Small Rage Post ^^;

2»

Replies

  • JLand918
    JLand918 Posts: 156
    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
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    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
    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.

    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
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    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
    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.
    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
    zaph0d Posts: 1,172 Member
    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
    debgetzfit Posts: 15
    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
    zaph0d Posts: 1,172 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.

    Even this can backfire.
    Check out "Milk - Nonfat (fat free or skim)"
    Sugars 0. Wrong!
  • manderson27
    manderson27 Posts: 3,510 Member
    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
    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.

    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.
  • pattyblair51
    pattyblair51 Posts: 12 Member
    I am just thankful I have lost the weight I have using this site. There are much bigger things in my life than miscalculating by a few calories or tenths of a carb. And I have started eating healthier which is my goal. :smile:
  • brianchi
    brianchi Posts: 71 Member
    What eggactly are we talking about? I don't want to egg anyone on here, so let's just look at the sunny side. Finding out the eggxact nutrition is never going to be over easy. But I feel like I am walking on egg shells trying to scramble my thoughts and not offend anyone.

    I'm just trying to say don't put all your eggs in one basket when it comes to confirmations. There are some real eggheads out there that will poach all the information. In fact, some of the information is pretty rotten.

    So I'm just trying to say don't count your chickens before they hatch and try not to get hard boiled over little things.

    At first I was a little upset, but omellette this one go. Ok this is a bad yolk, but give me a break, my brain is fried!
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    What eggactly are we talking about? I don't want to egg anyone on here, so let's just look at the sunny side. Finding out the eggxact nutrition is never going to be over easy. But I feel like I am walking on egg shells trying to scramble my thoughts and not offend anyone.

    I'm just trying to say don't put all your eggs in one basket when it comes to confirmations. There are some real eggheads out there that will poach all the information. In fact, some of the information is pretty rotten.

    So I'm just trying to say don't count your chickens before they hatch and try not to get hard boiled over little things.

    At first I was a little upset, but omellette this one go. Ok this is a bad yolk, but give me a break, my brain is fried!


    Okay I totally lol'd XD
  • 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.
    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.


    Wait I thought I was the one who was petty? :ohwell:
  • Gwen_B
    Gwen_B Posts: 1,018 Member
    I agree with the fact this site is free, and people are seeing results!!! I eat healthy, so the calories don't have to be exact!!!!
  • 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.

    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

    LOL I was not disagreeing with you. I just said I didn't know personally if it was 20%. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing, I truly didn't know what the % was.
  • 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.

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

    I tried a local beer last night and it came up. :drinker too:. And does that mean you don't have to count them? ;)
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,272 Member
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.
    Try tracking potassium. ;)
    I've had to add or edit most entries I use...
  • athlonx264
    athlonx264 Posts: 10
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.
    Try tracking potassium. ;)
    I've had to add or edit most entries I use...

    Wow, yeah that def seems like a huge pain. I tip my hat to you sir!
  • avir8
    avir8 Posts: 671 Member
    My pet peeve is when folks ADD something to the database with just the calories. No protein, fiber, carbs... Just calories.
    I agree, wish I could delete useless entries like those
  • vabchloser
    vabchloser Posts: 223 Member
    Eat Egg Beaters!! :) (I know, I know...not just eggs!!)
  • annwyatt69
    annwyatt69 Posts: 727 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.

    And it clearly states <0,6 carbs, As a nutritionist, that equals the same as 0 carbs. And yes ma'am, 1 large egg has only 70 calories. Eggs are a great source of protein and the cholesterol in eggs is not as harmful as once believed. Enjoy eggs three + times a week and have a healthy life!
  • Mr_Bad_Example
    Mr_Bad_Example Posts: 2,403 Member
    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 -_-

    If it's such a bother, just enter the food yourself. That's what I do when I find something that doesn't mesh with the info I have.
  • Chopper88
    Chopper88 Posts: 52
    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 -_-

    Well...this is why your so damn angry. Eat some carbs! Eating healthy isn't supposed to make you made, its supposed to make you happy because you are making yourself a better you. (now, go...and eat some carbs) : D
  • 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.
    Try tracking potassium. ;)
    I've had to add or edit most entries I use...
    YES!!!!

Categories