The most common mistakes using MFP and how to avoid them
GeertH
Posts: 18 Member
Right. I've had it up to here with having to correct 9/10 of the database entries I'm using on MyFitnessPal, where the 1/10 correct ones are either USDA values or something I've used (and corrected) before or entered myself. So I'm going to post this EVERYWHERE I think the most MFP users might see it in the desperate hope of providing a bit of education and maybe work towards a slightly less messy database. Take a deep breath, we're diving into MFP best practices and general tips for users, new and old alike.
Making and correcting entries
General considerations
Where possible, utilize grams. Metric units are easier for conversions and calculating serving sizes. Furthermore, MFP lists nutrients in grams and milligrams, so basing yourself on grams just gives an overall better picture of what you're getting.
If the values for a certain nutrient are unknown, leave it blank. I see people filling these in with 0's, but the message you're sending is different. If a food lists fats and tells you how many of those are saturated, that doesn't tell you how many are poly- and monounsaturated. Stating these are 0 is probably incorrect. Leaving the fields blank says "I don't know".
Go with the information on a food label if there is any. Even for whole foods, where generic entries may be found, it pays to use specific values for a specific product of a brand if these are listed on the packaging. If information is lacking, sometimes a brand's website can provide it. Don't go taking values out of other user-submitted entries on other sites and applications such as FatSecret, because these are just as vulnerable to incorrect information. This would only make things worse, because now people see these values in multiple places and assume they must be correct. For whole foods such as fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and more, use information from well-estabished databases such as the USDA. An excellent reference database is that of http://nutritiondata.self.com/, which provides info for various serving sizes, always including 100 grams (see further) and plenty of other info such as micronutrients.
Finally, note that sometimes for the same brand and product, values can be different per country based on local production or legislation. If so, it may be best to make a separate entry with the country mentioned after the brand name or product name.
Serving size & servings per container
If possible, provide a serving size of 100 grams. This is the easiest to work with. If a different unit is used, always prefer weight units. I see things such as "1 cup". This is simply not accurate. For a liquid it is hard to measure exactly one cup, since it may be filled until the surface is slightly above the cup edge or right below. For flour, 1 cup can be very different depending on how finely it was milled and how densely you pack the cup. This can make for a difference of up to serveral dozens of kilocalories, which may not seem much but adds up over the days and weeks. Serving sizes of "1 slice" for things like bread are completely useless because there can be too much variation. There's no proper standards there, and even if there were it is unlikely a user cared to find out. If they did, they'd have bothered to use weight. If a serving size is given on a label using a different measure (for example, 125 grams) it's still better to do the conversion for each nutrient and list the 100 gram values. You just multiply everything by 100 g/x g where x is the listed serving in grams. So if for example values are given for 125 grams, just divide everything by 1.25. Your computer's calculator app is your friend. I'll state the reason for this below.
Servings per container can be given as stated on the container, but I'd suggest just keeping this at 1. You may find a pasta sauce that comes in containers of 250 grams and 500 grams. If someone can't figure out that 250 grams is 2.5 servings of 100 grams they are beyond your help anyway. Besides, these aren't always accurate. I frequently buy jars of 500 grams of yoghurt but when measuring I manage to scrape out at most 490 grams because some always stays behind in the container and some water content may have evaporated. When getting oven baguettes I've found that they list the weight for one as 125 grams but in practice they end up weighing a little more. A company would rather give you a bit too much than risk getting sued for not providing what they sell. So don't just go by what's on the packaging, weigh your food. This is the reason why providing values for 100 grams is preferable, because it lets you state the measured serving yourself without too much math involved.
Calories
These are kilocalories. The biggest mistake here is people stating a certain serving size, but then using the kilocalorie value from a different serving size. For example, they state serving size is 100 grams (good) but then mistakenly read the kilocalorie value on a label that gives it for, say, 70 grams (bad, you've now underestimated your calorie intake). Another thing to look out for is kilojoules. Some labels state values in both kilocalories and kilojoules. Don't mix these up. If a label provides only kilojoules (yes, I've had this happen) multiply that value by 0.239 to get the kilocalorie value.
Fats
What you'll usually find on a label is "fats" and then "of which saturated". If no information is provided regarding exactly how much is poly- and monounsaturated, or trans fats, don't fill in anything for those fields. Stick to fats (most important) and saturated (may be important for some people), only providing the other types if they are properly listed.
Cholesterol
Pay attention to the fact that this field is listed in milligrams. Since there's no distinction between various types of cholesterol, and the relation between dietary and blood cholesterol has come under scrutiny, I'll admit I usually don't pay much attention to this field.
Sodium
Important note: one of the most common sources of mistakes
Sodium is a chemical element with chemical notation Na (from "natrium"). Salt is a molecule consisting of a sodium cation (Na+) and chloride anion (Cl-). Its chemical notation is NaCl. The sodium cation makes up about 40% of the molecular weight. This is not exact but close enough for all practical purposes.
