Another reason why it's so hard to estimate food...

Francl27
Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Different data entries in the database... Ugh!!!

I'm having salmon tonight. I unfortunately can't measure it raw, as it's a big fillet and we're all sharing it. So I have to weigh the cooked version.

Entries for 4oz of baked salmon go from 150 to 240 calories. This is just nuts.

Same for grilled chicken breasts. Everywhere from 100 to 220 calories for 4oz. You can't find nutrition info on the package for most of those either, and again, we're cooking for 4 people so weighing it raw is just not possible.

How are people supposed to know? I swear I understand why people just buy packaged foods sometimes! At least when I buy frozen grilled chicken breasts, it's fool proof, I know how many calories are in one gram...

Replies

  • JesterMFP
    JesterMFP Posts: 3,596 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..
  • Beckaroo94
    Beckaroo94 Posts: 66
    I genuinly buy packaged food for this reason. I found all sorts of different entries for a weighed banana before -.- Ended up wishing I'd bought a rice crispie square. Maybe try googling it, and seeing what actual websites say? I suppose if it's cooked the amount of water left in will make a difference to the amount of calories.
    Why can't you weigh it? Just weigh the whole thing at the beggining and say "well I had about a fifth" then log it as raw salmon perhaps? I know that's not very useful now but in future it might be a solution?
  • 007Aggie
    007Aggie Posts: 110 Member
    Why can't you weigh it? Just weigh the whole thing at the beggining and say "well I had about a fifth" then log it as raw salmon perhaps? I know that's not very useful now but in future it might be a solution?

    This is what I do, if necessary. It's no different than making a casserole/soup/dish, adding all the calories up in the recipe builder, and saying you had 1/8th of it.

    Calorie counting is not an exact science. The numbers on the back of a package/box/whatever aren't even exact. Do the best you can with the resources provided and move on.
  • TigerBite
    TigerBite Posts: 611 Member
    Nutritiondata.com
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    Agree 100%.

    1. It is an ESTIMATE.

    2. Use MFP-entered entries, found without an asterisk in front.

    In this case, enter "fish salmon"

    I found 16 entries by MFP admin. One of them will suit your needs.
  • enkennon
    enkennon Posts: 161 Member
    i herd of this website called calorie king that's supposed to be pretty good
  • karkaskompetisie
    karkaskompetisie Posts: 39
    Maybe cut your piece off and when you bake it you just put it to the rest of the filet? Or weigh it raw and if you are cooking for 4 people give everyone 1/4 of the filet and log it
  • jeanners98
    jeanners98 Posts: 74 Member
    Hey, good for you for cooking fresh and healthy food. I honestly think that maybe over- or under-counting your calories is better than eating packaged food. It's healthier in the long run! Definitely use the recipe builder.

    And for things like that, I usually go for the calorie amount that's in the middle of the range. It's usually your best bet.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    Agree 100%.

    1. It is an ESTIMATE.

    2. Use MFP-entered entries, found without an asterisk in front.

    In this case, enter "fish salmon"

    I found 16 entries by MFP admin. One of them will suit your needs.

    Ok I used one of those. Now if we could filter by 'MFP only' entries... lol.
  • JesterMFP
    JesterMFP Posts: 3,596 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    Agree 100%.

    1. It is an ESTIMATE.

    2. Use MFP-entered entries, found without an asterisk in front.

    In this case, enter "fish salmon"

    I found 16 entries by MFP admin. One of them will suit your needs.

    Ok I used one of those. Now if we could filter by 'MFP only' entries... lol.
    It's a bit easier once you get used to how things are worded (and they're usually the same as here: http://nutritiondata.self.com/ ) So, if I'm adding vegetables, I usually search for eg, "carrots, raw", or "carrots, cooked, boiled", and the MFP entries come up near the top. Meta would be eg. "chicken, breast, meat and skin, cooked, roasted" etc. I never use the word "generic" in search terms (even though I'm searching for generic items!). If I can't find the mfp one I'm looking for, I check the wording at the nutritiondata website. Of course, once they're in your recent entries then it's easy.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,336 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    ^^^^^^^
    THIS!
  • AllonsYtotheTardis
    AllonsYtotheTardis Posts: 16,947 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    this is what I try to do as well.

    Unfortunately, if you're using the app, you can't tell which entries those are (nothing has an asterisk)
  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    For a generic item like salmon, I tend to go with the staff entered data (the ones without an asterisk, assuming you haven't entered it yourself). I believe they are from the USDA database. It's all still estimates obviously, but I try to go with those as they have more complete information, and I can use the units I prefer..

    this is what I try to do as well.

    Unfortunately, if you're using the app, you can't tell which entries those are (nothing has an asterisk)

    Actually, you can... it will be the one with a variety of different measurements (oz, grams, fillet, portion) most of the time.

    Edit, if all else fails, I look for the wording I need on Nutritiondata.com since they have the same database as MFP and search for that here.
  • seniorbug2003
    seniorbug2003 Posts: 67 Member
    I also tend to go with the one's with the higher calorie count. I feel it is better to over estimate calories then under.

Categories