MyFitnessPal nutrition data different from Google?

kunalashar
kunalashar Posts: 1
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
I'm relatively new to MyFitnessPal, and up until today, I treated the food and nutrition data provided by MyFitnessPal as gospel (at least the data NOT submitted by users). But I stumbled upon puzzling - and worrisome - differences between data provided by MyFitnessPal and data provided by Google/USDA.

For example:
MyFitnessPal claims that 1 large scrambled egg contains 101 calories, 215 mg of cholesterol and 7 gm of fat.
USDA (and Google) both claim that 1 large scrambled egg contains 91 calories, 169 mg of cholesterol and 7 gm of fat.
I dug some more and found many, many such differences. I'm ignoring user-submitted data (the ones marked with a *), so it stands to reason that either the USDA or MyFitnessPal have their data wrong.This is liable to throw all users' estimates and efforts off the mark.

Which one is right?

Thanks in advance.

Replies

  • wkwebby
    wkwebby Posts: 807 Member
    Look at the egg data that has a weight associated with it. It will be way closer to the entry that says "large" as a serving size. Large eggs (classified by food industry) still have ranges of weights and sizes so it will lead to more inaccuracy than weighing your egg and going by that MFP entry.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,337 Member
    It would also have to do with the assumed method of cooking. More oil, more calories. Similarly with other additions that people make when scrambling eggs. The wiser way to log eggs is to logs the egg as an egg, then add the other things you may use for preparing it the way you like. That would be far more accurate than using an entry, even one from MFP, for "Eggs, scrambled".
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Ummmm....it's all estimates...nothing has exactly X calories. You're illustrating a mere 10 calorie difference...that is hugely insignificant.
  • WickedPineapple
    WickedPineapple Posts: 698 Member
    I was under the impression that all MFP food entries were by the users. Always check accuracy before using an entry.

    If you're having scrambled eggs, enter the eggs and whatever you add to them in separately. Everyone prepares theirs differently. I only add a splash of milk to mine and some cheese, all of which are logged as separate entries.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2014
    That's interesting, but not worrisome IMO. I wonder if there is a variation from year to year. Another source I sometimes check (Nutritiondata.com) which also sources back to the USDA is much closer to MFP, although still a couple of calories different.

    Here is some information on the sampling: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Articles/EB11_Egg.pdf

    Unless there are bigger differences than I'm seeing, I don't think you can say that someone has the numbers wrong, especially since by using a cooked value there is variation inherent in the cooking--length of time affects weight. If you want to be more precise I'd use the raw values and weigh that way (if you are cooking them in a way that makes it possible--I know most people don't weigh eggs but because I usually use them for an omelet I do).

    I just checked the raw egg values and as suspected the difference is almost (not quite) gone.
  • stlhrs
    stlhrs Posts: 67 Member
    You'll find that many entries in the database are not correct. I use the barcode scanner and find that many don't match the label. Also some entries are incomplete (don't list fiber for example).

    Possible reasons:
    1. the values/label changed since the item was added.
    2. user error in creating the entry
    3. user only cared about certain values.

    That's the problem with user-built databases. LiveStrong.com actually verifies entries. But I don't want to pay for a calorie tracker.

    I always verify the entry with the label. But that's hard to do on non-labeled items such as fresh fruit and veggies.

    As another poster mentioned, a few calories is really insignificant in the end...for most people. Since many people don't properly measure/weigh or track EVERYTHING, having a item a few calories off is probably no big deal.
  • FredDoyle
    FredDoyle Posts: 2,272 Member
    edited November 2014
    stlhrs wrote: »
    You'll find that many entries in the database are not correct. I use the barcode scanner and find that many don't match the label. Also some entries are incomplete (don't list fiber for example).

    Possible reasons:
    1. the values/label changed since the item was added.
    2. user error in creating the entry
    3. user only cared about certain values.

    That's the problem with user-built databases. LiveStrong.com actually verifies entries. But I don't want to pay for a calorie tracker.

    No. The OP clearly stated he was using the non-asterisk values which MFP imports from the USDA database.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories