lol, mfp calorie count is so off...

Options
StrongAsFuarkBear
StrongAsFuarkBear Posts: 95 Member
edited June 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
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
«134

Replies

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    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.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    Ok.
  • Glinda1971
    Glinda1971 Posts: 2,328 Member
    Options
    Raw chicken breast is 110 calories per 100 grams.

    Cooked is 164 grams.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    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=
  • Anna83704
    Anna83704 Posts: 37 Member
    Options
    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=

    +1
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Options
    @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
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    Options
    MFP database is off? Shocked!

    60zqj18568ui.png
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    Options
    OdesAngel wrote: »
    Ok.

    ikr
  • triciab79
    triciab79 Posts: 1,713 Member
    Options
    Chicken can be hard to estimate anyway. They pump water into the chicken to make it weigh more when you purchase it.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    blankiefinder wrote: »
    MFP database is off? Shocked!

    60zqj18568ui.png

    That will never not be funny.

  • stargirl85
    stargirl85 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    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 brands
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    Options
    draznyth wrote: »
    @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?
  • stargirl85
    stargirl85 Posts: 50 Member
    Options
    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/issue
  • FitForL1fe
    FitForL1fe Posts: 1,872 Member
    edited June 2015
    Options
    besaro wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    @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.
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    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).
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Options
    besaro wrote: »
    draznyth wrote: »
    @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.

Categories