Fruits & veggies (mostly fruit)
faithdwind
Posts: 31 Member
So, you how fruits and veggies don't really have a nutrition facts label when you get them from the fresh aisle instead of the frozen aisles? I've been using the frozen fruits and vegetables- scared to use the fresh ones and I'm planning on to get fresh fruits. Although, I trust that 118g banana is 105 calories and that 140g of blueberries is 80 calories. But for the rest- I don't really trust them. I been looking for a website that provides real information about the serving I'm getting. Strawberries- I looked up 140g of strawberries calories and their 46 calories? How come the frozen bag says 50 calories for 140g then? Then on another website it says about 100 calories for 140g? I know I shouldn't worry about the small calorie differences, but does anyone know where I can find an accurate thing website where I know how much calories I'm actually eating. I just really don't want to stress over this small thing anymore.
0
Replies
-
Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
I can't speak to your specific case (don't know what you size, etc., is), but in the US a typical woman can maintain her weight on something in the neighborhood of 2000 calories, as a wide average number. Four calories difference is 0.002% of that. In fractions, one five-hundredth of it. How much stress is one-five-hundredth of your day worth?
Being off by those tiny, tiny amounts will not affect your weight loss. Some things will be over by a tiny amount, other things will be under by a tiny amount, it'll all average out around the average amount, and you'll get the results you expect, if your logging is reasonably accurate (and your calorie needs are close to the average person's, as most of ours are).
You can look at the USDA web site, that's one source of authoritative information.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
But it's still not going to be exactly exact for every single food item you eat, because foods can be average or non-average, just like people. Close is close enough.3 -
Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
Not only are they allowed to round the numbers on a label, food manufacturers are actually required to use specific rounding rules for many of the reasons @AnnPT77 states. When FDA set up the labeling requirements years ago, they did not want people to get hung up on a couple calories (or other insignificant differences) when in the grand scheme of things, they did not matter. Foods vary and the +/- 20% is designed to allow for that variation.
As for your strawberry example, I would not be surprised if the product that was 100 calories for the same amount had sugar added. Not something you have to think about when using fresh fruits and veggies.3 -
Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
I can't speak to your specific case (don't know what you size, etc., is), but in the US a typical woman can maintain her weight on something in the neighborhood of 2000 calories, as a wide average number. Four calories difference is 0.002% of that. In fractions, one five-hundredth of it. How much stress is one-five-hundredth of your day worth?
Being off by those tiny, tiny amounts will not affect your weight loss. Some things will be over by a tiny amount, other things will be under by a tiny amount, it'll all average out around the average amount, and you'll get the results you expect, if your logging is reasonably accurate (and your calorie needs are close to the average person's, as most of ours are).
You can look at the USDA web site, that's one source of authoritative information.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
But it's still not going to be exactly exact for every single food item you eat, because foods can be average or non-average, just like people. Close is close enough.
Does it matter if the fruit have a brand on it? My brother said I should just search up the brand on the container of the fruit and the fruit itself with the serving your getting, and if it doesn't have a brand I should just go with the USDA website. So- does it matter if it has a brand on it? Should I still look up the brand and the fruit it self to get the accurate amount of calories or can I just weigh it regardless if it has a brand name and go with 140g of strawberries equals 46 calories>?0 -
If it comes in a package, use the numbers on the package...they may have added ingredients.
Frozen plain strawberries don't have added ingredients and neither do fresh strawberries.
Either use the package or use the USDA website that Ann posted above.
Close enough is good enough. Truly.1 -
The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.0 -
Oh, and brand shouldn't matter, but if you only care about calories and maybe macros using the package information if it exists (fresh fruit and veg usually don't have that, but maybe if they are in a bigger package) is often easiest. I have never used anything but the USDA for fruits and veg, personally.2
-
faithdwind wrote: »Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
I can't speak to your specific case (don't know what you size, etc., is), but in the US a typical woman can maintain her weight on something in the neighborhood of 2000 calories, as a wide average number. Four calories difference is 0.002% of that. In fractions, one five-hundredth of it. How much stress is one-five-hundredth of your day worth?
Being off by those tiny, tiny amounts will not affect your weight loss. Some things will be over by a tiny amount, other things will be under by a tiny amount, it'll all average out around the average amount, and you'll get the results you expect, if your logging is reasonably accurate (and your calorie needs are close to the average person's, as most of ours are).
You can look at the USDA web site, that's one source of authoritative information.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
But it's still not going to be exactly exact for every single food item you eat, because foods can be average or non-average, just like people. Close is close enough.
Does it matter if the fruit have a brand on it? My brother said I should just search up the brand on the container of the fruit and the fruit itself with the serving your getting, and if it doesn't have a brand I should just go with the USDA website. So- does it matter if it has a brand on it? Should I still look up the brand and the fruit it self to get the accurate amount of calories or can I just weigh it regardless if it has a brand name and go with 140g of strawberries equals 46 calories>?
No, brand (of a common fresh fruit or vegetable) doesn't really matter. If you search the brand on MFP, you're generally getting what some other user of MFP entered into the database, and if the data (calories & nutrients is not on the label), there's no way to be sure where the MFP user got the information.
The companies are not entering this information into MFP, when there's a brand listed. Even when there's a bar code in MFP, the data usually was entered by some normal MFP user like you or me.
Truly, these small differences aren't worth worrying about. Yes, accurate logging is important. But it's not some kind of . . . formula or spell, I guess . . . that if you're off by 5 or 12 calories here and there, weight loss won't happen. It's that in order for calorie counting to be a good guide, accuracy needs to be in the ballpark.
So, you want to avoid being dozens or hundreds of calories wrong. That kind of difference is usually from skipping logging condiments/oils/dressings that are small volumes but high in calories, or by picking entries from the database for complex foods ("lasagna 1 serving", " 1 tuna salad sandwich", whatever) that some other user created but we don't know what their recipe/true quantity was at all, and that sort of thing. You're not doing that.
Stress is bad for a person. There's no need to stress over these truly small calorie differences. All of the people who've posted above, saying that, are people who've been successful with weight loss by calorie counting (and so am I). Try to be accurate, but no need to be hyper-vigilant about it. Having a calm and happy life is important, too.1 -
Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
I can't speak to your specific case (don't know what you size, etc., is), but in the US a typical woman can maintain her weight on something in the neighborhood of 2000 calories, as a wide average number. Four calories difference is 0.002% of that. In fractions, one five-hundredth of it. How much stress is one-five-hundredth of your day worth?
Being off by those tiny, tiny amounts will not affect your weight loss. Some things will be over by a tiny amount, other things will be under by a tiny amount, it'll all average out around the average amount, and you'll get the results you expect, if your logging is reasonably accurate (and your calorie needs are close to the average person's, as most of ours are).
You can look at the USDA web site, that's one source of authoritative information.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
But it's still not going to be exactly exact for every single food item you eat, because foods can be average or non-average, just like people. Close is close enough.
I agree on not obsessing about four calories, but just for accuracy, you've moved the decimal point two places to the right. 4 is 0.2% of 2000. (200 is 10% of 2000, 20 is 1%, 4 is 1/5 of 1%, or 0.2% -- or, one five-hundredth = 0.2%).1 -
The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Truly, the only answer is not to stress about it.
The people who create labels are allowed to round the numbers. In the US, they're allowed to be off by as much as 20%. That means the 50 calories on a label is probably really something between 40 and 60 calories. Every berry variety is different, even berries from one plant to the next can be different in sweetness or other qualities relevant to exactly exact calories: The labels show average or typical calories.
I can't speak to your specific case (don't know what you size, etc., is), but in the US a typical woman can maintain her weight on something in the neighborhood of 2000 calories, as a wide average number. Four calories difference is 0.002% of that. In fractions, one five-hundredth of it. How much stress is one-five-hundredth of your day worth?
Being off by those tiny, tiny amounts will not affect your weight loss. Some things will be over by a tiny amount, other things will be under by a tiny amount, it'll all average out around the average amount, and you'll get the results you expect, if your logging is reasonably accurate (and your calorie needs are close to the average person's, as most of ours are).
You can look at the USDA web site, that's one source of authoritative information.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
But it's still not going to be exactly exact for every single food item you eat, because foods can be average or non-average, just like people. Close is close enough.
I agree on not obsessing about four calories, but just for accuracy, you've moved the decimal point two places to the right. 4 is 0.2% of 2000. (200 is 10% of 2000, 20 is 1%, 4 is 1/5 of 1%, or 0.2% -- or, one five-hundredth = 0.2%).
You're right, of course. I'm always in a danger zone when I do arithmetic, and usually say so as warning. (I am usually OK with formulas and applications, but will frequently fail to carry the one, get my times-tables right, reposition the decimal point, etc.) Thanks for the correction.0 -
faithdwind wrote: »The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.
If MFP is telling you an entry is their "best match" (as it sometimes will in the phone/tablet app), you're probably OK just using it. A green-checked entry (not the same) is probably slightly more likely to be accurate than a non-green-checked one. (All the green check means is that several MFP users have expressed the opinion that the entry is correct.)
If you search and get a long list of matches, and most of them say close to the same calories for a common simple food (like strawberries, vs. a complex thing like lasagna), I'd assume those are close enough on calories. If you care about nutritional details, it can make sense to check against USDA at first for things you'll eat frequently, as once you log those, they'll be in your frequent/recent foods on MFP, they'll come up first when searching/adding.
After a while, you'll begin to recognize the USDA items in the MFP database. They tend to have super bureaucratic looking names, like "Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average" and the default serving size is often cups, even for foods that no sane person would measure in cups (like "Watermelon, raw"). When you click the serving size drop down, there'll be a mix of volume, count, size, and weight measurements, typically.
Always think about whether the resulting estimate is sane. There are zero-calorie olive oil entries, and 1000 calorie fresh garlic cloves entries in the database. You'll recognize these immediately, just based on common sense.
I don't think it's important to worry about discardable things, like strawberry leaves, that are a small fraction of the weight of a low calorie food. You can use common sense and experience to figure this out, and sometimes even circumstances matter. For example, if I ate an orange at home, I'd probably weigh the whole orange, and when I was done weigh the peels/seeds before throwing them away, and subtract to get the quantity I ate, because that's easy. If I bought the same orange at a convenience store on a car trip, ate it right away, I'd probably eyeball it and log it as one medium orange, because that's just more practical. Some people would always just log it as a medium orange, even at home, because that's close enough for their preferences. Be practical, use your common sense, you'll be fine.
I still feel like you're overthinking and overstressing here, about small numbers that don't really matter. Accuracy is good, but this has to be practical, not obsessive or high stress. It's not like getting down to that last one or five calories of accuracy is a magic formula that guarantees success. It's more about being in the ballpark.
If you're trying to lose (say) a pound a week, MFP's estimated your calories to give you a 500 calorie deficit daily. To fail at weight loss by calorie counting, you have to be so far off that you routinely wipe out that 500 calorie deficit by underestimating what you eat. Strawberry leaves, even a large orange twice a week logged as a medium orange . . . it's not going to wipe out that 500 calorie daily deficit. Just log in an reasonably accurate, common sense, practical way. It'll be fine.0 -
faithdwind wrote: »The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.
I checked, and it looks to me like 144 g strawberries brings up entries for that specific amount, which might be accurate or not, but are not the USDA entry. If I put in the format I mentioned (strawberries, raw), the first one that comes up appears to be the USDA entry, and when I clicked on it I saw lots of different unit options, which is confirmation that it is the USDA entry. I would then choose 100 g as my unit and log (for 144 g) 1.44.
If you see lots of entries that are the same, they are still likely correct, but if you make an effort to identify and use the USDA ones, then they will be in your recent or frequent and it will be easier. (It's especially easier if you decide to have, say 120 g or 165 g of strawberries, as you won't have to divide by 144 to get the right amount).1 -
faithdwind wrote: »The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.
I checked, and it looks to me like 144 g strawberries brings up entries for that specific amount, which might be accurate or not, but are not the USDA entry. If I put in the format I mentioned (strawberries, raw), the first one that comes up appears to be the USDA entry, and when I clicked on it I saw lots of different unit options, which is confirmation that it is the USDA entry. I would then choose 100 g as my unit and log (for 144 g) 1.44.
If you see lots of entries that are the same, they are still likely correct, but if you make an effort to identify and use the USDA ones, then they will be in your recent or frequent and it will be easier. (It's especially easier if you decide to have, say 120 g or 165 g of strawberries, as you won't have to divide by 144 to get the right amount).
So, I can just use the MFP database, get what I'm getting and serving size in the fruit/vegetables, search "(fruit/veggie name) raw", and it will be somewhat the same amount of calories, without having to go on the USDA website?
Oh- and I'm talking about google if you searched 144g of strawberries in MFP database!0 -
You want to find in the database an entry that looks like follows: "apples, raw" or "raspberries, raw" and has lots of unit options. If you do, those are generally the USDA ones that MFP added, and should be reliable.0
-
faithdwind wrote: »faithdwind wrote: »The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.
I checked, and it looks to me like 144 g strawberries brings up entries for that specific amount, which might be accurate or not, but are not the USDA entry. If I put in the format I mentioned (strawberries, raw), the first one that comes up appears to be the USDA entry, and when I clicked on it I saw lots of different unit options, which is confirmation that it is the USDA entry. I would then choose 100 g as my unit and log (for 144 g) 1.44.
If you see lots of entries that are the same, they are still likely correct, but if you make an effort to identify and use the USDA ones, then they will be in your recent or frequent and it will be easier. (It's especially easier if you decide to have, say 120 g or 165 g of strawberries, as you won't have to divide by 144 to get the right amount).
So, I can just use the MFP database, get what I'm getting and serving size in the fruit/vegetables, search "(fruit/veggie name) raw", and it will be somewhat the same amount of calories, without having to go on the USDA website?
Oh- and I'm talking about google if you searched 144g of strawberries in MFP database!
I feel like you should be losing weight just from all this overthinking.
You're already here. Use the mfp database. Find a no frills entry (or the one with usda or raw in it), find a weight choice in grams from the drop down list, weigh only the part of fruit/vegetable you eat, if it's 140 grams and the list has an option for 100 grams, put in 1.4 or if it has per 1 gram, put in 140. Enjoy
(Also, worry about the peel in a banana, not the leaves on a strawberry. I've been popping frozen strawberries in my mouth lately (unweighed) and taking the leaves off first and you would need to eat a boatload of strawberries for those leaves to even leave a dent on a scale.)
Edited because where'd the *kitten* go?! We have impressionable underaged kids who shouldn't be here, ya know?!
2 -
now I have to test it. *kitten*.0
-
cmriverside wrote: »now I have to test it. *kitten*.
Ooooooo maybe because of compound words! Workaround! 1 -
cmriverside wrote: »now I have to test it. *kitten*.
Ooooooo maybe because of compound words! Workaround!
yeah, there are *ways* to get bad words to print on the forums, but it leads to warnings and points and it's just not worth it.
0 -
faithdwind wrote: »faithdwind wrote: »The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.The difference for the frozen vs fresh is probably because freezing could affect the weight slightly -- I've found some foods seem to have different cals when frozen and some don't (although not a huge difference).
For how to log accurately, I agree with those saying not to sweat the small stuff, but the answer is to look for the USDA entries. You can learn the format, it's basically plural + raw -- bananas, raw, for example. Also, for something like a banana where you don't normally eat the peel, it includes only the weight of the part you eat.
If you want to check the entries, here's the USDA site: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
Focus on "SR legacy foods."
There still may be small differences, as these are done yearly or so and are based on averages, so if the MFP USDA entry is from a different year it could have small differences.
Many people have input these entries since MFP itself did, and those will have USDA in the title (and the ones MFP put in will not, but will use the format I mentioned above and have lots of unit options, including 100 g). Generally the ones others put in with USDA in the title are reliable although you might want to double check and also make sure it includes all the macros and fiber and so on.
Once you use entries they will be in your recent or frequent foods, typically, so it gets easier.
Can I just search up the fruit I'm getting and the serving size without going on the site and use the first thing pops up, since usually the USDA website is mostly the first thing to pop up. - for example, 144g strawberries is 48 (searched it up and the USDA provided it without me going on the website) calories. So, can I just log the calories for the first thing I see without going on the USDA website but still using the website? Plus, does the leaves on the strawberries matter if I take them off or not, and I'll still be eating the same amount of calories I was told I was if I took the leaves off?
Does this make since? I'm sorry if not.
I checked, and it looks to me like 144 g strawberries brings up entries for that specific amount, which might be accurate or not, but are not the USDA entry. If I put in the format I mentioned (strawberries, raw), the first one that comes up appears to be the USDA entry, and when I clicked on it I saw lots of different unit options, which is confirmation that it is the USDA entry. I would then choose 100 g as my unit and log (for 144 g) 1.44.
If you see lots of entries that are the same, they are still likely correct, but if you make an effort to identify and use the USDA ones, then they will be in your recent or frequent and it will be easier. (It's especially easier if you decide to have, say 120 g or 165 g of strawberries, as you won't have to divide by 144 to get the right amount).
So, I can just use the MFP database, get what I'm getting and serving size in the fruit/vegetables, search "(fruit/veggie name) raw", and it will be somewhat the same amount of calories, without having to go on the USDA website?
Oh- and I'm talking about google if you searched 144g of strawberries in MFP database!
I'd start by going to the USDA website until you get the hang of the syntax. "(fruit/veggie name), raw" does work a lot of the time, but sometimes the USDA throws in a "California" or "Florida" in there:
(Even more options for "oranges, raw.")
Here's my standard answer for finding the most accurate database 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. 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.)1 -
I’ll just add—you are not going to overeat by adding a second helping of broccoli, carrots or lettuce—whether you log it as 30 calories or 60. All that fiber is good! That is where you can afford to be less accurate while logging. The sweeter or fattier something is, the more you want to try to be accurate.3
-
You want a book called calorie,carb and fat bible by weight loss resources0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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