Discouraged in reporting of foods being accurate from MFP verses a couple other nutrition sites. :(
shadesofidaho
Posts: 485 Member
I know it has been mentioned many times how to keep checking your food macros recorded here on MPF because of user entries allowed and changes made. I checked a few things this morning and found many discrepancies. Not is a good way. Feeling so disappointed because I think my recording with weighing everything and reporting accurately on my end has been lost to the not reporting accurately from the MPF end.
I am going to start using another site to check food entries. There is too much of a difference for me to feel confident in my tracking. I am NOT knocking MPF in any way. I understand this is not some thing totally in the control of this site. I just decided for me I can not trust the food entries values. I might just go back to paper like I did it years before and see how I do. I certainly would not spend so much time sitting on my butt recording all this stuff.
So disappointed and feeling very down right now. I feel like I have lost three months beating my head against the wall. Not giving up just changing my ways.
I am going to start using another site to check food entries. There is too much of a difference for me to feel confident in my tracking. I am NOT knocking MPF in any way. I understand this is not some thing totally in the control of this site. I just decided for me I can not trust the food entries values. I might just go back to paper like I did it years before and see how I do. I certainly would not spend so much time sitting on my butt recording all this stuff.
So disappointed and feeling very down right now. I feel like I have lost three months beating my head against the wall. Not giving up just changing my ways.
0
Replies
-
Oh Shades!!! Were the items you checked all inaccurate in the same direction? As in 'all understated' or 'all overstated'?
I've just been hopeful that the variations even themselves out over the course of a day or a week. I'm so sorry you're feeling jaded with it. I did log one day on another site but it took so long to find foods, and there were no Australian brands on it that I could find so that option was worse for me.0 -
Some tips for those still tracking here to remember:
1. Look for the entries without an asterisk ( * ) next to them and use them as often as possible. These are non-other-user entered entries (I think the search will show you your own recipes/foods now, too). For whole foods, these will be USDA ones, so they should be accurate.
2. Look for entries with several up votes. These are more likely to be accurate, as others have verified them. (Caveat -- keep in mind that not everyone is from your country, and processed foods often have different recipes for different countries, especially for US vs everyone else.)
3. Cross-check with the nutrition label in your hand (if the food in question has a label), up-vote if correct, or correct it if not.
4. Use the items from your recent/frequent tab, or copy from previous dates, as much as possible. This will save you having to repeat 1-3 as much. Most of us eat largely the same things (especially over the course of several weeks or months), so this should be pretty easy to do for most foods.
5. If you use the mobile app, use the barcode scan feature as much as possible, especially for brand-name packaged foods. This helps ensure (or make more likely) a correct match between the database and what you're eating.0 -
Do you use a scanner? That's how i log all my foods. I don't fully trust MFP with it's nutritional values and if i have doubts i check on USDA website for more info. Yeah, like there is potassium in coffee and other stuff which is completely missing from MFP foods.0
-
Ive always checked the nutrition facts on the package when I eat something new, then find one in the database that matches that. A lot of the ones in the database are outdated, incomplete, or just wrong because anyone can add foods to the database. When I use the same things over again, its in my history and I know its the one Ive already checked.
0 -
shadesofidaho wrote: »I know it has been mentioned many times how to keep checking your food macros recorded here on MPF because of user entries allowed and changes made. I checked a few things this morning and found many discrepancies. Not is a good way. Feeling so disappointed because I think my recording with weighing everything and reporting accurately on my end has been lost to the not reporting accurately from the MPF end.
I am going to start using another site to check food entries. There is too much of a difference for me to feel confident in my tracking. I am NOT knocking MPF in any way. I understand this is not some thing totally in the control of this site. I just decided for me I can not trust the food entries values. I might just go back to paper like I did it years before and see how I do. I certainly would not spend so much time sitting on my butt recording all this stuff.
So disappointed and feeling very down right now. I feel like I have lost three months beating my head against the wall. Not giving up just changing my ways.
Sorry! It is frustrating. Good tips given above but you haven't lost three months...you've been working on improving your WOE, the tracking is unfortunate but your underlying WOE must have improved. Chin up gal!0 -
Very good tips Dragonwolf. I will try to deal with it and I always tried to look for the asterisk, to avoid it, but so many foods are marked with it now it is hard to find one that is not. Very few things I eat come in a package other than meat and HWC , and we know that package amounts are wrong on the HWC. When I have time I will list the foods I eat and get them to my foods lists. I will have to delete everything else and start over. CRAP. Compounding the problem daily just adds to the mess. I do not have the time or energy to fight this.
I do not have a cell phone that does all of that. We have a cell that makes calls in emergency for 10 cents a minute. I am not one to pack a stupid phone around with me. When I am doing some thing away from the home phone I do not want to be bothered I rarely answer my home phone. I let the machine get it. If it is important I call back when I am ready to do so.
@Granny I will track a few more foods and see if there is a trend up or down. It has gone both ways in all categories.
This is more of a big warning to check the food macros given because no matter how careful you are on your weights and measures on your end if the other reporting end is off it is all a waste. Heading out in the yard to play in the dirt. Hoping this will make me feel better. Right now I just feel like I have been gut kicked.0 -
Perhaps you are being too picky about this. Actual macros for foods depend on where it was grown or how it was fed, chemicals used, shipping, how long in storage. Unless you have a laboratory in your house and the equipment to test for the macros, there is no way to be 100% accurate. For packaged/prepared foods, the food manufacturers change their recipes or suppliers and the info changes.0
-
Calories in general are all estimates. None of the numbers are perfect. Your body doesn't burn exactly the same number of calories every day. The readings taken from a calorimeter, while very close, are not perfect and can change with where and how a food was grown, raised, and processed. The point in counting and measuring is to make sure you are in a deficit (if trying to lose weight). It keeps people honest and accountable. The numbers are meant as a guide, not a end all be all. Have you been losing weight and/or inches? Do you feel better mentally and physically? Those would be the indicators.0
-
Maybe I have used the wrong word in macros. I buy plain chicken Thigh skin on bone in roasted, and the amounts were wrong. Just as one item. Even coffee black was not right. Going to have to think on all of this and probably go back to keeping my own record like in the old days. Just proves again you can not believe all you read on the internet. Back to work.
0 -
I think the gist of what @shadesofidaho is going for here is that we do the absolutely best we can on our own ends for margin of error, realizing that there's always a margin, because we are in fact human. But when we trust a database within reason, only to find out information we rely on for health and survival (for many of us, this way of life is a necessity, not really a choice) was fatally flawed, usually by someone fudging their own numbers, or what-have-you, it makes us begin to question everything. Trying to keep from adding up more "margin of error" points, and then finding out something was twice what someone said it was - or that that person chose not to track carbs and zeroed it out!
There should honestly be an option on the search to leave out "user added" selections, and only give us the USDA information... Click on USDA Selections, and my own foods, only please.... And since the data is all there, and the asterisks are generated from somewhere, the coding is there to sort and separate data - they just haven't done it. Some of us want those other choices on occasion, but I think if it is user entered, it should show a recipe or modifications from the USDA choices...0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »I think the gist of what @shadesofidaho is going for here is that we do the absolutely best we can on our own ends for margin of error, realizing that there's always a margin, because we are in fact human. But when we trust a database within reason, only to find out information we rely on for health and survival (for many of us, this way of life is a necessity, not really a choice) was fatally flawed, usually by someone fudging their own numbers, or what-have-you, it makes us begin to question everything. Trying to keep from adding up more "margin of error" points, and then finding out something was twice what someone said it was - or that that person chose not to track carbs and zeroed it out!
There should honestly be an option on the search to leave out "user added" selections, and only give us the USDA information... Click on USDA Selections, and my own foods, only please.... And since the data is all there, and the asterisks are generated from somewhere, the coding is there to sort and separate data - they just haven't done it. Some of us want those other choices on occasion, but I think if it is user entered, it should show a recipe or modifications from the USDA choices...
Thank you Knit. this is exactly what I am trying to say. I am just not good with words. The kitties understand me well enough. After 30 years my hubby can read my mind. Sorry if this came across wrong.
0 -
My only consultation is the CICO people are also getting screwed on their amounts.0
-
shadesofidaho wrote: »My only consultation is the CICO people are also getting screwed on their amounts.
LMFAO - karmic justice?0 -
I use this when I calculate my stuff, has been working pretty good so far.
ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods0 -
This is what I do as well. I also will update incorrect entries then use the one I saved next time. Takes a bit more work when you first enter a food but as Dragonwolf says most of us eat the same foods often, so once you've used it once it is easy to reenter.Ive always checked the nutrition facts on the package when I eat something new, then find one in the database that matches that. A lot of the ones in the database are outdated, incomplete, or just wrong because anyone can add foods to the database. When I use the same things over again, its in my history and I know its the one Ive already checked.
0 -
@Knit. LOL
@Vanhavely This is the one I found too and now I am better used to using it and set up my own Excel it is fairly smooth to use. Thank you.
@LunaKate I am not even sure how to make the corrections. I scrolled through so many yesterday trying to find the non user added. I can copy paste my common used items in my Excel too. I a going to work on it this way for awhile and just add the final # in my foods. See how it goes.
@Mistizoom It is so true I fall into the same foods so much of the time. Keels life simple. Thanks.0 -
You can look at the food breakdowns in the database mode before you add them to your diary. I use this if I am adding a new food to my diary. It helps to also double check against another online nutritional information database also.0
-
@Sajyana I do not know how to look at the food break downs before adding them. I am going to give this up. It is too depressing. I will do it in Excel and use the USDA and call it good. It takes me much less time to do it in Excel. Also might be why I am stalling out so badly for so long.0
-
shadesofidaho wrote: »@Sajyana I do not know how to look at the food break downs before adding them. I am going to give this up. It is too depressing. I will do it in Excel and use the USDA and call it good. It takes me much less time to do it in Excel. Also might be why I am stalling out so badly for so long.
That's cool. Whatever works for you is the way to go.0 -
I agree with a lot of what Dragonwolf says. As a UK user, MFP can be a pain because so many database entries are American and the nutritional values are different. I have to be very careful to check the carb values of the entry I'm using. Once I'm happy that it's accurate it goes into the favourites list, or I save it as a meal to use frequently. I also look for supermarket names in entries as a UK name generally means UK values.0
-
I find with ANY value I have to look and take an educated guess whether it is right before logging. I know some entries are off on potassium for example, so I find one closer to what I know is right.0
-
DissLocated wrote: »I agree with a lot of what Dragonwolf says. As a UK user, MFP can be a pain because so many database entries are American and the nutritional values are different. I have to be very careful to check the carb values of the entry I'm using. Once I'm happy that it's accurate it goes into the favourites list, or I save it as a meal to use frequently. I also look for supermarket names in entries as a UK name generally means UK values.
That's what I do too! I preface most things I can't scan a barcode for with either asda or tesco. Then save in favs. A lot of entries to the data base by the cico lot don't even bother adding carbs, or anything apart from calories.0 -
DissLocated wrote: »I agree with a lot of what Dragonwolf says. As a UK user, MFP can be a pain because so many database entries are American and the nutritional values are different. I have to be very careful to check the carb values of the entry I'm using. Once I'm happy that it's accurate it goes into the favourites list, or I save it as a meal to use frequently. I also look for supermarket names in entries as a UK name generally means UK values.
I'm in the UK too and do exactly the same. What I can't believe is the variation in carbs given in different entries for avocados...made me avoid them for a long time when actually they are great for lchf. I now use the Sainsbury avocado entry!
Don't be too downcast @shadesofidaho ... I do believe even when one is being as accurate as possible, it's still all so dependent on other factors that it's hard to know what will dependably produce results. Big electronic hugs.
0 -
Glad I'm not the only one! I've had a few incidents of selecting the wrong avocado option and nearly fainting at the state of my macros!
0 -
@shadesofidaho black coffee and plain chicken thighs were wrong?? :-/
Can you link to those entries? Maybe we can all then help and click "no" on the "Is this data accurate?" button, to help future users.0 -
Give me a few minutes and I will open my foods to public.
Here is the USDA on Coffee Black 8 oz and MFP is on my foods. ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4287?manu=&fgcd=
Chicken thigh roasted skin on 100g USDA. http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/894?manu=&fgcd=
I added two versions of Chicken thigh. Raw and Roasted. How can a Roasted thigh and skin be twice the calories of RAW?
Some of the differences are slight. I am not totally nit picky but this is important to me and I do not feel comfortable nor do I have the time to keep picking through each entry to see which one is the right one. Too much fiddling around. I am not sure I can trust the USDA site either. When we are trying to hit our macros as close as possibel a slight error on items over a full day can add up.
Some say check the foods against others before logging them but I have not found a way to do this. I was spending too much time sitting here logging when I could be up and moving doing some thing. For me checking one data base makes more sense than trying to figure out what entry is the right one here.0 -
Those numbers between the 2 sites look right in line with each other to me.
re: the raw vs. cooked question, that is why I always recommend weighing and measuring raw, dry, uncooked, etc. The water loss (or gain, in the case of something like rice) from cooking can be quite dramatic.
>I do not feel comfortable nor do I have the time to keep picking through each entry to see which one is the right one
Ya, this is where eating relatively consistently can make things a lot easier, especially since MFP remembers your recent and frequent foods.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Some tips for those still tracking here to remember:
1. Look for the entries without an asterisk ( * ) next to them and use them as often as possible. These are non-other-user entered entries (I think the search will show you your own recipes/foods now, too). For whole foods, these will be USDA ones, so they should be accurate.
2. Look for entries with several up votes. These are more likely to be accurate, as others have verified them. (Caveat -- keep in mind that not everyone is from your country, and processed foods often have different recipes for different countries, especially for US vs everyone else.)
3. Cross-check with the nutrition label in your hand (if the food in question has a label), up-vote if correct, or correct it if not.
4. Use the items from your recent/frequent tab, or copy from previous dates, as much as possible. This will save you having to repeat 1-3 as much. Most of us eat largely the same things (especially over the course of several weeks or months), so this should be pretty easy to do for most foods.
5. If you use the mobile app, use the barcode scan feature as much as possible, especially for brand-name packaged foods. This helps ensure (or make more likely) a correct match between the database and what you're eating.
This is pretty much exactly what I do.
And if you think macros can be off, the exercise #s are often WAY off (the running #s are pretty close, but the cycling ones are crazy off. I think they assume everyone is pedaling a 40# knobby-tired bike). Short of using a HRM (which doesn't really work for me, because boobs + underwire sports bras) I generally log an underestimated calorie burn to make up for any foods that have any underestimated calorie estimates. I figure it all equals-out in the end.0 -
shadesofidaho wrote: »
I added two versions of Chicken thigh. Raw and Roasted. How can a Roasted thigh and skin be twice the calories of RAW?
Could it be that they're including the fat the thigh was roasted in? But that doesn't explain the other entries that are off, even if it explains that one.
0 -
Granny it could not explain a RAW skin on thigh being 120 calories verses ROASTED skin on thigh being 247. HOW can all the water and fat in a RAW thigh be half the calories of a roasted thigh. It should be the opposite.
I am not going to fuss with this any more. Already spent too much time and emotional energy on it. If I enter the wrong item and it is in my foods here then I continue to enter the wrong item over and over. I would rather have that error on my end verses taking some one else word for it.
I entered my breakfast starting from scratch this AM in Excel and it took me less than a minute to do so. I feel comfortable with what I have entered. Years ago when I did Atkins I kept my foods logged on paper and it worked for me. Excel will do the same now.
Thanks for the thoughts.0
This discussion has been closed.