Verified
KenSmith108
Posts: 1,967 Member
This is why I don't eat strawberries: Verified by MFP database
1 cup
Calories 4,864 Sodium 152 mg
Total Fat 46 g Potassium 23,256 mg
Saturated 2 g Total Carbs 1,167 g
Polyunsaturated 24 g Dietary Fiber 304 g
Monounsaturated 7 g Sugars 743 g
Trans 0 g Protein 102 g
Cholesterol 0 mg
or 
1 cup
Calories 4,864 Sodium 152 mg
Total Fat 46 g Potassium 23,256 mg
Saturated 2 g Total Carbs 1,167 g
Polyunsaturated 24 g Dietary Fiber 304 g
Monounsaturated 7 g Sugars 743 g
Trans 0 g Protein 102 g
Cholesterol 0 mg
or 3
Replies
-
Verified by MFP means a fellow user (I mean, have you SEEN some of them? lol) flagged it as correct, so consider that.
I have strawberries all the time. But I only have one or two (about 2-3 oz.), not a cup. Jeez.
1 cup whole strawberries:
Sugars: 7.04 g
Carbohydrates: 11.06 g
Source: USDA
https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list?qlookup=093161 -
I have found that if I make a mistake when entering things in the database, there is no way to correct my error. Then I am totally embarassed I put such bad information into the database.2
-
What does the check mark mean?
When MyFitnessPal believes a food listing in its database has complete nutrition information it is marked with a .
We do our best to ensure the nutrition information for foods accurately reflects nutrition information from the product packaging. Many of the foods in our database are created by users, and occasionally food will be marked with a that has nutrition information inaccuracies. We are always working to improve the accuracy of nutrition information for foods, and new foods are being added all the time.
Just because food is not a food does not mean it has inaccurate nutrition information.
We have retired the asterisk (*) previously used on the MyFitnessPal website to note food listings created by MyFitnessPal users.
So if I'm reading their definition right it says
or
0 -
I kinda pointed out what you just said in my original reply, @KenSmith108 —and I agree—MFP is not 100% responsible for the food content entered into its database. If it has a check mark it's because MFP "believes" that it is correct. However, the USDA and FDA are not in here with little reps in the machine doing that work — that's up to us users and the MFP system's moderators, which, for all we know, could be attempting to sabotage a few of us for a giggle - maybe they're disgruntled? Maybe they are not good with nutrition knowledge? And yes, "buyer/user beware" for sure applies here.
But now I'm not sure if your original intent with this post was sarcasm to start with (which is cool, I appreciate a good bit of dry humor, I live it), or if now you're just trying to get a rise out of people.
0 -
Yikes! LOL Someone wasn't paying attention to serving sizes or something!
I tend to input my own food from package nutritional labels by scanning it, then checking the info has been input accurately. If not, I add the correct irem myself, and can find it again the next time in "my foods"...
If a produce item that doesn't have a label seems way off in the database, I compare it to a few other similar items in the database until I find some consistency... I pretty much ignore the check mark. Also, I prefer using items that have the actual weight in grams rather than "1 item" as sizes do vary a lot...0 -
I don't use the unsupervised food data base any longer. Years ago
when the users policed the entries it was much better. Now that
MFP verifies it it's as close to useless as it gets.
Strawberries was the first item I looked up in years.
It made me look foolish explaining LC to someone.
But it's free
or 0 -
It's free, for sure. And free has its costs, too. As users, we must be careful and help to to do the best to make sure the data we input is correct, and I always flag an entry if it is or isn't...it's in the TOS as basically our "free" contract obligation as users. I have only had a couple of issues (the eggs I eat were originally listed as having more carbs than what was on the package and all over the internet), and I once caugt the recipe tool trying to put in 2 lbs of cored and diced apples into my recipe where I had entered "2 tbsp roma tomato, diced"). Other than that, I feel like since I'm very careful and thorough and find the correct data, it's really not a huge issue. What app do you use now, if not MFP? Or are you over there in maintenance mode?0
-
It's free, for sure. And free has its costs, too. As users, we must be careful and help to to do the best to make sure the data we input is correct, and I always flag an entry if it is or isn't...it's in the TOS as basically our "free" contract obligation as users. I have only had a couple of issues (the eggs I eat were originally listed as having more carbs than what was on the package and all over the internet), and I once caugt the recipe tool trying to put in 2 lbs of cored and diced apples into my recipe where I had entered "2 tbsp roma tomato, diced"). Other than that, I feel like since I'm very careful and thorough and find the correct data, it's really not a huge issue. What app do you use now, if not MFP? Or are you over there in maintenance mode?
Not Ken, but I'll answer anyway: I use MyNetDiary. They employ people whose job is to verify entries. They have free and paid versions, I opted for paid but my husband uses the free version with much success too. I vastly prefer it to MFP for food tracking however MFP is far superior in terms of forum availability/peer support, so I keep both accounts.0 -
I still use MFP for my diary but I don't use the MFP database at all.
I use my food only now. or
0 -
I tend to verify data with fatsecret.com or usda's site if the data seems totally wonky. I don't have time to be bothered with another app.1
-
I found an entry today for black coffee at 250cal a cup and 30 carbs...so not right...0
-
tcunbeliever wrote: »I found an entry today for black coffee at 250cal a cup and 30 carbs...so not right...
It is if you dump a shitload of sugar in it. It's still technically black coffee, if no cream is involved. I just really wish people would stop checking "allow others to use" for their weird, case specific entries, that are almost always devoid of any explanation.3 -
Yes, one definitely has to pay attention, though I find that most are correct. The entries that are incorrect, which I come across maybe a few times per week at most, are what get the most attention when the other 98% of entries are correct. For a free site, I can't complain with that level of accuracy.1
-
I always check the nutrition info for each entry to my diary... the first time is cross-checked with nutrition facts from a discrete source. The silver lining to this double work is the knowledge i am gaining about the foods i am eating.
0 -
I always check the nutrition info for each entry to my diary... the first time is cross-checked with nutrition facts from a discrete source. The silver lining to this double work is the knowledge i am gaining about the foods i am eating.
Me too, but the ones that really get me are bulk foods. It's easy to spot when an ounce of chicken breast is listed with 12,600 calories and macros are way off too, but when it is much closer to what is reasonable, it seems easy to get them wrong. I do not check the USDA website as often as I should when I'm entering bulk foods that look reasonable. The nutrition facts are right in front of me, so it is convenient to look at those every time.0 -
I also wonder if there is going to be nutritional discrepancy between the same foods in different countries.
I will scan a package and information that will come up will be 'close, but no cigar' - off by 5 cals, etc. Because of different food laws, I wonder if a package of Oreos has the same info as it does in the US, Canada, Australia, Europe...
That can throw the database off as well.0 -
samanthaluangphixay wrote: »I also wonder if there is going to be nutritional discrepancy between the same foods in different countries.
I will scan a package and information that will come up will be 'close, but no cigar' - off by 5 cals, etc. Because of different food laws, I wonder if a package of Oreos has the same info as it does in the US, Canada, Australia, Europe...
That can throw the database off as well.
@samanthaluangphixay - I can guarantee you that US labels have far more crap in them. We allow dyes and chemicals and unnecessary crap in our foods that other countries have outlawed and all that kind of thing! That's why Brits don't want the American products flooding the market as is currently in the works...0 -
@KnitOrMiss - I lived in Dublin, Ireland for a year and there was such a premium on American imported goods - I used to complain that I was unable to find certain candies/chips/etc there and one of my coworkers told me point blank "It's because we have laws that don't allow certain chemicals in our foods. That's why you can't get [insert candy name] here."
I used to think it was BS but now that I am taking charge of my health...it is a pretty good system. I mean, it isn't perfect - because Europe has its fair share of sugary sweets but they do take better care of what they put in their food, unlike North America. It's not just the United States, it is Canada too.
In Europe, they also use less pesticides so their produce goes off faster. And they pride themselves (at least in Ireland) of selling crops and meats grown/raised in the country.
Wish we could follow suit!1 -
samanthaluangphixay wrote: »I also wonder if there is going to be nutritional discrepancy between the same foods in different countries.
I will scan a package and information that will come up will be 'close, but no cigar' - off by 5 cals, etc. Because of different food laws, I wonder if a package of Oreos has the same info as it does in the US, Canada, Australia, Europe...
That can throw the database off as well.
Isn't there a difference between the U.S. and Europe in whether fiber calories are included?0 -
@midwesterner85 - Yes, US labels include Fiber (Fibre) in the carb count. The majority of European labels list Fibre separately. (Other places, too, if I recall - some Canadian and Australian labels). Basically is the fiber/fibre number is HIGHER than the carb count, you know it's been excluded. If it is really close and you know there are some other carb stuff in it, it's likely it's been taken out. Common sense is to use a reference point, like USDA, fatsecret.com, or another reliable resource just to verify.0
This discussion has been closed.