LOGGING ACCURACY/margin of error

lulubeber
lulubeber Posts: 37
in Getting Started
Hi everyone

I've been counting calories for two months now but have only just started doing it on MFP. I'm getting used to the new settings etc. (still confused about my macro needs) and am a little distirbed by the differences with my other calorie counting website.

For example: I just logged my calories for lunch and MFP says I've eaten 35 calories less than what the other website tells me. I'm wondering: if I can end up with 100 calorie differences/day, that means a difference of almost 1000/week, which is a lot.

Does anyone take margins of error into account when logging ?

Also, MFP seems quite generous when telling you how many calories you earn when exercising... am I right ?

Replies

  • RodaRose
    RodaRose Posts: 9,562 Member
    Yes, it is very generous about how much we exercise.
    Regarding calories being accurate, some of us have noticed that the data base is not completely accurate.
    I check against other sources on the web or with the food in my hands (reading from a package at home).
    After a few weeks, this is not a big deal, because I am not eating brand new foods everyday.
    Agree about the margin of error.
  • Tilda_P
    Tilda_P Posts: 30 Member
    You eventually start to learn what kind of entries are reliable and which aren't. Comparing that against nutrition info available on packaging is one way to help alleviate that issue as well as picking good measurement tools (mass is ALWAYS superior to volume, i.e. 30g as opposed to 1/4 c.)

    Using a food scale cuts down on a lot of guesswork and avoid entries for things like "1 scoop" or "1 leg of chicken" because those are subjective based on the kind of food you buy and the tools you have in your kitchen.

    Definitely check against other sites, especially when things don't add up or seem too good to be true. If something is listed as having no fat, protein or carbs you can assume the person who entered it probably didn't take much time in really doing their logging well and it probably isn't a reliable entry.

    At the end of the day I can assure you that you will lose weight if you just this site, log your food, work out and eat right, even if it's not perfect. I wouldn't stress about it too much. I've been logging here for a while and myself and many others are making rapid progress :)
  • BernadetteChurch
    BernadetteChurch Posts: 2,210 Member
    Calorie-counting is an inexact science at the best of times. Some days you'll eat more than others and this will help to iron out any differences in calorie numbers from different sources.

    The important thing is to log everything you eat and drink and weigh and measure it as accurately as you can.
  • acpgee
    acpgee Posts: 7,995 Member
    MFP burns for some activities are way inflated. My typical workout is 65 minutes on the elliptical with a target heart rate of 140. My Polar FT4 HRM says I burn around 500, the machine itself says 750 and MFP database says 882. On the other hand, the MFP entry for walking at a moderate pace of 298 sounds reasonable to me.
  • lulubeber
    lulubeber Posts: 37
    Ok thanks everyone ! I always weigh my food, and do have trouble logging sometimes when MFP only offers volume and not wieght, but I guess once I have entered everything once it'll be easier to enter again, since all items will be saved. As someone said above: you don't really discover new food all the time and end up logging more or less the same kind of stuff (this is true on the long term anyway)

    I think I'm not really going to bother logging exercise and eating back food calories: I'm just going to aim for my daily 1380 calories on non-exercise days and maybe 200 more on days I work out (I never do cardio so never burn 500 in one go). As long as I'm above BMR and somewhere around 300-500 under maintenance I'm ok.
    Is this "technique" ok ?

    I just want to lose the last 6 pounds and I know it's not going to happen over night so I have to make do with losing slowly :)

    have a lovely day !
  • BernadetteChurch
    BernadetteChurch Posts: 2,210 Member
    When you're looking for food in the database, for basics like fruit, veg and meat go with the entries that don't have an asterisk next to them. These ones are MFP-entered so should be more accurate, plus they usually have calories by weight as well as volume.

    Your approach sounds reasonable to me. And you're smart enough to know that it won't happen overnight!
  • amberj32
    amberj32 Posts: 663 Member
    Also the entries with "usda" are good to use. They are by weight.

Categories