It is what it is PEOPLE!

CaptainGordo

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte

I think sometimes, people enter a guess in the database, and then share it, which is not a good way to go about things. Example: a few nights ago, wifey, kiddo, and I went to a seafood place near our home that we all like. They have a side dish of au gratin potatoes that is ridiculously good, so I went ahead and had some.

The database entry here on MFP for that dish from that restaurant was probably close in the calories department, with 300-ish calories in a small serving, but you'll NEVER convince me that the dish had no fat, what with the four different kinds of cheese in it.

How did I solve the problem? I went back to the database and found the highest-calorie, highest-fat au gratin potatoes recipe I could locate, and used it instead.

Very well put.

melaniecheeks

My point was - everything is an estimate. When you guess the weight of your food, you're estimating. No 2 pieces of meat or fruit will have exactly the same nutrients - so they're estimates. All the values in the database are estimates. Sometimes an erroneous entry is obvious - and you can correct it. But many entries have been made in genuine good faith - but errors do occur, and it pays to be sceptical. But they're all estimates.

stormieweather

I totally understand your frustration. It would be great if there were MFP moderators whose sole purpose was to verify food entries or at least go in once in a while and delete ones that are way off. There really are a lot of super silly entries (like the 33-calorie slice of pizza mentioned earlier or other entries that are clearly hundreds of calories off).

One can dream Until then, double- and triple-check everything!

Everyone can help keep the numbers accurate. Just edit the ones that you see that are incorrect and presto! Fixed!

runner_girl77

How did I solve the problem? I went back to the database and found the highest-calorie, highest-fat au gratin potatoes recipe I could locate, and used it instead.

I've done the same. Also, if I can't find the info. here then I do a generic web search and locate something as close to what I had as possible. I use that data and either enter it in (but keep it personal) OR just do a quick add and add-in the calories only.

NIKKIDDS2015

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously why would you enter incorrect info?! Like someone else said it counts whether you write it down or not!

CaptainGordo

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously why would you enter incorrect info?! Like someone else said it counts whether you write it down or not!

I invite you to read the comments for some ideas. :flowerforyou:

cramernh

Trying to enter 3 oz pork chop. Bone in.

I looked up like 7 of them and none of them came up right or even close.

I finally just looked it up on a "ligitimate" web site, and adjusted as close as I could.

(sorry... in a mood today!)

No sorries necessary...
I gave up using the database and have been entering my own foods to my personal MFP account... I stick with Calorieking.com for accuracy by the ounce... Thank goodness I have it built up pretty good too because if Im not creating dishes at work (as a chef), Im creating at home...

lisy28

Just scan the bar code in I do that or google the food at the restaurant and enter manually

kandyjo

Ooooo...didn't know this... good to know... THANKS!

Trying to enter 3 oz pork chop. Bone in.

I looked up like 7 of them and none of them came up right or even close.

I finally just looked it up on a "ligitimate" web site, and adjusted as close as I could.

(sorry... in a mood today!)

For things like meats, cheeses, produce, etc. your best bet is to go with the MFP-entered listings - these ones *do not* have an asterisk next to the name, and are accurate. All of the foods listed with an asterisk are user-entered.

tam120

For things like meats, cheeses, produce, etc. your best bet is to go with the MFP-entered listings - these ones *do not* have an asterisk next to the name, and are accurate. All of the foods listed with an asterisk are user-entered.

This is what I always look for and if there isn't an MFP entered item I verify either the package or another site like CalorieKing. I also enter my own but keep them private. I'm not sure why so many people find it necessary to "share" their entries.

cramernh

[. I'm not sure why so many people find it necessary to "share" their entries.

BOY OH BOY, you got THAT right! LOL!

it_be_asin

For things like meats, cheeses, produce, etc. your best bet is to go with the MFP-entered listings - these ones *do not* have an asterisk next to the name, and are accurate. All of the foods listed with an asterisk are user-entered.

This is what I always look for and if there isn't an MFP entered item I verify either the package or another site like CalorieKing. I also enter my own but keep them private. I'm not sure why so many people find it necessary to "share" their entries.

Calorie King will provide numbers for Australian versions of foods, so if you take your numbers from there you may still be out because our versions of foods may be different to those available in North America and Europe.

jadedone

My petpeeve is that it is hard to find the raw ingredient. I make a lot of stuff myself. Searching for things like bell peppers is a pain. And forget it if you are using weight not "1 cup chopped" or whatever.

Mindful_Trent

My petpeeve is that it is hard to find the raw ingredient. I make a lot of stuff myself. Searching for things like bell peppers is a pain. And forget it if you are using weight not "1 cup chopped" or whatever.

All of the MFP-entered produce has both volume and weight as a serving option. Look for the entries WITHOUT an asterisk. For example, I search "Red Pepper" and "Peppers - Sweet, red, raw" without an asterisk is the first entry. This is MFP entered (not user entered) and is accurate. The last serving option (100g) is weight.

SaraTN

Like others, I verify foods - chances are if I ate it, I have the label. My little trick is that since I prepare most of my meals for the week, I enter my recipies so they are in my food or favorites. It makes logging a little easier. 90% of the time, I weigh and measure my portions for accuracy.

The tricky part is when I get take out from a local restaraunt (I'm a bit of a food snob when it comes to chains) -- since I have no control over what is going into it.. I feel like that is where most of my errors are... but there is a way to solve that too... I cut down going out to eat from a couple of times a week to a couple of times a month... less room for error = more weight loss.

missfluffyuk

It would be nice if we could search for MPF-entered foods only... Ignore all the user-entered ones.

PippaJo_

My petpeeve is that it is hard to find the raw ingredient. I make a lot of stuff myself. Searching for things like bell peppers is a pain. And forget it if you are using weight not "1 cup chopped" or whatever.

All of the MFP-entered produce has both volume and weight as a serving option. Look for the entries WITHOUT an asterisk. For example, I search "Red Pepper" and "Peppers - Sweet, red, raw" without an asterisk is the first entry. This is MFP entered (not user entered) and is accurate. The last serving option (100g) is weight.

Maybe I've just missed it, but - how do you find *just* the MFP-entered entries? Is there a way, or do you have to scroll through all the junk and hope you catch it?

I don't understand why the MFP entries aren't listed first - for instance, I can look for 'butter', and three or four entries will be first, things like 'butter-flavored cookies' or something, *before* simple 'butter - salted'. How does that happen?

I also get frustrated with entries that have serving measurements that are not particularly easy to figure out (depending on what you're used to). I'm in the US - we use volume, not weight. I have a hard time visualizing what 61g of any given food might be - but I can picture what a cup of it is. I see so many entries with only weights - and it's useless to me, especially if I'm on the go, or it's an unpackaged/prepared food.

Or items that only have measurements in enormous amounts, when you're more likely to use very small amounts. I don't mind cutting something down to .5, or even .25 of the listed serving, but when you're looking at .0025 of something, it starts to get ridiculous.

Mindful_Trent

Maybe I've just missed it, but - how do you find *just* the MFP-entered entries? Is there a way, or do you have to scroll through all the junk and hope you catch it?

I don't understand why the MFP entries aren't listed first - for instance, I can look for 'butter', and three or four entries will be first, things like 'butter-flavored cookies' or something, *before* simple 'butter - salted'. How does that happen?

I also get frustrated with entries that have serving measurements that are not particularly easy to figure out (depending on what you're used to). I'm in the US - we use volume, not weight. I have a hard time visualizing what 61g of any given food might be - but I can picture what a cup of it is. I see so many entries with only weights - and it's useless to me, especially if I'm on the go, or it's an unpackaged/prepared food.

Or items that only have measurements in enormous amounts, when you're more likely to use very small amounts. I don't mind cutting something down to .5, or even .25 of the listed serving, but when you're looking at .0025 of something, it starts to get ridiculous.

Unfortunately they don't have any way to filter by what is MFP-entered only... would definitely be a welcome addition!!

Regarding weight vs. volume... not all things in the US are measured by volume - and if you look at food labels, almost all are both weight and volume. If you get a food scale, weight is actually a lot more accurate for things that are hard to measure consistently/accurately, like chunky veggies/fruits, meats, large/bulky cereal, etc. Really, the only thing I measure by volume these days are liquids and things like flour/sugar - which are VERY consistent/accurate by volume.

Weight is harder to do on the go - I'll usually estimate meals in volume when I eat out... but everything prepared at home is by weight.

jadedone

Today I found some salmon. 4 oz only had 90 calories! And 2 rams of fat!

jadedone

Today I found some salmon. 4 oz only had 90 calories! And 2 rams of fat!

TheBraveryLover

I totally understand your frustration. It would be great if there were MFP moderators whose sole purpose was to verify food entries or at least go in once in a while and delete ones that are way off. There really are a lot of super silly entries (like the 33-calorie slice of pizza mentioned earlier or other entries that are clearly hundreds of calories off).

One can dream Until then, double- and triple-check everything!

There are pizzas that are made with cauliflower crust and low calorie sauce and cheese that may very well add up to 33 cals a slice. I've made a version of this and the entire pie added up to under 200 calories. I'm sure you didn't know this so I thought I'd let you know about those possible "super silly" entries. :-)

jadedone

I totally understand your frustration. It would be great if there were MFP moderators whose sole purpose was to verify food entries or at least go in once in a while and delete ones that are way off. There really are a lot of super silly entries (like the 33-calorie slice of pizza mentioned earlier or other entries that are clearly hundreds of calories off).

One can dream Until then, double- and triple-check everything!

There are pizzas that are made with cauliflower crust and low calorie sauce and cheese that may very well add up to 33 cals a slice. I've made a version of this and the entire pie added up to under 200 calories. I'm sure you didn't know this so I thought I'd let you know about those possible "super silly" entries. :-)

That sounds like the worst pizza ever. :P

TheBraveryLover

I totally understand your frustration. It would be great if there were MFP moderators whose sole purpose was to verify food entries or at least go in once in a while and delete ones that are way off. There really are a lot of super silly entries (like the 33-calorie slice of pizza mentioned earlier or other entries that are clearly hundreds of calories off).

One can dream Until then, double- and triple-check everything!

There are pizzas that are made with cauliflower crust and low calorie sauce and cheese that may very well add up to 33 cals a slice. I've made a version of this and the entire pie added up to under 200 calories. I'm sure you didn't know this so I thought I'd let you know about those possible "super silly" entries. :-)

That sounds like the worst pizza ever. :P

Anything can sound like the worst thing ever, depending on who's judging it. I think shrimp is the worst food ever, but I know many would disagree.

The pizza is amazing. I encourage you to do a search here and try it sometime. You might be surprised.

ruby_red_rose

I make cauliflower pizza as well, and it is quite delicious.

I totally understand your frustration. It would be great if there were MFP moderators whose sole purpose was to verify food entries or at least go in once in a while and delete ones that are way off. There really are a lot of super silly entries (like the 33-calorie slice of pizza mentioned earlier or other entries that are clearly hundreds of calories off).

One can dream Until then, double- and triple-check everything!

There are pizzas that are made with cauliflower crust and low calorie sauce and cheese that may very well add up to 33 cals a slice. I've made a version of this and the entire pie added up to under 200 calories. I'm sure you didn't know this so I thought I'd let you know about those possible "super silly" entries. :-)

That sounds like the worst pizza ever. :P