lol, mfp calorie count is so off...
StrongAsFuarkBear
Posts: 95 Member
no wonder people get stuck on "thyroid issues" here so often,
the calorie and portioning is so off....
Chicken breast- VERIFIED!!!! shows 110cal/100gram of chicken, not only that, but default option that comes up is (1/2 cup diced/minced), lol @ fingers dicing chicken on cutting board. unbeliveable. go by the USDA values at least for SUCH A BASIC item.
edit: real chicken has 164 calories/100gram , skinless, boneless
the calorie and portioning is so off....
Chicken breast- VERIFIED!!!! shows 110cal/100gram of chicken, not only that, but default option that comes up is (1/2 cup diced/minced), lol @ fingers dicing chicken on cutting board. unbeliveable. go by the USDA values at least for SUCH A BASIC item.
edit: real chicken has 164 calories/100gram , skinless, boneless
0
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
StrongAsFuarkBear wrote: »no wonder people get stuck on "thyroid issues" here so often,
the calorie and portioning is so off....
Chicken breast- VERIFIED!!!! shows 110cal/100gram of chicken, not only that, but default option that comes up is (1/2 cup diced/minced), lol @ fingers dicing chicken on cutting board. unbeliveable. go by the USDA values at least for SUCH A BASIC item.
edit: real chicken has 164 calories/100gram , skinless, boneless
That's funny because USDA entries say it's 120 calories for 100g.
But yeah, MFP values are off for some things, like baby carrots... they're off by 6 calories for 100g (which isn't a huge deal, but yeah, it makes you wonder about other things).
And when I weighed my own rice I realized that the values for cooked rice were off by 30% as well.0 -
Ok.0
-
Raw chicken breast is 110 calories per 100 grams.
Cooked is 164 grams.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
What does that have to do with thyroid issues?
And you and MFP are both wrong.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/861?manu=&fgcd=0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »What does that have to do with thyroid issues?
And you and MFP are both wrong.
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/861?manu=&fgcd=
+10 -
You have to learn to identify good MFP entries (or double check with the USDA). And everything is subject to variation and raw values are usually more reliable than cooked (although I use cooked entries quite frequently, because I like to cook lots of things bone-in or sometimes divvy it up after it's cooked.
I think the baby carrot thing is because the packaged ones aren't really baby carrots. They are baby cut carrots and use the mature carrot numbers. (But it's also true that if you compare the USDA numbers for everything year to year they vary. So MFP's numbers from USDA can be different from current USDA. It shouldn't be a significant difference.) User-input, who knows, can be bizarre.
My biggest pet peeve currently is that the MFP entries seem not to have all the good measurements anymore. I keep finding new "verified" entries for "raspberries-raw" or some such that lack 100 gram options. Luckily most of these are in my frequent foods anyway, but it's annoying.0 -
@StrongAsFuarkBear uh yes most of us know the database has a ton of garbage entries
it is up to you to hit the "Nutrition Info" button on a selected entry and verify the stats, or create your own entry if you cannot find an accurate one
maybe spend less time expecting MFP to do all the work for you and put in some of your own time to verify what you put into your body0 -
-
-
Chicken can be hard to estimate anyway. They pump water into the chicken to make it weigh more when you purchase it.0
-
0
-
Interesting. I was told chicken breast on here was well over 200cals but then again I think I am a rare breed on the board not weighing my food!
Also you all refer to usda but not all of us live in u.s so might be different again depending on you live and what your country's equivalent says.
I sometimes have to scroll through a load of things or use/estimate some u.s equivalent because many of the entries are from u.s food stores and brands0 -
@StrongAsFuarkBear uh yes most of us know the database has a ton of garbage entries
it is up to you to hit the "Nutrition Info" button on a selected entry and verify the stats, or create your own entry if you cannot find an accurate one
maybe spend less time expecting MFP to do all the work for you and put in some of your own time to verify what you put into your body
wow, D*#& much?
0 -
Someone asked what it had to do with thyroid. Well nothing really. I think they meant some people were putting lack of weight loss due to thyroid problems because they didn't know why they weren't losing weight. Although some of it might not be due to thyroid some of it probably is... So a bit of a controversial comment/issue0
-
@StrongAsFuarkBear uh yes most of us know the database has a ton of garbage entries
it is up to you to hit the "Nutrition Info" button on a selected entry and verify the stats, or create your own entry if you cannot find an accurate one
maybe spend less time expecting MFP to do all the work for you and put in some of your own time to verify what you put into your body
wow, D*#& much?
Maybe so?
Expecting everything to be done perfectly for you, without doing any verification or work on your own, then coming on the forums to complain about it...and I'm the "D*#&". Thanks for that; you seem lovely.0 -
Glinda1971 wrote: »Raw chicken breast is 110 calories per 100 grams.
Cooked is 164 grams.
Well that's the thing too. The USDA entry is for roasted chicken breast, fat and all. The chicken breast I buy is trimmed and on the package it says that it's 110 calories for 84g cooked.
Honestly logging meat is that one thing that makes logging a pain in the ***. Don't even get me started on trying to estimate how much fat is left on your steak to find the proper entry (assuming you even know what exact piece of the beef it is from).0 -
@StrongAsFuarkBear uh yes most of us know the database has a ton of garbage entries
it is up to you to hit the "Nutrition Info" button on a selected entry and verify the stats, or create your own entry if you cannot find an accurate one
maybe spend less time expecting MFP to do all the work for you and put in some of your own time to verify what you put into your body
wow, D*#& much?
Wow, wk much? Yet the OP was mocking people with thyroid issues.
Lol, just lol.0 -
-
Glinda1971 wrote: »Raw chicken breast is 110 calories per 100 grams.
Cooked is 164 grams.
I meant 164 calories. Obviously not foruming well today.0 -
Put in the actual brand instead of relying on a generic entry? Saves at least half the trouble. If there isn't a brand because you bought it at a farmer's market or something, then check the stats before you pick. You should do that on an entry you haven't used before anyway.0
-
They need a "IT'S SO WRONG IT'S STUPID" button.0
-
-
@StrongAsFuarkBear uh yes most of us know the database has a ton of garbage entries
it is up to you to hit the "Nutrition Info" button on a selected entry and verify the stats, or create your own entry if you cannot find an accurate one
maybe spend less time expecting MFP to do all the work for you and put in some of your own time to verify what you put into your body
wow, D*#& much?
Wow, wk much? Yet the OP was mocking people with thyroid issues.
Lol, just lol.
I don't think OP was mocking thyroid issues. I think OP was saying that maybe the reason people often think thyroid issues are responsible for lack of weight loss is that they are eating more than they think because the database is wrong. Probably not the best way to make a point, but I don't think it was mocking.
0 -
Let's see, I've made note to MFP since 2013 about the garbage entries and the DB and relatively simple ways they could improve it. I've worked with databases at the SQL level before so I do have a concept of things that would be easy or complex to implement. Simple filters to help users surface better entries, etc.
The only change (except for the continued accumulation of garbage/entropy in the DB) has been this "verified" flag, which appears to have been bungled.
*sigh*0 -
I wonder if NO is hit a number of times the entry is removed? ex. no is hit 10times they remove the entry.
otherwise what is the point of NO.0 -
Let's see, I've made note to MFP since 2013 about the garbage entries and the DB and relatively simple ways they could improve it. I've worked with databases at the SQL level before so I do have a concept of things that would be easy or complex to implement. Simple filters to help users surface better entries, etc.
The only change (except for the continued accumulation of garbage/entropy in the DB) has been this "verified" flag, which appears to have been bungled.
*sigh*
lol yeah there is an API request page for developers who want to make apps which work with the MFP database
but uhh I get paid to do *kitten* like this already so idk I'm just going to keep using my Recent list, create my own entries, and verify/downvote the *kitten* ones I see
maybe we could start a group and get some devs in there to pull the API and work on something simple-ish together0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions