Small Rage Post ^^;

MeMyCatsandI

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

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

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

My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.

ME TOO!!!!!!!

jofjltncb6

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

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

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

My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.

QFT

djc315

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

umm, so ONE carb is gunna make or break your day?:noway: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

JLand918

My only issue with things or numbers that dont um seem correct is the calories burned for exercising they are so far off that most people who just except them its messing up there intake when they think that they just burned 500cal when truth is lucky to have burned 120cal if that, then they think sweet I can eat more or I am gonna lose weight based on that info etc. They just need to find a true scale of calories burned a baseline such as 5 min on a treadmill burns 25cal not 175cal or whatever they use.

athlonx264

Let me give a little background as to why I am peeved about "petty' things such as this. I am on a keto diet and it is very important to track protein carbs fiber and fat. I do actually need tp know the precise amounts of those nutrients to make good desicions about my meal plan. It takes 1 week to get into ketosis (and over the 'keto flu') and longer still for your body to adjust to the new diet. These things are actually very important.

ahviendha

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.

The Third Group nutrients include calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. However, for products (e.g., fruit drinks, juices, and confectioneries) with a sugars content of 90 percent or more of total carbohydrate, to prevent labeling anomalies due in part to rounding, FDA treats total carbohydrate as a Third Group nutrient instead of a Class II nutrient. For foods with label declarations of Third Group nutrients, the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less, i.e., the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label. For example, if a laboratory analysis found 8 g of total fat/serving in a product that stated that it contained 6 g of total fat/serving, the ratio between the laboratory value and the label value would be (8 / 6) x 100 = 133%, and the product label would be considered to be out of compliance.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm063113.htm

nothing against you..but I have to be right! All the time! :P

athlonx264

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.

ty

wareagle8706

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.

You're correct, but I left that alone because it's on obvious typo. I believe that you know "why" doesn't contain a "j" but I don't believe you knew that "mathematically" contained an "e."

That's all.

zaph0d

Rule #1 of the MFP Food Database: NEVER trust an MFP food database entry without independently verifying the entry.

Rule #2 of the MFP Food Database: In the case that you cannot independently verify a database entry, NEVER trust the MFP food database entry

debgetzfit

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.

The only items I have found that don't come up is some of my wine and liquor... :drinker:

zaph0d

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.

Even this can backfire.
Check out "Milk - Nonfat (fat free or skim)"
Sugars 0. Wrong!

manderson27

I am just grateful for the incredible amount of information at my finger tips (slightly inaccurate though some of it may be) on MFP that has enabled me to lose the amount of weight I have.

MeMyCatsandI

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.

You're correct, but I left that alone because it's on obvious typo. I believe that you know "why" doesn't contain a "j" but I don't believe you knew that "mathematically" contained an "e."

That's all.

Wow! You can believe what you want. Personally I don't care if you think I can spell mathEmatically or not. They actually were both obvious typos. But I can see why you would have trouble telling the difference while being so petty.