Sodium and salt are not synonyms. Salt will often be the main source of sodium in food, but it is not always the only source. What you're supposed to provide in MFP is the sodium content. Whether a label lists sodium or salt varies, and what it is obliged to list can depend on jurisdiction. It can be different in various countries.
If a label lists sodium content, use that. If a label lists only salt content, multiply it with 0.4 to get sodium content. Note that if sodium content is listed, you'll know exactly how much sodium is in there, but if salt is listed you've only got a lower limit for the sodium. There could be other sources of sodium than the salt. But if it's all you have to go on, then it's better than nothing. Again and again I see entries where the salt content on the label is listed as sodium, which will give a gross overestimate. I'll repeat, sodium is 40% of salt.
Also keep in mind that sodium is listed in milligrams, not grams. So if you are given sodium content in grams, multiply by 1000 to get the the milligrams. If you get salt content in grams, multiply by 400 to get sodium in milligrams (this is effectively x 1000 x 0.4). I've seen people just literally copying what's on a label. So a label stated "1.9 grams salt" and they put 1.9 in the sodium field, meaning they failed to both convert to milligrams AND realize sodium and salt aren't the same thing.
I'll give an example: if the label says 1.9 grams salt, that means it has 1900 milligrams of salt, and that in turn means you get 0.4 x 1900 milligrams of sodium, = 760 mg. THAT is what goes into the field in your MFP entry.
Sodium intake is important for some people so pay attention to getting this right for their sake.
Carbs
Important note: one of the most common sources of mistakes
Carbs consist of sugars, fiber and starches, amongst possibly some other things. You'll usually find entries for total carbs, sugars and fiber on a food label. Now here's one of the main sources of confusion: this is different in the US and Europe (and around the world). A US label would look like this (apologies for ugly nested lists but I don't see another way of doing indentation):
A label in Europe (or at least in Belgium, where I live) would look like this:
There is a subtle but important difference. In the US, fiber is counted towards the total carbohydrates. In Europe, total carbs are typically listed without the fiber, and fiber is listed separately instead. MyFitnessPal uses the US standard. So if you're outside of the US, interpret the label correctly. This means you'd have to add the fiber content to the total carbs. Here's an example of what you may see on a European label:
This means there's 10 grams of carbs consisting of (5 grams of) sugar and probably some starches, and on top of that there's 3 grams of fiber. In MFP your entry now needs to look like this:
If you see some entry where the sugars and fiber add up to more than the total carbs, that's a red flag. This is something I have to fix on pretty much 95% of all entries I find and, along with the sodium, is the most common mistake. This is important for people on low-carb or keto diets. Dietary fiber doesn't (or only partially) count towards their carb intake. So they'd look at their total carbs per day and then subtract the fiber. If the fiber wasn't accounted for in total carbs to begin with, they're getting less carbs than necessary. Not so nice when you're already seriously carb restricted and you believe you're still eating too much of them.
Protein
For this, the general considerations just apply. I don't tend to see as much mistakes with this as with sodium and carbs or calories and serving sizes.
Micronutrients
There are given in MFP as a percentage of daily recommended intake. But note that confusion may arise here. For some things there's a daily recommendation, while for others there's a daily allowance that you should try not to go over. Don't mistake one for the other. Also, this is different for women, men, adults and children, and can depend on body mass. I usually leave these blank unless they're precisely stated on a label. For whole foods you can consult the aforementioned Nutritiondata. Mind that some labels are sneaky (for example, some fortified breakfast cereals) and will give values for a certain weight for one thing and then values for a serving size for another (with milk included sometimes for cereals).
Correct use
So how can you use MFP correctly given the above? First of all, if you notice incorrect entries, correct them. You're doing yourself and others a favor. Use the comment field to specify what you've changed and why. I've got a couple of very typical lines. For example: "Adjusted sodium content, salt content was given." "Added fiber to total carbs." If there's an entry that can be corrected, prefer correcting that instead of making a new one yourself. This would only make it more confusing and harder for people to find accurate entries.
If adding a new food to the database, share it with other members. The checkbox is off by default. If you follow the above guidelines and make complete, accurate entries, they are an asset to the database and community. Choose names that are as complete as possible. Say you have a brand and they provide carrots, specify if they're frozen or not, and if they're whole or sliced. Try to go with exactly what's on the packaging but don't be afraid to add some qualifiers yourself, it'll help people search.
Weigh everything. Weight listed on packages isn't always entirely accurate. Get a kitchen scale. A digital one with at least 1 gram resolution is preferable. It doesn't have to be very expensive, just invest in something that looks durable and is accurate enough. A flat scale without a bowl is best. A bowl may seem useful but some larger foodstuffs can be inconvenient to weigh with it. If you want to put the food in a container, you can first place it on the scale, then tare the weight so it reads 0 and then add the food to get the net value. Most digital scales let you do this easily, which makes them more convenient than analog ones (which can also be hard to read with enough precision).
Should you weigh foods raw or cooked? This is a difficult one. Raw is usually best; it's less hassle to weigh something before you've cooked it (and want to start eating it) and it will usually be more accurate. Entries for cooked foods may be different from what you have depending on how long it has been cooked and how much fat and moisture has come out of it. Take a chicken for example: when roasting, water will evaporate and fat drippings will come out. The very same chicken may end up quite differently depending on how long it has been roasted and how moist or dry the meat has become. A tactic could be to use entries for raw poultry, weigh it raw, then after eating weigh the bones to find out how much net raw chicken you've consumed. But even there you'll find some variation, because the bones will have lost some weight depending on cooking time. When weighing raw it can in this way sometimes be easy to slightly overestimate calories. If you are trying to lose weight, overestimates are better than underestimates. When trying to gain weight, it's the other way around. If you're on a serious bulk all that fat that's dripped out of your chicken or bacon and that you may have counted in your raw entry would be lost, so, eh... drink it, or use it in soup stock or (for bacon) use it as lard.
This concludes my advice on the use of MyFitnessPal which is based on more than a year of diligent tracking, studying many sources regarding nutrition and trying to be as accurate in correcting and making entries as possible.
Making and correcting entries
General considerations
Where possible, utilize grams. Metric units are easier for conversions and calculating serving sizes. Furthermore, MFP lists nutrients in grams and milligrams, so basing yourself on grams just gives an overall better picture of what you're getting.
If the values for a certain nutrient are unknown, leave it blank. I see people filling these in with 0's, but the message you're sending is different. If a food lists fats and tells you how many of those are saturated, that doesn't tell you how many are poly- and monounsaturated. Stating these are 0 is probably incorrect. Leaving the fields blank says "I don't know".
Go with the information on a food label if there is any. Even for whole foods, where generic entries may be found, it pays to use specific values for a specific product of a brand if these are listed on the packaging. If information is lacking, sometimes a brand's website can provide it. Don't go taking values out of other user-submitted entries on other sites and applications such as FatSecret, because these are just as vulnerable to incorrect information. This would only make things worse, because now people see these values in multiple places and assume they must be correct. For whole foods such as fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and more, use information from well-estabished databases such as the USDA. An excellent reference database is that of http://nutritiondata.self.com/, which provides info for various serving sizes, always including 100 grams (see further) and plenty of other info such as micronutrients.
Finally, note that sometimes for the same brand and product, values can be different per country based on local production or legislation. If so, it may be best to make a separate entry with the country mentioned after the brand name or product name.
Serving size & servings per container
If possible, provide a serving size of 100 grams. This is the easiest to work with. If a different unit is used, always prefer weight units. I see things such as "1 cup". This is simply not accurate. For a liquid it is hard to measure exactly one cup, since it may be filled until the surface is slightly above the cup edge or right below. For flour, 1 cup can be very different depending on how finely it was milled and how densely you pack the cup. This can make for a difference of up to serveral dozens of kilocalories, which may not seem much but adds up over the days and weeks. Serving sizes of "1 slice" for things like bread are completely useless because there can be too much variation. There's no proper standards there, and even if there were it is unlikely a user cared to find out. If they did, they'd have bothered to use weight. If a serving size is given on a label using a different measure (for example, 125 grams) it's still better to do the conversion for each nutrient and list the 100 gram values. You just multiply everything by 100 g/x g where x is the listed serving in grams. So if for example values are given for 125 grams, just divide everything by 1.25. Your computer's calculator app is your friend. I'll state the reason for this below.
Servings per container can be given as stated on the container, but I'd suggest just keeping this at 1. You may find a pasta sauce that comes in containers of 250 grams and 500 grams. If someone can't figure out that 250 grams is 2.5 servings of 100 grams they are beyond your help anyway. Besides, these aren't always accurate. I frequently buy jars of 500 grams of yoghurt but when measuring I manage to scrape out at most 490 grams because some always stays behind in the container and some water content may have evaporated. When getting oven baguettes I've found that they list the weight for one as 125 grams but in practice they end up weighing a little more. A company would rather give you a bit too much than risk getting sued for not providing what they sell. So don't just go by what's on the packaging, weigh your food. This is the reason why providing values for 100 grams is preferable, because it lets you state the measured serving yourself without too much math involved.
Calories
These are kilocalories. The biggest mistake here is people stating a certain serving size, but then using the kilocalorie value from a different serving size. For example, they state serving size is 100 grams (good) but then mistakenly read the kilocalorie value on a label that gives it for, say, 70 grams (bad, you've now underestimated your calorie intake). Another thing to look out for is kilojoules. Some labels state values in both kilocalories and kilojoules. Don't mix these up. If a label provides only kilojoules (yes, I've had this happen) multiply that value by 0.239 to get the kilocalorie value.
Fats
What you'll usually find on a label is "fats" and then "of which saturated". If no information is provided regarding exactly how much is poly- and monounsaturated, or trans fats, don't fill in anything for those fields. Stick to fats (most important) and saturated (may be important for some people), only providing the other types if they are properly listed.
Cholesterol
Pay attention to the fact that this field is listed in milligrams. Since there's no distinction between various types of cholesterol, and the relation between dietary and blood cholesterol has come under scrutiny, I'll admit I usually don't pay much attention to this field.
Sodium
Important note: one of the most common sources of mistakes
Sodium is a chemical element with chemical notation Na (from "natrium"). Salt is a molecule consisting of a sodium cation (Na+) and chloride anion (Cl-). Its chemical notation is NaCl. The sodium cation makes up about 40% of the molecular weight. This is not exact but close enough for all practical purposes.
Sodium and salt are not synonyms. Salt will often be the main source of sodium in food, but it is not always the only source. What you're supposed to provide in MFP is the sodium content. Whether a label lists sodium or salt varies, and what it is obliged to list can depend on jurisdiction. It can be different in various countries.
If a label lists sodium content, use that. If a label lists only salt content, multiply it with 0.4 to get sodium content. Note that if sodium content is listed, you'll know exactly how much sodium is in there, but if salt is listed you've only got a lower limit for the sodium. There could be other sources of sodium than the salt. But if it's all you have to go on, then it's better than nothing. Again and again I see entries where the salt content on the label is listed as sodium, which will give a gross overestimate. I'll repeat, sodium is 40% of salt.
Also keep in mind that sodium is listed in milligrams, not grams. So if you are given sodium content in grams, multiply by 1000 to get the the milligrams. If you get salt content in grams, multiply by 400 to get sodium in milligrams (this is effectively x 1000 x 0.4). I've seen people just literally copying what's on a label. So a label stated "1.9 grams salt" and they put 1.9 in the sodium field, meaning they failed to both convert to milligrams AND realize sodium and salt aren't the same thing.
I'll give an example: if the label says 1.9 grams salt, that means it has 1900 milligrams of salt, and that in turn means you get 0.4 x 1900 milligrams of sodium, = 760 mg. THAT is what goes into the field in your MFP entry.
Sodium intake is important for some people so pay attention to getting this right for their sake.
Carbs
Important note: one of the most common sources of mistakes
Carbs consist of sugars, fiber and starches, amongst possibly some other things. You'll usually find entries for total carbs, sugars and fiber on a food label. Now here's one of the main sources of confusion: this is different in the US and Europe (and around the world). A US label would look like this (apologies for ugly nested lists but I don't see another way of doing indentation):
- Total carbs: x grams
-
- of which sugars: y grams
- of which fiber: z grams
A label in Europe (or at least in Belgium, where I live) would look like this:
- Total carbs: x grams
-
- of which sugars: y grams
- Fiber: z grams
There is a subtle but important difference. In the US, fiber is counted towards the total carbohydrates. In Europe, total carbs are typically listed without the fiber, and fiber is listed separately instead. MyFitnessPal uses the US standard. So if you're outside of the US, interpret the label correctly. This means you'd have to add the fiber content to the total carbs. Here's an example of what you may see on a European label:
- Total carbs: 10 grams
-
- of which sugars: 5 grams
- Fiber: 3 grams
This means there's 10 grams of carbs consisting of (5 grams of) sugar and probably some starches, and on top of that there's 3 grams of fiber. In MFP your entry now needs to look like this:
- Total Carbs: 13 grams
-
- Dietary Fiber: 3 grams
- Sugars: 5 grams
If you see some entry where the sugars and fiber add up to more than the total carbs, that's a red flag. This is something I have to fix on pretty much 95% of all entries I find and, along with the sodium, is the most common mistake. This is important for people on low-carb or keto diets. Dietary fiber doesn't (or only partially) count towards their carb intake. So they'd look at their total carbs per day and then subtract the fiber. If the fiber wasn't accounted for in total carbs to begin with, they're getting less carbs than necessary. Not so nice when you're already seriously carb restricted and you believe you're still eating too much of them.
Protein
For this, the general considerations just apply. I don't tend to see as much mistakes with this as with sodium and carbs or calories and serving sizes.
Micronutrients
There are given in MFP as a percentage of daily recommended intake. But note that confusion may arise here. For some things there's a daily recommendation, while for others there's a daily allowance that you should try not to go over. Don't mistake one for the other. Also, this is different for women, men, adults and children, and can depend on body mass. I usually leave these blank unless they're precisely stated on a label. For whole foods you can consult the aforementioned Nutritiondata. Mind that some labels are sneaky (for example, some fortified breakfast cereals) and will give values for a certain weight for one thing and then values for a serving size for another (with milk included sometimes for cereals).
Correct use
So how can you use MFP correctly given the above? First of all, if you notice incorrect entries, correct them. You're doing yourself and others a favor. Use the comment field to specify what you've changed and why. I've got a couple of very typical lines. For example: "Adjusted sodium content, salt content was given." "Added fiber to total carbs." If there's an entry that can be corrected, prefer correcting that instead of making a new one yourself. This would only make it more confusing and harder for people to find accurate entries.
If adding a new food to the database, share it with other members. The checkbox is off by default. If you follow the above guidelines and make complete, accurate entries, they are an asset to the database and community. Choose names that are as complete as possible. Say you have a brand and they provide carrots, specify if they're frozen or not, and if they're whole or sliced. Try to go with exactly what's on the packaging but don't be afraid to add some qualifiers yourself, it'll help people search.
Weigh everything. Weight listed on packages isn't always entirely accurate. Get a kitchen scale. A digital one with at least 1 gram resolution is preferable. It doesn't have to be very expensive, just invest in something that looks durable and is accurate enough. A flat scale without a bowl is best. A bowl may seem useful but some larger foodstuffs can be inconvenient to weigh with it. If you want to put the food in a container, you can first place it on the scale, then tare the weight so it reads 0 and then add the food to get the net value. Most digital scales let you do this easily, which makes them more convenient than analog ones (which can also be hard to read with enough precision).
Should you weigh foods raw or cooked? This is a difficult one. Raw is usually best; it's less hassle to weigh something before you've cooked it (and want to start eating it) and it will usually be more accurate. Entries for cooked foods may be different from what you have depending on how long it has been cooked and how much fat and moisture has come out of it. Take a chicken for example: when roasting, water will evaporate and fat drippings will come out. The very same chicken may end up quite differently depending on how long it has been roasted and how moist or dry the meat has become. A tactic could be to use entries for raw poultry, weigh it raw, then after eating weigh the bones to find out how much net raw chicken you've consumed. But even there you'll find some variation, because the bones will have lost some weight depending on cooking time. When weighing raw it can in this way sometimes be easy to slightly overestimate calories. If you are trying to lose weight, overestimates are better than underestimates. When trying to gain weight, it's the other way around. If you're on a serious bulk all that fat that's dripped out of your chicken or bacon and that you may have counted in your raw entry would be lost, so, eh... drink it, or use it in soup stock or (for bacon) use it as lard.
This concludes my advice on the use of MyFitnessPal which is based on more than a year of diligent tracking, studying many sources regarding nutrition and trying to be as accurate in correcting and making entries as possible.
18
Replies
-
I myself prefer serving sizes to be listed as : 1 cup ( total grams), doesn't matter if it's a tablespoon, teaspoon, 1/4 cup, 1/2 cup...whatever, just as long as the grams are listed beside it. And most U.S. labels have that already listed0
-
Thank you so much! I have been correcting the sodium where I find it, but I hadn't appreciated the difference between US and Europe carbs. I'll work on fixing the entries I use.1
-
I myself prefer serving sizes to be listed as : 1 cup ( total grams), doesn't matter if it's a tablespoon, teaspoon, 1/4 cup, 1/2 cup...whatever, just as long as the grams are listed beside it. And most U.S. labels have that already listed
If grams are listed beside it, things become a lot more useful. But keep in mind that things like cups and tablespoons are most often used in the US (and Liberia), but less frequently outside of there. Then there's a difference in how various nations use the measure of "1 cup". See this Wikipedia article for some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_(unit)
1 cup of water is a different weight than 1 cup of sugar, but 100 grams is always 100 grams. To make entries as internationally useful as possible I'd still suggest using grams or sticking with weight measurements.Thank you so much! I have been correcting the sodium where I find it, but I hadn't appreciated the difference between US and Europe carbs. I'll work on fixing the entries I use.
As you can see above with the measurements, international differences can certainly throw us for a loop. It's one of the more challenging aspects of using MFP efficiently. Thanks for being thorough in your entries!1 -
I myself prefer serving sizes to be listed as : 1 cup ( total grams), doesn't matter if it's a tablespoon, teaspoon, 1/4 cup, 1/2 cup...whatever, just as long as the grams are listed beside it. And most U.S. labels have that already listed
If grams are listed beside it, things become a lot more useful. But keep in mind that things like cups and tablespoons are most often used in the US (and Liberia), but less frequently outside of there. Then there's a difference in how various nations use the measure of "1 cup". See this Wikipedia article for some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_(unit)
1 cup of water is a different weight than 1 cup of sugar, but 100 grams is always 100 grams. To make entries as internationally useful as possible I'd still suggest using grams or sticking with weight measurements.Thank you so much! I have been correcting the sodium where I find it, but I hadn't appreciated the difference between US and Europe carbs. I'll work on fixing the entries I use.
As you can see above with the measurements, international differences can certainly throw us for a loop. It's one of the more challenging aspects of using MFP efficiently. Thanks for being thorough in your entries!
Yes ... in Australia, and even Canada for the most part, we don't use cups or teaspoons etc.. And don't ask me what an ounce or things like that are!
Grams is best.
BTW, apparently "the 3 countries that officially cling to Imperial units are Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States" ... grabbed off a Google search on the question, "Who still uses the imperial measurement system?" The rest of us have moved on. 
2 -
Grams are best (and volume is not nearly as good as weight), but I think it's unreasonable for someone to be asked to put in a packaged good with, say, a 2 oz/57 g serving size in a 100 gram conversion. (For the record, anything I put in I make private just for me, and I use USDA entries which have 100 gram options for the vast majority of things.)
If I find an entry for a serving of a packaged good (like, say, the 2 oz or 57 g), I can easily use that without needing it to be in 100 g (this morning I had 52 g of a 57 g serving, so I did the math). I also always check the information, because packaged information is often wrong because (among other things): (1) there are lots of similar-looking items, and (2) it changes all the time. Also, US versions and the version in other countries are quite likely to have differences, so if someone is not in the US being tipped off that an entry is from the US is likely helpful, as it is likely not to be the same.
Also, at this point the database isn't going to get cleaned up -- too many wrong entries in there, and the vast majority of users aren't going to read this.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Grams are best (and volume is not nearly as good as weight), but I think it's unreasonable for someone to be asked to put in a packaged good with, say, a 2 oz/57 g serving size in a 100 gram conversion. (For the record, anything I put in I make private just for me, and I use USDA entries which have 100 gram options for the vast majority of things.)
If I find an entry for a serving of a packaged good (like, say, the 2 oz or 57 g), I can easily use that without needing it to be in 100 g (this morning I had 52 g of a 57 g serving, so I did the math). I also always check the information, because packaged information is often wrong because (among other things): (1) there are lots of similar-looking items, and (2) it changes all the time. Also, US versions and the version in other countries are quite likely to have differences, so if someone is not in the US being tipped off that an entry is from the US is likely helpful, as it is likely not to be the same.
Also, at this point the database isn't going to get cleaned up -- too many wrong entries in there, and the vast majority of users aren't going to read this.
In some cases using the serving size on the package is easiest. It's a judgement call. Yet 100 gram entries can still prove very useful. Say for example that you know the values for 100 grams of Snickers. Depending on whether you get a regular bar, some king size or a fun/mini size, you can use that same entry quite easily if you know the weight of your bar. I'd prefer one accurate entry over multiple entries for each and every size Snickers on the market, many of which aren't correct. What I note is some best practices, not saying this needs to be a "rule".
The differences in foodstuffs internationally is something I mentioned in my post and indeed one to look out for.
As for the database getting cleaned up, some ways of doing that wouldn't be bad. A gradual move towards more checks and establishing some system of trust, where users who make a lot of entries that are flagged as correct would get additional permissions in the system, is advisable for UnderArmour. Something along the lines of what StackExchange does, where the things a user is allowed to do directly relate to how much trust they build up in the community based on their question and answer quality. I'm not saying things should be overly restrictive, but right now there isn't even any validation error if your total carbs for an entry amount to less than sugars + fiber. If you have a system based on crowd-sourced data there must also be something to keep inaccuracy in check. Something more than just votes for whether an entry is correct or not without much repercussions.
The reason I believe this is important for UnderArmour is because if they don't evolve the system to address its weaknesses, sooner or later something is gonna spring up that does do all this and users are gonna make the the jump. When it comes to technology such disruptions can occur very swiftly. There have been sites that were considered almost untouchable and which are now ghost towns because something displaced them by doing one or a few things better.0 -
I think one of the biggest mistakes people make on this site is not reading through the stickied Most Helpful Posts at the top of each forum section, which cover so many of the things they have questions about. There's even one on logging accurately!3
-
I am not optimistic, but the place to post these suggestions is MFP Suggestions/Feedback, as you need UnderArmour buy-in.
Agree that 100 g entries are great (it's why I use the USDA ones whenever possible, and what I wish is that they were easier to find and identify vs. harder than they used to be). But for something like Snickers there could be a variation from country to country or depending on size (higher percentage of chocolate or some such) that having a 100 gram option would make harder to notice. Just a thought.0 -
Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
1 -
True. Right now I'm just hoping to provide a resource for users looking to avoid mistakes and maybe shed some light on the way entries can be incorrect, even without someone knowing. This won't reach everyone, but you've gotta start somewhere and it's better than just looking on and doing nothing. I've also posted this guide on other places where MFP users may gather.lemurcat12 wrote: »I am not optimistic, but the place to post these suggestions is MFP Suggestions/Feedback, as you need UnderArmour buy-in.
