Small Rage Post ^^;

athlonx264
athlonx264 Posts: 10
in Food and Nutrition
Okay so this has been bothering me for a while and I could have probably let this go... but with 86 confirmations on the nutritional data on an egg apparently no one else have found this out sooo... Just so you all know 1 egg (not fried or deviled just a plain egg) does NOT have carbs... NO CARBS. and also are generally 70 cal... I want to know who is eating the 85 calorie eggs here -_-. Anyways dont want to be rude but its been pet peeve working on me for a while where nobody seems to fact check these things before comfirming, then I got to change the data and/or add my own foods. Anyways HI COMMUNITY! Thank you for allowing me to let my aggression out :D


EDIT: sorry forgot to put in that the eggs size is large! :)
«1

Replies

  • MeMyCatsandI
    MeMyCatsandI Posts: 704 Member
    According to Calorie King, you're wrong. This is the information for 1 large egg. (Not fried, not deviled, just a plain egg.)

    Nutrition Facts
    Calories 78 (324 kJ)
    Calories from fat 48
    % Daily Value 1
    Total Fat 5.3g 8%
    Sat. Fat 1.6g 8%
    Cholesterol 212mg 71%
    Sodium 62mg 3%
    Total Carbs. 0.6g < 1%
    Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
    Sugars 0.6g
    Protein 6.3g
    Calcium 25mg
    Potassium 63mg
  • justlistening
    justlistening Posts: 249 Member
    I get my eggs from Costco and like everything else there they Huge! Package says 80 for a xlarge egg. BTW. I never hit the confirmation box on the cals for food. Never checked the carbs though-- why would an egg have carbs?
  • vickilm1976
    vickilm1976 Posts: 141 Member
    Sometimes I buy the Jumbo or Extra-large eggs. It makes sense that since they are larger than a large egg, they would contain more calories, no?
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    Never the less we are talking about a 1 large egg here and even if it has .6 carbs its still incorrect to show 1 whole carb.
  • needamulligan
    needamulligan Posts: 558 Member
    small eggs are 54 calories each. size does matter :wink:
  • MissNations
    MissNations Posts: 513 Member
    The nutritional info on my carton of my King Soopers Large Eggs lists them at 70 calories each. Apparently there is some variation...
  • katevarner
    katevarner Posts: 884 Member
    From the USDA website: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/111

    Lists all sizes and includes grams (weight). That's why I have a kitchen scale. I weigh pretty much everything. Including eggs, believe it or not.
  • MeMyCatsandI
    MeMyCatsandI Posts: 704 Member
    Never the less we are talking about a 1 large egg here and even if it has .6 carbs its still incorrect to show 1 whole carb.
    No, actually. Mathmatically, 0.6 is rounded up to 1. So it is correct.

    I just don't understand wjhy you're so bothered by something so petty. Pick the egg selection you like and use it. When I looked through the database, I found no less than 5 egg listings with 70 cal and 0 carbs.
  • almc170
    almc170 Posts: 1,093 Member
    With all due respect, the variances are so minor as to be inconsequential. No two eggs are identical and the numbers are based on averages. It shouldn't make one whit of difference with regards to one's overall goals.
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    Except that im not just talking about eggs here, I may have used an egg as an example because it just happened to be the straw that broke the camels back but there are several discrepancies in many of the foods that just shouldnt be there. It IS irratating to have to scroll through the same food several times to find the one that's correct. By the way I eat less than 20 carbs per day and I use every one of them, a .4 difference in such a low carb count is a difference.



    EDIT: Again, wasnt trying to be rude just wanted to rage -_-
  • jenluvsushi
    jenluvsushi Posts: 933 Member
    Never the less we are talking about a 1 large egg here and even if it has .6 carbs its still incorrect to show 1 whole carb.

    you can create your own food under your diary so you don't have to use anyone elses entries in the data base.
  • ahviendha
    ahviendha Posts: 1,291 Member
    I mean...the info is crowd sourced here. What did you expect? If we all paid for this site then the info better damn well be right!

    But I get it since it's just the average joe or jane doing their best.
  • Jly09
    Jly09 Posts: 1 Member
    The site is FREE. Do you expect perfection for FREE?
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    I scan the barcode on my foods with my smart phone and that goes right into MFP for me. When I scan my eggs (Cherry Lane, extra large egg) it comes up with 80 calories, 1 carb. I didn't input that myself, it is what the barcode said, which I would guess is tied right to the real nutritional value.

    I try to scan all my "packaged" foods. Everything that has a barcode, I haven't come across anything so far that hasn't been found doing this method.
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    It may be FREE but how hard is it to read a label before putting it into the system really?
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Never the less we are talking about a 1 large egg here and even if it has .6 carbs its still incorrect to show 1 whole carb.
    No, actually. Mathmatically, 0.6 is rounded up to 1. So it is correct.

    I just don't understand wjhy you're so bothered by something so petty. Pick the egg selection you like and use it. When I looked through the database, I found no less than 5 egg listings with 70 cal and 0 carbs.

    If we're going to get into petty things here..... you misspelled mathematically.

    ETA: just because cause can round up doesn't mean they have to. If someone cares about .4 then let them care. It's their choice. You are no more right just because people CAN round up or down... I also think it's kind of rude that you just decided to go off and call the OP wrong just because some random website says an egg contains .6 carbs. That website may not be any more right than anyone that posts on MFP.
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    Surprisingly I had to stop doing that becuase on two different ocaisions the nutricional value was completely off O.o
  • oregonzoo
    oregonzoo Posts: 4,251 Member
    This is by far the strangest rage I've ever seen.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    According to Calorie King, you're wrong. This is the information for 1 large egg. (Not fried, not deviled, just a plain egg.)

    Nutrition Facts
    Calories 78 (324 kJ)
    Calories from fat 48
    % Daily Value 1
    Total Fat 5.3g 8%
    Sat. Fat 1.6g 8%
    Cholesterol 212mg 71%
    Sodium 62mg 3%
    Total Carbs. 0.6g < 1%
    Dietary Fiber 0g 0%
    Sugars 0.6g
    Protein 6.3g
    Calcium 25mg
    Potassium 63mg

    Technically speaking, she is right. If it is <1% they don't have to list it in the nutritional value. But that doesn't mean if you have more than 1 egg you aren't eating any carbs.

    Same when it says 0 calories...it is 0 calories PER SERVING. Doesn't mean if you have 2 or more servings it is still 0 calories. FDA only requires it to be listed if it is above a certain amount, again, per serving.
  • MeMyCatsandI
    MeMyCatsandI Posts: 704 Member
    Never the less we are talking about a 1 large egg here and even if it has .6 carbs its still incorrect to show 1 whole carb.
    No, actually. Mathmatically, 0.6 is rounded up to 1. So it is correct.

    I just don't understand wjhy you're so bothered by something so petty. Pick the egg selection you like and use it. When I looked through the database, I found no less than 5 egg listings with 70 cal and 0 carbs.

    If we're going to get into petty things here..... you misspelled mathematically.
    Well then... I also mispelled why.
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    Surprisingly I had to stop doing that becuase on two different ocaisions the nutricional value was completely off O.o

    Scanning them? Hm. I haven't run into an issue yet but I do double check before I submit it into my dairy.
  • ahviendha
    ahviendha Posts: 1,291 Member
    Same when it says 0 calories...it is 0 calories PER SERVING. Doesn't mean if you have 2 or more servings it is still 0 calories. FDA only requires it to be listed if it is above a certain amount, again, per serving.

    And I believe they're allowed to be "off" by as much as 20%. Scary.
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.

    ME TOO!!!!!!!
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    In to join OP on a similar rant later (after I've made dinner). For example, the foods in the database with mathematically impossible macros/calories.
  • Flowers4Julia
    Flowers4Julia Posts: 521 Member
    I totally get what your saying about accuracy...So my tip for you is to use the food selection that does NOT have an asterisk in front of it. This info will have come from the USDA nutrient data base and is about the closet you can get to knowing it is accurate. As far as packaged foods and home recipes, etc. They will have always been put in by someone who is only human :blushing:

    But really, go into the data base - put in egg or what ever and look for the listing with out the asterisk.
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    Same when it says 0 calories...it is 0 calories PER SERVING. Doesn't mean if you have 2 or more servings it is still 0 calories. FDA only requires it to be listed if it is above a certain amount, again, per serving.

    And I believe they're allowed to be "off" by as much as 20%. Scary.

    Yeah, I'm not sure if it is 20%, but they can be off on everything listed. They have to be in a certain margin of error and they are good to go. Which is why, in my opinion, it is better to eat as clean as you can. Processed food can say 100 calories per serving but what if it is really 120? Might not matter on that level but add that up in a day you could be eating 2000 calories when you think you are eating 1600.
  • dinosnopro
    dinosnopro Posts: 2,177 Member
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.



    QFT
  • djc315
    djc315 Posts: 585 Member
    I totally get what your saying about accuracy...So my tip for you is to use the food selection that does NOT have an asterisk in front of it. This info will have come from the USDA nutrient data base and is about the closet you can get to knowing it is accurate. As far as packaged foods and home recipes, etc. They will have always been put in by someone who is only human :blushing:

    But really, go into the data base - put in egg or what ever and look for the listing with out the asterisk.

    I did not know that about the asterisk!
  • PLUMSGRL
    PLUMSGRL Posts: 1,134 Member
    umm, so ONE carb is gunna make or break your day?:noway: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Categories