Accuracy in Food Items Database

elp2tlh
elp2tlh Posts: 3
in Food and Nutrition
I just joined last evening and did my first entry this morning. The results were a bit disappointing.

The item in question was a Marie Callender's Chicken Pot Pie (OK, not an ideal food, but it's better than the fast food stuff I would normally eat.).

Every entry in the database was wrong, at least in part due to the tactics of the manufacturer.

Let's begin with the question of who eats HALF a pot pie? Yet the nutritional label specifies that there are "about 2" servings per container. Many people just listed the count for a single serving but I don't know how many looked at the details (or how many others would notice and think they got an outstanding 380 calorie "deal").

A few people listed the "pie" as a serving (more reasonable, in my opinion) and doubled the nutritional label data. Definitely a closer result, but it's still not there.

The serving size is 200 grams. The pie is 454 grams. There are really about two and a quarter servings per pie. So the total calorie count isn't 380. Nor is the total calorie count 760 (or 650 or any one of several other numbers I saw for various items). In fact, as the box says just ABOVE the nutritional data panel, the total calorie count per package is about 870. And of course, this throws all the other numbers off as well.

As is the case in any crowd sourced collection of data, there will be errors. But there's no way to indicate that an existing item as listed is less than accurate (a feature that I noted on at least one other site). I would suggest adding such an option along with a comment or explanation field. I will just have to be more careful when I look at existing entries.

I know... I know... "He's here for less than 24 hours and already complaining." It's my OCD side. The rest of me is relatively sane. (No I'm not. Yes I am. Hush!)

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Lol! Love the last paragraph!
    You are correct. This is a result of user generated input. I mostly cook from scratch so I enter my ingredients and even then it can be off! But not wildly.

    PS: Welcome from one OCD to another!
  • jilliew
    jilliew Posts: 255 Member
    I am totally with you on this. I, too, am OCD. Santa just brought me a digital food scale, so now I'm even crazier!!! However, I've learned that "counting calories" is largely still a game of estimations. I've found that the calorie number isn't as important as being accountable for what you're putting in your mouth, and that if you get a general sense of what are "good", or "low calorie", or "healthful" foods from tracking you are much better off than you were when you started. There are a lot of foods that I dont' eat anymore because I said to myself "this peice of cake can't be THAT bad for me" and then discovered it really is when I put it in the dairy, accurate calories or not. If the cake calorie count is out 200 cals it still doesn't justify me eating it.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member

    The serving size is 200 grams. The pie is 454 grams. There are really about two and a quarter servings per pie. So the total calorie count isn't 380. Nor is the total calorie count 760 (or 650 or any one of several other numbers I saw for various items). In fact, as the box says just ABOVE the nutritional data panel, the total calorie count per package is about 870. And of course, this throws all the other numbers off as well.

    So if you entered it as 2.25 servings wouldn't your numbers adjust and be correct if it was entered in the database as the single serving numbers? Or is it totally not right - in which case your OCD will just have to take a little rest - jog around the kitchen and earn some calories to take care of it. :drinker: I figure there will be days I'll over estimate and days I underestimate and hopefully it all just works out in the end....
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,265 Member
    LOL at your whole post, nice 1st post. Yeah, this is a huge problem for people that count calories and eat processed foods. It's also why the out side of the energy balance equation is a mystery for many people and question why they don't lose weight. Compound that with the 20% error rate allowed by law in labeling, you can see where dieting with numbers can be frustrating.
  • elp2tlh
    elp2tlh Posts: 3
    Thanks for the kind words from everyone.

    I must amend my original comments, however. There clearly IS a way to indicate accuracy. I don't know why I didn't scroll. I plead "Friday".

    My OCD and I are going for a walk now. Pity it doesn't weigh more. I would get more exercise calorie credits!
  • elp2tlh
    elp2tlh Posts: 3
    Ready2Rock206 said...

    So if you entered it as 2.25 servings wouldn't your numbers adjust and be correct if it was entered in the database as the single serving numbers? Or is it totally not right - in which case your OCD will just have to take a little rest - jog around the kitchen and earn some calories to take care of it. :drinker: I figure there will be days I'll over estimate and days I underestimate and hopefully it all just works out in the end....

    You're absolutely correct, but many people won't catch that there's two servings and even then that 20% that neanderthin mentioned would throw them off a bit.

