The most common mistakes using MFP and how to avoid them
Options
Replies
-
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 -
In my mind things do not have to be super exact. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways so you never really know. If it's slightly off I'm not too worried about it and quite honestly this is just a general guide on calories...I know when I've overdone it.4
-
KombuchaKat wrote: »In my mind things do not have to be super exact. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways so you never really know. If it's slightly off I'm not too worried about it and quite honestly this is just a general guide on calories...I know when I've overdone it.
^Exactly this.
Figure it out, it is not rocket science and it can be done. Many are doing it and have done it and been very successful. If an entry looks like it is wrong, look for another. Many sites are terrible for this. I choose MFP because it is the best, IMO. Anyone know of one any better, let me know.
1 -
SO. MUCH. THIS.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 have found lots of "Verified" entries that are a complete joke.
1 -
snowflake930 wrote: »KombuchaKat wrote: »In my mind things do not have to be super exact. The body metabolizes different foods in different ways so you never really know. If it's slightly off I'm not too worried about it and quite honestly this is just a general guide on calories...I know when I've overdone it.
^Exactly this.
Figure it out, it is not rocket science and it can be done. Many are doing it and have done it and been very successful. If an entry looks like it is wrong, look for another. Many sites are terrible for this. I choose MFP because it is the best, IMO. Anyone know of one any better, let me know.
I agree.
After all, I found out recently that my entry for veggies and a particular rice was too high ... but on the other hand, some of my entries might be too low.
And when it comes to exercise, that's anyone's guess. I estimate low because I figure if I happen to log something and not get it quite right, it'll all work out in the end.
Happily ... it has. I've lost way more weight than I ever imagined I would.
And yes, I chose MFP because it had the most extensive database I've seen on one of these sorts of site ... and the easiest to use.
0 -
Sorry duplicate0
-
Obviously it's possible to be successful now, but why not make it easier to use and less full of errors, something that largely affects newbies, especially newbies who don't have a huge deficit so error matters more. They don't know in many cases -- I've seen a great deal of confusion about such basic things as what chicken entries to use, for example.
For example, it used to be really easy to find the USDA entries which are (a) accurate and (b) have the 100 g entry which is the most easy to use. For some reason TPTB found it preferable to get rid of this ability and add the verified entries which are dreadfully inaccurate -- the same people who add inaccurate entries seem to verify things inaccurately, go figure. (As for weight vs. volume, it's not just that volume is less accurate, but, personally, I have zero interest in putting my carrots in a cup or try to measure out a tbsp of feta or some such -- so much easier to just drop them on a scale as part of the chopping process or in a bowl using the tare feature. Also, for me trying to estimate is more work than simply weighing. And if I weigh and get 95 g, it's much easier to say .95 with a 100 gram entry.)
As far as better sites for logging, if you mainly eat whole foods and so can use mostly the USDA entries, it's much easier to log at Cronometer and add your own entries for the packaged things you eat. This is what I mostly do these days.1 -
I totes read the whole thing and will be putting everything into practice immediately2
-
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.
Just when I thought the whole PS4 Vs XBox1 vs PC Master Race was getting stale I didn't even know there was an Imperial vs. Metric system debate to be had!
So are you a sony or microsoft guy?2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »As far as better sites for logging, if you mainly eat whole foods and so can use mostly the USDA entries, it's much easier to log at Cronometer and add your own entries for the packaged things you eat. This is what I mostly do these days.
Unfortunately, the down side of most of the other sites I've tried over the years is that they are entirely or mostly US-centric. That just doesn't work for me.
Sure, an apple in the US is probably the same as an apple here in Australia, or in Canada, or Japan, or the UK or wherever I happen to be ... but other food products differ.
With a couple sites, I found I had to enter everything from scratch ... and then because they were going through some hiccups with their program, my entries only seemed to save for a few days then they'd disappear and I'd have to start all over again. That was time consuming! I didn't last long.
And just before I started here, I considered LoseIt, but checked their database and most of the food was US food. They had a little bit of Canadian food, but no Australian food or other countries. I could select whole foods off their list because an apple is an apple (probably) but I didn't even have the option that I could see to enter packaged foods.
When I saw the database here, glitches and all, I knew I'd found my logging home.
0 -
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.
I want the entries copied exactly as per label, which almost always include a gram equivalent. With the huge number of faulty listings, I think it's asking for trouble to rely on others' math skills- I'd rather do it myself.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions