is there a way to ...

Options
CeleryStalker
CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Search just the non-user submitted items in the food database? When I do a search for, say, 'trout, raw', I get a wide variety of user-submitted items, but then there is the one that was not user submitted. It comes up as 'Fish - Trout, Rainbow, wild, raw'. Oddly enough, if I do a search for just 'trout', the non-user submitted listing for wild, raw rainbow trout does not come up, although other non-user submitted trout listings do appear.

A lot of items that are non-user submitted come up like that, with a category first, then the food, the variation of food, and raw or type of cooking method specified.

I think it would be nice to browse by category, but I don't see that this option exists, which is kind of strange because it seems like the option to browse admin-loaded items should exist. Does it?

Replies

  • sonytomtp
    sonytomtp Posts: 38 Member
    Options
    Think this should be in the suggestion section of the forum, not food and nutrition.

    On topic though I do agree with you. I'd like to have more search options when searching for ingredients/foods. Even just a tick box to search for non-user submitted entries would be useful.
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    I didn't stick it in the suggestion forum because right now, it's not a suggestion, just a question, and I figured more people would see it and respond here than there :) If it turns out there truly isn't a way, then on to the suggestions forum I'll go!
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    I didn't stick it in the suggestion forum because right now, it's not a suggestion, just a question, and I figured more people would see it and respond here than there :) If it turns out there truly isn't a way, then on to the suggestions forum I'll go!
    Well, good luck. It's been suggested many times. Seems like it would be fairly easy to implement as well. Just a radio button and a SQL query on non-asterisk items...
  • ekz13
    ekz13 Posts: 725 Member
    Options
    I think this is a good idea, there are too many user submissions to wade through that aren't even close..


    Pizza - whole 16" loaded with extra cheese - 200cals .... (example)


    wait what?? some of those counts seem way off.
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    Dammit. I kind of figured it either already existed, or has been requested and denied. Poop. And ya, the totally screwy user entries get in the way of legit stuff. 16" loaded pizza, 200 cals is a perfect example. LOL

    But what's worse is the 50 gazillion different entries for basic stuff. 4oz of chicken should be the same, regardless of who posts it. I can see a legit variation for cooked vs raw, grilled vs baked, naked vs slathered in something, but it gets very difficult to log when you do a search for boneless skinless chicken breast, and get anywhere from 4g to 10g of protein per ounce. Kind of defeats the purpose of logging.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    I've never been able to find one, but agree that it would be very helpful.

    The names of many of the non-user entries match those found on the USDA nutrition site, so when I can't find it I usually look there to see how to word it (and to verify the entry).

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/
  • molonlabe762
    molonlabe762 Posts: 411 Member
    Options
    ITS A REBELION!!!!
  • psych0kitty
    psych0kitty Posts: 313
    Options
    There is not, but you can tell what's system-provided by there not being an asterisk in front of it. So I just scan for those items first.
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,273 Member
    Options
    Dammit. I kind of figured it either already existed, or has been requested and denied. Poop. And ya, the totally screwy user entries get in the way of legit stuff. 16" loaded pizza, 200 cals is a perfect example. LOL

    But what's worse is the 50 gazillion different entries for basic stuff. 4oz of chicken should be the same, regardless of who posts it. I can see a legit variation for cooked vs raw, grilled vs baked, naked vs slathered in something, but it gets very difficult to log when you do a search for boneless skinless chicken breast, and get anywhere from 4g to 10g of protein per ounce. Kind of defeats the purpose of logging.
    No. It doesn't defeat logging, but it requires that you do your own reseach and it defeats some of the utility the database could have.
    Here is my answer for now:

    http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

    I wonder how many entries you yourself have made that include, for instance the correct potassium levels. ;)
  • CeleryStalker
    CeleryStalker Posts: 665 Member
    Options
    I don't typically make entries, unless they are for 'meals', and I don't make them accessible to others so I'm not part of the problem, LOL :)

    But yes, if we want to get into semantics, you're right, it doesn't defeat the purpose of logging. It defeats the utility of the database, which blows. Like you, I use another resource when planning my meals, so I do know what I'm getting on a daily basis (my eating is pretty routine, rotating between the same meals over a week timespan, then changing things up the following week). It would just be nice to know that what I find on say, the usda.gov website would match what I find here when it comes time to log, because often times it doesn't, which messes with my numbers. As a result, I use my MFP log as more a general holding place for foods I've consumed and to make sure I've gotten in all my food for the day, rather than relying heavily upon the numbers that show up at the end of the day.

    Would be great to see some improvement in the food database lookup functionality.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    I didn't stick it in the suggestion forum because right now, it's not a suggestion, just a question, and I figured more people would see it and respond here than there :) If it turns out there truly isn't a way, then on to the suggestions forum I'll go!
    Well, good luck. It's been suggested many times. Seems like it would be fairly easy to implement as well. Just a radio button and a SQL query on non-asterisk items...

    Yah this...

Categories