Food database or lack of!

darrellwolf72

Isn't anybody concerned about this Food Database, I waste so much time that it's hardly worth my time. If I don't have a nutrition label handy I really can't rely on any items in the database, even ones with the green checkmark aren't complete or accurate, I have to save 4 or 5 of each item and pick the most complete and most accurate for each food and then delete the obvious "wrong or incomplete" entries. For instance I looked up rib-eye steak, 3 oz. serving, most had no "potassium", a lot had no "cholesterol" or "fat", I came across a listing for milk, the only entry was "milk and 1 cup" nothing else, I'm sick of wasting my time if MY FITNESS PAL can't clean this up, they certainly have enough ads on here, come on MFP, clean up your act!!!!

Cheesy567

I’d be really frustrated if I were paying for the premium model. The poor database is the main reason I won’t pay for the premium membership.

In the mean time, if you’re searching for a food without a label, search the USDA database first to make sure you get the proper food (there are many entries for ribeye— quality of meat, how it’s trimmed, raw or cooked, etc all impact the calories, fat, and micronutrients) and the proper full search term to then use in the MFP database.

You could even save those foods you use often as a “meal” within MFP, so you can find them easily, and so they don’t fall off if you don’t use them for a month or two. For instance, I have a meal “use these chicken entries” that is comprised of all the USDA chicken entries— raw and cooked of each breast and thigh meat with and without skin— eight or so entries to choose from rather than scrolling through a full search return.

Here’s the link for the USDA database. Use the SR Legacy results.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html

Cheesy567

@darrellwolf72 for instance, here is the search results of the USDA Database for “Milk” (after scrolling past almond milk and a few others). Entering these terms “milk, whole, 3.25% milkfat, with vitamin D added” or whichever one you picked, will be much more likely to pull up an accurate MFP listing with the needed serving size option within the top returns. If not, add it as a new food, or report and adjust an entry there. It’s a user-maintained database and only as good as the data that’s entered.

Cheesy567

Here’s a sampling of the USDA entries for “beef ribeye.” There are 17 in the USDA database, all of which are in the MFP database, and all of which vary in terms of calories, fat profiles, micronutrient profiles... so it’s a little easy to see why the MFP database can’t simply have one or two ribeye entries and be accurate. Especially when you you look in the supermarket and start to see labeled foods that are clearly mislabeled, too, like incorrect ounce to gram conversions, or listing info for cooked weights instead of raw.

But there are also obviously erroneous entries in the database (like several vegetable entries that come up with no calories, which I can only attribute to certain diets having “free foods”??) and no good way to have them removed. I’ve tried reporting them, to no avail. I don’t disagree with you, but I’m trying to show you how to deal with it.

Just be vigilant as you set up your first few months, it will remember foods in your history list for a couple-few months. You can delete them from that list if you find one that’s wrong.

I2k4

I agree the problem is off-putting, especially when the algo restores lousy entries to personal lists after deletion. Another thread mentioned the service "Cronometer" as having a better-curated but maybe more limited food database. Haven't found time to dig into it.

TheKookyKiwi

I gave up on the public list almost immediately. Not only were there too many options with incorrect values but also not many of my local brands were represented. I took the time to enter all my "regular" pantry items into the My Foods area - filling in all the macro fields that interest me. When adding I always put the brand as something unique to me - a 5 letter prefix - for better searching. It's a bit of a time investment to start - but now I find it quite quick to build my recipes with my saved food items.

exermom

I2k4 wrote: »

I agree the problem is off-putting, especially when the algo restores lousy entries to personal lists after deletion. Another thread mentioned the service "Cronometer" as having a better-curated but maybe more limited food database. Haven't found time to dig into it.

I tried it and found that while accurate, it was very limiting