Inaccurate entries from MFP's own database

Francl27
Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Has anyone else noticed that some of MFP's own entries are incorrect? They put 35 calories for 100g of raw baby carrots, for example, when it's 35 calories for 85 grams...

Maybe I should just stick to my usda searches from now on.

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,261 Member
    I use nutritiondata for that kind of info. Any data base that relies on persons imputing their own data will never be very accurate.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    I use nutritiondata for that kind of info. Any data base that relies on persons imputing their own data will never be very accurate.

    It's the MFP's own entries I'm talking about, the ones without asterisks.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    The non-asterisk MFP entry for Carrots - Baby, raw is correct 35 kcal per 100g. See screen shot of USDA Food List.
    ohm74nx8vj51.jpg
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    So why do all the packages of baby carrots I've seen say it's 35 calories for 85g? This is way too confusing (and we're talking about carrots! 25% of 35 calories isn't much, but once we're talking high calorie food... it can make a difference).
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    The U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) requires rounding of Calories for servings sizes less than or equal to 50 Cals to the nearest 5 Cal increment. So, a NLEA serving of baby carrots is 85g (30 Cal) rounded to the nearest 5 Cal increment is 35 Cal.

    Reference:
    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm114098.htm#ATTACHMENT_7
  • NinjaJinja
    NinjaJinja Posts: 147 Member
    Wow, that is wildly inaccurate for low calorie foods, then. But the math checks out. Thank you for such an informative answer, CyberTone! I learned something today.
  • DiamondDiva914
    DiamondDiva914 Posts: 50 Member
    Whenever I can, I scan the bar code. It's just easier for me.
  • cstevenson86
    cstevenson86 Posts: 158 Member
    I try to stick to eating things I scan and eating at restaurants where the nutritional value is listed right in the menu. I don't like the guessing game either. Especially with homemade meals. I much prefer to scan a barcode...it works out way better for me!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ljashley1952
    ljashley1952 Posts: 275 Member
    Yes, some things are very inaccurate. I had a coffee creamer logging almost three times what the bottle said was in it, calaorie-wise. Also one day the fat tracker wasn't working. I logged my meals and got zeroes in the fat column all day. I know better than that. That's just wishful thinking.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    You can make your own entries, if you want to do that. It takes a little time, at first, entering all the things you regularly eat, but at least you know they're accurate. :)
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    __drmerc__ wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    The U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) requires rounding of Calories for servings sizes less than or equal to 50 Cals to the nearest 5 Cal increment. So, a NLEA serving of baby carrots is 85g (30 Cal) rounded to the nearest 5 Cal increment is 35 Cal.

    Reference:
    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm114098.htm#ATTACHMENT_7

    30 rounded to the nearest 5 is 35?
    ​Note that the Guide uses the word "increment." I don't want to second-guess any company's labeling decisions, but I do know a lot of legal experts that would hone in on the word "increment" in the NLEA Guide and interpret the phrase "express to nearest 5 cal increment" as requiring their company's Nutrition Facts label to round up in all cases just to be safe from any lawsuits.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited November 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    __drmerc__ wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    __drmerc__ wrote: »
    CyberTone wrote: »
    The U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) requires rounding of Calories for servings sizes less than or equal to 50 Cals to the nearest 5 Cal increment. So, a NLEA serving of baby carrots is 85g (30 Cal) rounded to the nearest 5 Cal increment is 35 Cal.

    Reference:
    http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm114098.htm#ATTACHMENT_7

    30 rounded to the nearest 5 is 35?
    ​Note that the Guide uses the word "increment." I don't want to second-guess any company's labeling decisions, but I do know a lot of legal experts that would hone in on the word "increment" in the NLEA Guide and interpret the phrase "express to nearest 5 cal increment" as requiring their company's Nutrition Facts label to round up in all cases just to be safe from any lawsuits.

    Math comes out to less than 30 calories (29.xx)
    Rounded up would be 30

    Possibly the company tested their own product, and in their internal testing it averaged slightly more than 30 Cal per 85g serving. In that hypothetical case, the company would then express to the nearest 5 Cal increment and would then label the product as 35 Cal per 85g serving. Also, different strains of carrots (or any plants) have different macronutrients. The USDA values are based on broad averages.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    Interesting about the labeling.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2014
    Possible explanation: The USDA has carrots at 41 calories per 100 grams, and baby carrots (i.e., immature carrots) as 35 calories per 100 grams. It makes sense to me that an immature carrot might have fewer calories than a fully mature carrot, much as riper fruit has more calories, despite the fact that the baby carrots tend to taste sweeter. "Baby carrots" sold in the stores, though, are simply "baby-cut" carrots--fully grown carrots cut to the smaller and more convenient size preferred by many. Therefore, they have the same calories as regular carrots.

    Edit: MFP's non-asterisked entry for "carrots, raw" also matches up with the USDA. The only entry I've found so far where I think the non-asterisked one was wrong was for corn, and there it also matched up to the USDA. Specifically, "corn, yellow, raw" and "corn, white, raw" are both 132 calories for 100 grams, but there is also an odd entry for "corn, yellow" that is 606 calories for 100 grams. I've been curious about that one.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,261 Member
    Carrots are special snowflakes too.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories