The most common mistakes using MFP and how to avoid them
Options
Replies
-
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.
Its funny you've mentioned this but I've used yours several times ! Lol0 -
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.
I managed to lose weight using cups and ounces as well, but it doesn't mean it's a best practice. Listing something as "1 cup (x grams)" instead of just "1 cup" allows users around the world to use that entry. Ounces can be confusing, too - my husband wanted to know if the 8 oz serving of yogurt was liquid or solid, and he figured it out by checking the metric unit (g, so solid) next to the oz listing.
Additionally, I don't have to be super strict to lose weight, but some people do (PCOS, for instance). Using grams lets them be as precise as possible with their calories in.
2 -
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.
Oh, couldn't agree more. I think the label I was talking about should say 2 oz/57 g. What I thought OP was saying (and don't agree with) was that the person doing the inputting should convert it to 100 g (which I think would be too much to ask and wouldn't save me from doing the math myself anyway, since I would not trust it until I did).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.
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?
I'm a housewife and was an interior designer. No agenda, I just like accuracy.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?
You have been successful, and I applaude you (as one snowflake to another), but you've been around enough to know how many threads are started with "I'm not losing, help", or something similar, as the title. These people are alot of times not logging accurately, and are using cups, tsps,... To tighten up their logging, it is usually suggested to use grams. I also manage with the data base as is--but it sure could be improved. Do I think cup, spoon, measurements need to be eliminated? No, I'm too nostalgic as an American in a foreign land, but people need to know that grams can solve some logging problems.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oh, couldn't agree more. I think the label I was talking about should say 2 oz/57 g. What I thought OP was saying (and don't agree with) was that the person doing the inputting should convert it to 100 g (which I think would be too much to ask and wouldn't save me from doing the math myself anyway, since I would not trust it until I did).
I got that, lemurcat12- I was actually agreeing with you! I don't want people attempting to convert their database entries. Type up your entries in a well-lit room, wear your glasses, and enter everything exactly as stated on the label! 2 -
I haven't attempted my own entry yet, but this was so good to know. Thank you for this post. Most commentary was similarly educational.
I want to tear my hair out when I'm recipe building on the app, and have to open my laptop to do googling and conversions because an entry isn't offered in grams.
The barcode scanner is the WORSTTTT because in my experience, labels alone are stupid and rarely offer the unit of measurement that I want, and the scanned entries are just as bad.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.
So much this ^^
I'm not interested in relying on people who think a 57 gram serving size is too hard to deal with to convert the nutrition values for a 57 gram serving to the correct nutrition values for a 100 gram serving.
And I really don't understand the huge hostility toward entries with volume serving sizes. There are plenty of entries with weights. I generally prefer entries with weights (although sometimes when I'm forced to estimate when eating away from home, volume is easier), but if some people prefer to create entries with volume servings, how does that hurt me? It's a lot easier for me to totally ignore an entry with a volume serving than it is to actually check all the wrong entries with weight servings.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »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?
You have been successful, and I applaude you (as one snowflake to another), but you've been around enough to know how many threads are started with "I'm not losing, help", or something similar, as the title. These people are alot of times not logging accurately, and are using cups, tsps,... To tighten up their logging, it is usually suggested to use grams. I also manage with the data base as is--but it sure could be improved. Do I think cup, spoon, measurements need to be eliminated? No, I'm too nostalgic as an American in a foreign land, but people need to know that grams can solve some logging problems.
Yes, I have been around a while and have seen all the "I'm not losing" threads, I am not unsympathetic, but reading labels should be a high priority for serious people looking to lose weight. Serving sizes are pretty small on packaging labels and for general purposes gives a good idea of portion sizes.
These are recommendations from the American Heart Association;
Grains: 1 slice of bread, 1 ounce of ready-to-eat cereal, 1/2 cup of cooked cereal, rice or pasta (about the size of a 1/2 baseball).
Vegetables: 1 cup of raw leafy vegetables (about the size of a small fist), 1/2 cup of other vegetables or 1/2 cup of vegetable juice.
Fruits: 1 medium fruit (medium is defined as the size of a baseball); 1/2 cup chopped, cooked or canned fruit; or 1/2 cup juice.
Meat, Poultry, Fish, Dry Beans and Nuts: 2 to 3 ounces of cooked lean meat, poultry or fish; 1/2 cup cooked dry beans; or 2 tablespoons of peanut butter.
Milk, Yogurt and Cheese: 1 cup of fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt, 1 1/2 ounces fat-free or low-fat cheese
General guidelines. Not much food at all, even without measuring by either ounces or grams, using the small fist, 1/2 baseball, deck of cards comparisons.
As with most things related to healthier eating and losing weight, you have to find what works for you, but portion sizes are a real eye opener to people who have never really paid close attention to them.
Whether or not you are using gram or ounces, you should be able to figure it out. If you are honestly weighing, measuring, and logging every bit of food you eat and drink, staying at your calorie allotment, and not losing, it is probably something you should be seeking medical advice about to rule out any factor that is possibly keeping you from losing weight.
0 -
I understand wanting to be as accurate as possible. But I do have to agree with snowflake930 I prefer cups for most of my measurements. I realize it might not be the most accurate but I really don't want to take the time to weigh everything. In fact most of the time I don't measure them except eyeball them. I tend to overestimate if I'm in doubt. It has worked for me so far. I haven't lost a lot of weight (any of the times I pay attention to what I eat) but I do lose when I log.
Farther down the road when I get closer to my goal weight I know I'm going to have to be a lot more accurate so this is all good to know. I don't add anything because I'm afraid I would enter something wrong and mess someone else's journey up. Hopefully as I learn more I will be more confident.0 -
marcenepea wrote: »I understand wanting to be as accurate as possible. But I do have to agree with snowflake930 I prefer cups for most of my measurements. I realize it might not be the most accurate but I really don't want to take the time to weigh everything. In fact most of the time I don't measure them except eyeball them. I tend to overestimate if I'm in doubt. It has worked for me so far. I haven't lost a lot of weight (any of the times I pay attention to what I eat) but I do lose when I log.
Farther down the road when I get closer to my goal weight I know I'm going to have to be a lot more accurate so this is all good to know. I don't add anything because I'm afraid I would enter something wrong and mess someone else's journey up. Hopefully as I learn more I will be more confident.
I find it much faster to weigh everything on the one scale that's always in the same spot in the kitchen versus trying to find if either set of my measuring cups is clean or not and dig them out of a drawer.4 -
That makes sense and like I said when I get closer I'm sure I will need to be a lot more accurate. Like I posted above I'm very guilty of eyeballing portions.
But I really like the post and I know at some point I will have to be more accurate, or I'm assuming so. At that point this information will come in very handy. I never really knew or thought about different people entering the information and it not being 100% accurate. If I really thought about it then its obvious because the same things have different information. I will be paying a lot closer attention to these things and at some point will be weighing or measuring my portions instead of just eyeballing. For now its working and I'm not usually to hungry so I will stick with it as long as I'm losing.
Thanks for the post and the information.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oh, couldn't agree more. I think the label I was talking about should say 2 oz/57 g. What I thought OP was saying (and don't agree with) was that the person doing the inputting should convert it to 100 g (which I think would be too much to ask and wouldn't save me from doing the math myself anyway, since I would not trust it until I did).
I got that, lemurcat12- I was actually agreeing with you! I don't want people attempting to convert their database entries. Type up your entries in a well-lit room, wear your glasses, and enter everything exactly as stated on the label!
"Exactly as stated on the label" has proven to be an issue as well in my experience, for a number of reasons.
First, labels can be confusing. They may list a certain serving size but then proceed to give you the values per 100 grams or some other unit, or the other way around.
Second, some folks are a bit too literal with "exactly as on the label", and I have, no joke, seen gram values being copied to milligram fields exactly as is. That is, a label states "1 g" and they put "1" in an mg field.
Third, for any label listing salt, the sodium field will always require a calculation. The vast majority of people do not now that sodium and salt aren't identical and don't know the correlation.
Finally, labels will sometimes deliberately go out of their way to be misleading and look like a better purchase. For example, breakfast cereals may show values for 100 grams, and then show values for a 30 gram serving... including milk. So the 30 gram values are not 3/10 of the 100 gram values.
What is most important in both getting correct entries AND getting people to develop better habits and educate themselves on what they eat is to stop and think, to be critical. Copying things literally without taking a moment to wonder what any of it means or what units you are looking at is not the best way to do that.0 -
OP - you are all sorts of awesome. Thank you for addressing so many of my pet peeves so fully 0
-
One thing that does my head in with barcodes is half the ones I scan here (UK) are not what I have in my hand, i would say a good 50% of the time its something totally different and American
C'est la vie1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Oh, couldn't agree more. I think the label I was talking about should say 2 oz/57 g. What I thought OP was saying (and don't agree with) was that the person doing the inputting should convert it to 100 g (which I think would be too much to ask and wouldn't save me from doing the math myself anyway, since I would not trust it until I did).
I got that, lemurcat12- I was actually agreeing with you! I don't want people attempting to convert their database entries. Type up your entries in a well-lit room, wear your glasses, and enter everything exactly as stated on the label!
"Exactly as stated on the label" has proven to be an issue as well in my experience, for a number of reasons.
First, labels can be confusing. They may list a certain serving size but then proceed to give you the values per 100 grams or some other unit, or the other way around.
Second, some folks are a bit too literal with "exactly as on the label", and I have, no joke, seen gram values being copied to milligram fields exactly as is. That is, a label states "1 g" and they put "1" in an mg field.
Third, for any label listing salt, the sodium field will always require a calculation. The vast majority of people do not now that sodium and salt aren't identical and don't know the correlation.
Finally, labels will sometimes deliberately go out of their way to be misleading and look like a better purchase. For example, breakfast cereals may show values for 100 grams, and then show values for a 30 gram serving... including milk. So the 30 gram values are not 3/10 of the 100 gram values.
What is most important in both getting correct entries AND getting people to develop better habits and educate themselves on what they eat is to stop and think, to be critical. Copying things literally without taking a moment to wonder what any of it means or what units you are looking at is not the best way to do that.
I would venture to say that the examples you cite are extremely rare and would not likely impact a person's overall fitness journey. And again, I'd rather fix it myself than trust the math of "the vast majority of people" who aren't even educated about reading labels. 0 -
Before I joined MFP I googled my foods and then wrote them down in a little spiral notebook, compiling a list. This worked well because I repeatedly ate many of the same things. If I was on holiday or didn't know a food content I could use my phone to google it and add it to my notebook. When the notbook gets full, from logging calories daily, I copy the foods with nutrition facts into the front of the new notebook. It worked. I lost 75 pounds using my little notebooks and kept it off for 5 years.
It worked better than mfp for me and I'm thinking of returning to my old method.1 -
I actually prefer measurements such as 1 cup, 1/4 cup and so on for certain things. An example is the other day I was looking on a burger patty and the person used grams, however the package I had said calories for 1 patty which is 1 serving. When this person used grams, I had to go out of my way to retrieve the package, calculate how many grams would be in one patty (since the package gave me grams for all the patties) and then adjust. It would have been simpler if that person had used the exact thing under nutrition facts rather than converting.
In the same way, if you are using Jodi's flour and someone searches for calories in 1cup of Jodi's flour, they should understand that this flour may be milled differently from Zach's flour. They should also understand that 1cup may vary in grams based on density, air etc but use 1 cup keeping this in mind. The other day I saw a post with 1 cup of chicken breast, this annoyed me because I use a whole chicken breast as placed in the package, I don't cut it up and ensure it's 1 cup. Also the amount of chicken that fills 1 cup may vary based on how it is cut, if it is flattened and so on. So it really is essential how these are entered.
Sometimes I really do have access to the package but I would rather not enter all the details myself so I search mfp for this. I feel like many people make things complicated for me when they use a measurement that isn't the typical one used under the nutrition facts on a package. Also many people make things more complicated when they try to perfect the calorie logging system rather than understanding it is a guestimate and more than likely we are inaccurate either way. The whole way calories in food are measured now is more inaccurate than it was 20 years ago, do your research and you'll find out many companies guess rather than actually do tests to determine this.
Keep in mind not all of us have a scale which is able to measure grams or milliliters so yes it should be an option but what you consider vague serving sizes are useful for us that only have the more popular measuring tools. It's also not affordable or easy for many of us to access the tools that would make this more accurate.
It is said our recorded calories may be up to 25% less than what we actually take in. We need to account for these margin of errors in our activities rather than complicating matters.0 -
I actually prefer measurements such as 1 cup, 1/4 cup and so on for certain things. An example is the other day I was looking on a burger patty and the person used grams, however the package I had said calories for 1 patty which is 1 serving. When this person used grams, I had to go out of my way to retrieve the package, calculate how many grams would be in one patty (since the package gave me grams for all the patties) and then adjust. It would have been simpler if that person had used the exact thing under nutrition facts rather than converting.
In the same way, if you are using Jodi's flour and someone searches for calories in 1cup of Jodi's flour, they should understand that this flour may be milled differently from Zach's flour. They should also understand that 1cup may vary in grams based on density, air etc but use 1 cup keeping this in mind. The other day I saw a post with 1 cup of chicken breast, this annoyed me because I use a whole chicken breast as placed in the package, I don't cut it up and ensure it's 1 cup. Also the amount of chicken that fills 1 cup may vary based on how it is cut, if it is flattened and so on. So it really is essential how these are entered.
Sometimes I really do have access to the package but I would rather not enter all the details myself so I search mfp for this. I feel like many people make things complicated for me when they use a measurement that isn't the typical one used under the nutrition facts on a package. Also many people make things more complicated when they try to perfect the calorie logging system rather than understanding it is a guestimate and more than likely we are inaccurate either way. The whole way calories in food are measured now is more inaccurate than it was 20 years ago, do your research and you'll find out many companies guess rather than actually do tests to determine this.
Keep in mind not all of us have a scale which is able to measure grams or milliliters so yes it should be an option but what you consider vague serving sizes are useful for us that only have the more popular measuring tools. It's also not affordable or easy for many of us to access the tools that would make this more accurate.
It is said our recorded calories may be up to 25% less than what we actually take in. We need to account for these margin of errors in our activities rather than complicating matters.
Wow--are you losing weight doing this? Alot of "guesstimating" going on. Sorry, but I need to know alot more about my calorie imput. Everyone where I live weighs food. All recipes are by weight. Meat cuts are sold by weight. A cup of chicken breast just boggles the mind. Accounting for margin of error , and not complicating things is not a good excuse for inaccurate logging--a recipe for disaster.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I actually prefer measurements such as 1 cup, 1/4 cup and so on for certain things. An example is the other day I was looking on a burger patty and the person used grams, however the package I had said calories for 1 patty which is 1 serving. When this person used grams, I had to go out of my way to retrieve the package, calculate how many grams would be in one patty (since the package gave me grams for all the patties) and then adjust. It would have been simpler if that person had used the exact thing under nutrition facts rather than converting.
In the same way, if you are using Jodi's flour and someone searches for calories in 1cup of Jodi's flour, they should understand that this flour may be milled differently from Zach's flour. They should also understand that 1cup may vary in grams based on density, air etc but use 1 cup keeping this in mind. The other day I saw a post with 1 cup of chicken breast, this annoyed me because I use a whole chicken breast as placed in the package, I don't cut it up and ensure it's 1 cup. Also the amount of chicken that fills 1 cup may vary based on how it is cut, if it is flattened and so on. So it really is essential how these are entered.
Sometimes I really do have access to the package but I would rather not enter all the details myself so I search mfp for this. I feel like many people make things complicated for me when they use a measurement that isn't the typical one used under the nutrition facts on a package. Also many people make things more complicated when they try to perfect the calorie logging system rather than understanding it is a guestimate and more than likely we are inaccurate either way. The whole way calories in food are measured now is more inaccurate than it was 20 years ago, do your research and you'll find out many companies guess rather than actually do tests to determine this.
Keep in mind not all of us have a scale which is able to measure grams or milliliters so yes it should be an option but what you consider vague serving sizes are useful for us that only have the more popular measuring tools. It's also not affordable or easy for many of us to access the tools that would make this more accurate.
It is said our recorded calories may be up to 25% less than what we actually take in. We need to account for these margin of errors in our activities rather than complicating matters.
Wow--are you losing weight doing this? Alot of "guesstimating" going on. Sorry, but I need to know alot more about my calorie imput. Everyone where I live weighs food. All recipes are by weight. Meat cuts are sold by weight. A cup of chicken breast just boggles the mind. Accounting for margin of error , and not complicating things is not a good excuse for inaccurate logging--a recipe for disaster.
Not a recipe for disaster for a lot of us. I have been cooking since I was about 12, using American standards for measuring. You get to know by sight how much a cup, TBSP, tsp actually is. A serving of meat is the approximate size of a deck of cards. A little bit over or under, no biggie. Some of us do not live that close to the edge of our calories. Anyway, I managed to lose over 160# and have kept it off for over 2-1/2 years, so it works for me, and it can be done. Not everyone needs to be that accurate. Guidelines are just that. We are all different, with different ways to do things that shouldn't be labeled wrong just because some others can not use the same measuring practices and lose. Whatever works, go with it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions