Advice on accuracy on database

cally69
cally69 Posts: 182 Member
in Recipes
Hi all
Thought I would post this after making lentil soup this afternoon. Since I had decanted the pack of lentils I bought into a storage jar I didn't have the calories for the particular brand but thought it wouldn't be too hard to find the calories on the database. How wrong I was. There was such a difference in what's on the database for red lentils (uncooked) that it became quite confusing so I did my own online research and came up with several answers which all seemed to be agreeing on approx 3.3 cals per uncooked gram. Some of the database results were as little as 0.98 cals per uncooked gram which when you are using an amount like 170 grams as I was makes a huge difference to the overall calories in the recipe. If I had chosen the lower one the lentils would have counted as 166 cals instead of the 561 calories which they actually were. I guess it's a lesson in doing your own sums and not being too reliant on what others have put into the database. Thought this was worth sharing! X

Replies

  • effcla
    effcla Posts: 33 Member
    I have discovered the same thing - mainly with chicken so I err on the side of caution and take the result with the higher calorie count.
  • babyblooz
    babyblooz Posts: 220 Member
    That annoys me to no end. I wish MFP could go through and delete all of the incorrect information. Sure would save time!
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    I know what you mean. I input the nutritional value of everything I use into 'My Foods' so I can always be sure of the correct value but sometimes if I've got unpackaged foods like yesterday, I was given a home grown butternut squash and made a soup with it. As I had no label to go by I loooked through the database and the caloric values varied stupidly. All I could do in the end was Google other calories counting sites and take the average values.
    When I enter foods into the database I always label it as 'Jane's .........' so if you look anything up and see that then you can be pretty sure it's accurate. :smile:
  • babyblooz
    babyblooz Posts: 220 Member
    In that case, Jane, I think you ought to research every food known to man for us! ;)
  • janemem
    janemem Posts: 575 Member
    In that case, Jane, I think you ought to research every food known to man for us! ;)

    I'm working on it, lol! :laugh:

    As I weigh and measure everything I need to know that what I'm inputting is correct. I also make most of my meals from scratch so again, keeping track of it all is important to me. Ok, I'll admit I can get a bit anal about it though! :wink:
  • NaturallyOlivia
    NaturallyOlivia Posts: 496 Member
    I err on the side of caution and take the result with the higher calorie count.
    I usually do this as well. I have this salad I love from my work, Schlotzsky's. It's a garden salad and some sources on the internet say it's 40 and some say it's 60-61. I always log it as 60 just in case. Because, if you're wrong, great you ate less than you thought. If you're right, well you already accounted for that many calories anyway.

    I also try and edit information where I can. mainly for produce, as I find packaged foods to be fairly accurate. So if you ever need to log a small red plum in your diary, i calculated all the nutritional information for that since they only had values for a medium size. There you have it, my one contribution to MFP! lol
  • cally69
    cally69 Posts: 182 Member
    I know there's bound to be some inaccuracy on a site like this where many people are inputting data but I like the suggestion for a clean up of the crazy calorie values evident on the database. Having said that, there's no substitute for doing your own legwork!
    X
  • elka67
    elka67 Posts: 268 Member
    When i see errors like that i go onto a supermarket website, check the product macro's - you can then change the nutritional value on your chosen item and re-use it later as it'll be in your recents list. It is a pain tho when some products have been listed so inaccurately.

Categories