    I agree that one of the biggest benefits of tracking things is "self-education" but I really do display some OCD symptoms. (Certainly not debilitating -- I don't spend my spare time tracing wood grain across my floor. And bonus points to anyone who understands the reference.) It just bugs me that food manufacturers get away with this stuff.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,487 Member
    Ready2Rock206 said...

    So if you entered it as 2.25 servings wouldn't your numbers adjust and be correct if it was entered in the database as the single serving numbers? Or is it totally not right - in which case your OCD will just have to take a little rest - jog around the kitchen and earn some calories to take care of it. :drinker: I figure there will be days I'll over estimate and days I underestimate and hopefully it all just works out in the end....

    You're absolutely correct, but many people won't catch that there's two servings and even then that 20% that neanderthin mentioned would throw them off a bit.

    I agree that one of the biggest benefits of tracking things is "self-education" but I really do display some OCD symptoms. (Certainly not debilitating -- I don't spend my spare time tracing wood grain across my floor. And bonus points to anyone who understands the reference.) It just bugs me that food manufacturers get away with this stuff.

    I totally agree with that part. I don't know anyone who eats half a potpie - or slightly less than half according to the example. Or those on the go soup cups,who eats half of those and what would you do with the other 1/2 when you're on the go?! Definitely have to read the label - keep that part of the OCD. Some of those serving sizes just make no sense. I just mean if you put in the 2.25 servings and it is still 6 calories off or something then you might just want to let it go...
  • rfsatar
    rfsatar Posts: 599 Member
    I just joined last evening and did my first entry this morning. The results were a bit disappointing.

    The item in question was a Marie Callender's Chicken Pot Pie (OK, not an ideal food, but it's better than the fast food stuff I would normally eat.).

    Every entry in the database was wrong, at least in part due to the tactics of the manufacturer.

    Let's begin with the question of who eats HALF a pot pie? Yet the nutritional label specifies that there are "about 2" servings per container. Many people just listed the count for a single serving but I don't know how many looked at the details (or how many others would notice and think they got an outstanding 380 calorie "deal").

    A few people listed the "pie" as a serving (more reasonable, in my opinion) and doubled the nutritional label data. Definitely a closer result, but it's still not there.

    The serving size is 200 grams. The pie is 454 grams. There are really about two and a quarter servings per pie. So the total calorie count isn't 380. Nor is the total calorie count 760 (or 650 or any one of several other numbers I saw for various items). In fact, as the box says just ABOVE the nutritional data panel, the total calorie count per package is about 870. And of course, this throws all the other numbers off as well.

    As is the case in any crowd sourced collection of data, there will be errors. But there's no way to indicate that an existing item as listed is less than accurate (a feature that I noted on at least one other site). I would suggest adding such an option along with a comment or explanation field. I will just have to be more careful when I look at existing entries.

    I know... I know... "He's here for less than 24 hours and already complaining." It's my OCD side. The rest of me is relatively sane. (No I'm not. Yes I am. Hush!)

    I can't speak for your pot pie, but I have often split a ready meal in half and had it over a couple of days.
    Also - annoyingly - some goods get changed by the manufacturers over time (I know... How very dare they ... Don't they know people are logging, for goodness sake!!) so sometimes it is not the fault of the hapless logger!
    I see you have already found the "is this accurate" option - the other thing I am considering trying in the New Year is building up my own meal database - I found that stuff I couldn't find and scanned in is also saved.
    My pet peeve is the endless options for CUPS. Not all of us are in the US ... Although I did buy myself some cups from Crate & Barrell when I was stateside, but still!
  • IronSmasher
    IronSmasher Posts: 3,908 Member
    People are dumb

    There's a confirmation system that you can view before adding items

    Make your own entries, make the first part of the serving in grams (you can add any notes you like after) and you can select a portion to the nearest 1g and the software will calculate all of the macro/micro nutrients for the item.
  • mfp_1
    mfp_1 Posts: 516 Member
    You're right. Serving sizes are bogus. It's one of the biggest con tricks in the food industry. That's why some legal jurisdictions require labels to state amounts in a standard way 'per 100 g' or 'per 100 ml'.

    I wish we could log weight eaten in grams or ounces. That would save unnecessary arithmetic to convert what the scale says into bogus servings.

    Some pies are even quoted in 'cups'. Are we supposed to squish a piece of pie into a cup?

    Here's a handy tip:
    In many food items, there's a down-arrow to the right of the serving size (e.g. 255 g). Click on it and you'll see another serving size of '1 g'. Then just enter the number of grams you ate.

Categories