0 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately
This post written by yours truly is a sticky that can be and should be read by new users...sort of what you have said but with more in depth ways of correcting the errors.
I personally prefer to log my food cooked as I cook for more than 1 person...so I always suggest logging using the correct entries...ie if Chicken is roasted log the roasted chicken not raw.
I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
2 -
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1234699-logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide?hl=Logging+accurately
This post written by yours truly is a sticky that can be and should be read by new users...sort of what you have said but with more in depth ways of correcting the errors.
I personally prefer to log my food cooked as I cook for more than 1 person...so I always suggest logging using the correct entries...ie if Chicken is roasted log the roasted chicken not raw.
I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Good stuff. I put some emphasis on specifics like sodium and total carbs because I see these errors being made over and over, and just seeing these be done better would avoid a large amount of the issues with entries and save time.0 -
I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide. 2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).
nope it's not an issue. If people see an entries with SCW in it they know it's mine (those that read my post) and can be assured it is correct based on the information available and they can use it as will without issue.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).
Not sure I follow you. Adding my initials to the description is confusing, how, exactly? If the nutritional info my entries contain is correct, isn't that what matters?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).
Not sure I follow you. Adding my initials to the description is confusing, how, exactly? If the nutritional info my entries contain is correct, isn't that what matters?
Not everyone would know what those initials are for. If you took a very popular entry from the shared database, adjusted it and added your initials to the food name, it might confuse people who don't know what those initials are doing in the food name or that people even use such a system. They might assume it's the name of some nutritional database (such as USDA or Nutritiondata). This wouldn't be necessary if there was a system of verified users who consistently make correct entries and be able to sort on that.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).
Not sure I follow you. Adding my initials to the description is confusing, how, exactly? If the nutritional info my entries contain is correct, isn't that what matters?
Not everyone would know what those initials are for. If you took a very popular entry from the shared database, adjusted it and added your initials to the food name, it might confuse people who don't know what those initials are doing in the food name or that people even use such a system. They might assume it's the name of some nutritional database (such as USDA or Nutritiondata). This wouldn't be necessary if there was a system of verified users who consistently make correct entries and be able to sort on that.
I have said frequently if MFP made a special database of guaranteed accurate entries ie pull from USDA for premium they would sell a lot more of those subscriptions...1 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
Because it's not exact. You weigh yourself on a scale--right? You could stuff yourself in a barrel and measure yourself that way, but it would be arbritrary. Many people do have problems with cups, tsps, ..etc. I moved to Italy 30 yrs ago and even though I resisted, I learned to use the metric system. I must admit it's far superior.
PS: This as one snowflake to another.
1 -
I have said frequently if MFP made a special database of guaranteed accurate entries ie pull from USDA for premium they would sell a lot more of those subscriptions...
Yups. But I'd wager plenty of people are consuming more brand goods and ready-made meals than whole foods, so USDA would only go so far in being useful for them.snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
Because it's not exact. You weigh yourself on a scale--right? You could stuff yourself in a barrel and measure yourself that way, but it would be arbritrary. Many people do have problems with cups, tsps, ..etc. I moved to Italy 30 yrs ago and even though I resisted, I learned to use the metric system. I must admit it's far superior.
PS: This as one snowflake to another.
I'd like to avoid seeing a discussion of metric vs imperial since that tends to devolve quickly. Weight measurements are in most case more useful than content measurements, and when weight is used grams tends to be of the most benefit to the largest group of people.1 -
I have said frequently if MFP made a special database of guaranteed accurate entries ie pull from USDA for premium they would sell a lot more of those subscriptions...
Yups. But I'd wager plenty of people are consuming more brand goods and ready-made meals than whole foods, so USDA would only go so far in being useful for them.snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
Because it's not exact. You weigh yourself on a scale--right? You could stuff yourself in a barrel and measure yourself that way, but it would be arbritrary. Many people do have problems with cups, tsps, ..etc. I moved to Italy 30 yrs ago and even though I resisted, I learned to use the metric system. I must admit it's far superior.
PS: This as one snowflake to another.
I'd like to avoid seeing a discussion of metric vs imperial since that tends to devolve quickly. Weight measurements are in most case more useful than content measurements, and when weight is used grams tends to be of the most benefit to the largest group of people.
Exactly.0 -
Personally, I've found the barcode scanner to be a really handy tool.
I'm a latecomer to smartphones, but was finally and reluctantly convinced to get one. So of course, one of the first apps I installed was MFP. And there I discovered the barcode scanner.
My husband was making tacos for dinner on the weekend, with some ingredients he hadn't used before and some he hasn't used in a while. Rather than searching through the main database for each ingredient and trying to determine if this is right or that is right, I scanned them and there they were!
I did have to check serving sizes because, of course, I didn't eat 100 grams of seasoning which was the amount that came up when I scanned it in ... but that's a fairly minor adjustment.0 -
Thank you! Last time I posted a rant about so many entries being duplicates and wrong I caught holy hell. I don't have a scanner on my junky phone so I had hoped the entries were accurate....NOT I spent more time at meals fixing items that I lost hope of adding variety or straying from the small group of foods I had logged and saved and built as recipes since fixing everything was in need of adjustments.0
-
don't rely on the scanner too much tho...I've scanned stuff in and looked at the entry for it and said WTH???? it wasn't even the same food group...
As well that doesn't guarantee you are logging accurately either...if you haven't weighed the item..1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »I have a lot of my own entries with the suggestion of using your initials as a way of knowing it's your own.
Yes, when I add to the database (either a new entry or editing/correcting an existing one) I always add my initials in brackets at the end of the food description line.
That way, if I have to search for that item again the one that I *know* is correct (because I did it!) is very easy to spot among the myriad of similar entries that a search may provide.
That is certainly useful on an individual basis, but it would benefit the community if incorrect entries are adjusted instead. Adding your initials to an existing entry not by yourself would only be confusing to others (I assume you don't do this).
Not sure I follow you. Adding my initials to the description is confusing, how, exactly? If the nutritional info my entries contain is correct, isn't that what matters?
Not everyone would know what those initials are for. If you took a very popular entry from the shared database, adjusted it and added your initials to the food name, it might confuse people who don't know what those initials are doing in the food name or that people even use such a system. They might assume it's the name of some nutritional database (such as USDA or Nutritiondata).
But since everyone should be checking the actual nutritional numbers associated with an entry they are wanting to use *before* they use it anyway, I still don't see the issue.
0 -
Thank you! Last time I posted a rant about so many entries being duplicates and wrong I caught holy hell. I don't have a scanner on my junky phone so I had hoped the entries were accurate....NOT I spent more time at meals fixing items that I lost hope of adding variety or straying from the small group of foods I had logged and saved and built as recipes since fixing everything was in need of adjustments.
I've wanted to rant too sometime but I figured it wasn't gonna help anyone. After all it feels like attacking people for what they do when it's well-intentioned and they're not always aware of mistakes. So I finally got around to making this post hoping to shed some light. Leading by example will get us further, I hope.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
Because it's not exact. You weigh yourself on a scale--right? You could stuff yourself in a barrel and measure yourself that way, but it would be arbritrary. Many people do have problems with cups, tsps, ..etc. I moved to Italy 30 yrs ago and even though I resisted, I learned to use the metric system. I must admit it's far superior.
PS: This as one snowflake to another.
Maybe superior, but I managed to lose over 160 pounds, and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years with this antiquated system.
There are verified entries that you can use and also you can put in your own entries that are 100% accurate and to your liking, if you can't manage with the system being so inaccurate and inferior..............many here have been successful as it exists. Perhaps it is the users?
0 -
You can definitely get great use out of MFP and lose a lot of weight using it. And no matter how good a system is, some folks are always gonna use it wrong or in a sub-optimal way. It's just that for those using it right and being accurate it entails more work than it should. Constantly having to be paranoid about entries and correcting pretty much every new entry you haven't used before starts to become a burden and wastes a lot of time.snowflake930 wrote: »Maybe superior, but I managed to lose over 160 pounds, and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years with this antiquated system.
There are verified entries that you can use and also you can put in your own entries that are 100% accurate and to your liking, if you can't manage with the system being so inaccurate and inferior..............many here have been successful as it exists. Perhaps it is the users?
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Grams is best for some, not me. I have had no problems with this site and losing weight using pounds, ounces, cups, tablespoons, teaspoons, and I imagine there are a lot of us here.
Why not both units of measurement?
Because it's not exact. You weigh yourself on a scale--right? You could stuff yourself in a barrel and measure yourself that way, but it would be arbritrary. Many people do have problems with cups, tsps, ..etc. I moved to Italy 30 yrs ago and even though I resisted, I learned to use the metric system. I must admit it's far superior.
PS: This as one snowflake to another.
Maybe superior, but I managed to lose over 160 pounds, and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years with this antiquated system.
There are verified entries that you can use and also you can put in your own entries that are 100% accurate and to your liking, if you can't manage with the system being so inaccurate and inferior..............many here have been successful as it exists. Perhaps it is the users?
Have you actually read the verified entries? A lot of them are WAY wrong. So wrong. To the extent that I consider the entire "verification system" stupid and pointless.
I am enjoying the snowflake argument though.5
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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