by MFP staff and derived from the USDA database, but which no longer exist in the main database. Can't be found there. I can only continue to use the entries that I've used for years for things like coffee and eggs because I've previously logged them. They disappeared in a database "improvement" effort several years back. So they're not being "used" so far as database metrics would go, and I have no trust that they would write the code for "fixing" this to not sweep in foods from "frequent" lists.
Well, I have to agree that expecting stupid people who have in the past made a fundamental mistake, to correct it without a glitch is wishful thinking. But, the database is so bad and the fix so simple that I'd have to take the chance. I think an adolescent could write the code to drop the bottom least used 10% of entries off the list every month and add the most used entries. About your old
'carefully checked" items, uh, . . .
Uh ... what? I checked them myself against the USDA database. What are you trying to say?
Edited to add word I failed to type.
Uh, I was trying not to say that it is not all about you.
I doubt whatever unplanned errors are manifested by an attempt to improve the database would be surgically applied to only me. So I agree, absolutely not all about me. It was just an example.4 -
Italiana_xx79 wrote: »I am sure someone already mentioned this but I scan all of my food using the barcodes. I scan the barcode on my eggs and I double check to make sure it matches that of the nutrition label. Even some of the fruits and vegetables have a small barcode on the sticker and it works also. For some things like watermelon for example, I search online for what the macros should be and I use that information to find the right match in the MFP food list. I also eat a lot of the same foods so I put the work in upfront and it makes it easier to update my food diary going forward. 😊
You do know that scanning the barcode just searches the MFP database, right? The barcode doesn't contain any nutritional information.1 -
DrDarkMatter wrote: »So I use both MFP and cronometer, I have a band I was given that wont connect to MFP but it works with Cronometer. I have an existing band that connects to MFP but I HATE the interface. So in using both I see huge variations in macros even for something simple like fried eggs medium size. .....But can someone explain the disparity between something as simple as fried eggs?
Assuming typical macros for medium chicken eggs, there is wide variation in what they may have been fried in (butter, margarine, oil, schmaltz,...) and how much. From verging on being over-easy with minimal oil to practically being deep fried and dripping with oil upon plating it.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions