Food sizes
fur706
Posts: 3 Member
Recently the site had an article which basically said we overestimate the calories that we burn and underestimate the calories that we eat.
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
2
Replies
-
We also preach picking correct entries and using a food scale. You can make your own entries if you can't find one.5
-
Recently the site had an article which basically said we overestimate the calories that we burn and underestimate the calories that we eat.
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
You know the database is mainly filled with user created entries? It's not the 'site's' fault as such...4 -
Of course it is.... the site can set itself up so that it won't accept anything but specific measurements0
-
And yes, I am well aware that the data base has input from members and yes we can use scales and measure the food ourselves but what then is the point of the database if it doesn't provide globally useful information?1
-
-
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous.
Find a different database item with a proper measurement? Over estimate your food a little to compensate your under estimation? Or be as accurate as possible and accept that you will never be 100% correct and adjust your calorie goal up and down based on actual weight loss over several weeks or months.
Aren't a lot of the food database items user created?
6 -
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous.
Find a different database item with a proper measurement? Over estimate your food a little to compensate your under estimation? Or be as accurate as possible and accept that you will never be 100% correct and adjust your calorie goal up and down based on actual weight loss over several weeks or months.
Aren't a lot of the food database items user created?
Exactly. Every user can enter their own food in their measurements. And if someone knows that a "portion" is always xyz for them, it's the easiest, to enter it that way. This litters the database with tons of very useless entries, yes, that is true, but can't be avoided.
I, as a European, think that the cup system is very unreliable, because there are often huge differences between what people consider 1 cup, but well. Official entries always have gram options as well and you can always add your own version as well
0 -
When you are searching put gram at the end.
IE USDA Sweet potato gram4 -
I lost 100 pounds using MFP while I never owned a food scale during that weight loss. I used only the cup and spoon measurements, plus the occasional vague portion sizes. I did fine without a food scale.
There are people such as me who rely on those types of measurements. I would be strongly against MFP prohibiting cups as a measurement.6 -
Recently the site had an article which basically said we overestimate the calories that we burn and underestimate the calories that we eat.
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
I am not really bothered by entries offering the option of cups even if it is not the most accurate way to log food. I would like there not to be milliliters or fluid ounces given as choices for solid foods. If you are logging peas for example a cup seems less crazy than using fluid ounces for a measurement.
MFP offers an extensive database for free. I just find a different entry that is most accurate for me.2 -
Well, 'stone' is only a useful measurement in England and I don't get upset when someone refers to it. And cup is not vague- it's a cup, or 8 fl ounces. There are many converters to figure how what a cup is in in any particular weighing system, so just use those.
3 -
I've found the official entries or entered my own. It's worth it for the extra couple minutes it takes. I've looked on the internet for a better database and it doesn't exist - this one is by far the best.2
-
As long as food labels in the US list serving sizes in cups, it's going to be pretty hard to eliminate cup measurements entirely. Cups show up when scanning the bar codes for entries that food item. For myself, when a label list servings in cups and grams, I do weigh it, but the recorded entry will still list the serving in cups.0
-
I lost 40 lbs using cups and oz.
And no scale, but people preach scales
2 -
Recently the site had an article which basically said we overestimate the calories that we burn and underestimate the calories that we eat.
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
Many entries are user created. Often people will use a cup as it's what they are used to regardless of accuracy. Dry/solid foods should always be weighed. The only food I don't weigh out anymore is leafy greens as they are so low in calories that I just use the "eyeball" method, even if I am off by 100g, it's not really that much.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I've found the official entries or entered my own. It's worth it for the extra couple minutes it takes. I've looked on the internet for a better database and it doesn't exist - this one is by far the best.
The FDA does have a better database, it's just a nightmare to go through. Everything is in single gram or ml, and it's pure alphabetical - by how it's sold. So you can't look up "Honey nut Cheerios", you have to scroll to find "General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios". Fruit and vegetables, same thing. Can't just look up apple, you need the type of apple and it's proper name - oh yeah, it also separates fruit from it's skin so for a Granny Smith apples, the pulp and skin are separate listings. Government efficiency at it's finest.0 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I've found the official entries or entered my own. It's worth it for the extra couple minutes it takes. I've looked on the internet for a better database and it doesn't exist - this one is by far the best.
The FDA does have a better database, it's just a nightmare to go through. Everything is in single gram or ml, and it's pure alphabetical - by how it's sold. So you can't look up "Honey nut Cheerios", you have to scroll to find "General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios". Fruit and vegetables, same thing. Can't just look up apple, you need the type of apple and it's proper name - oh yeah, it also separates fruit from it's skin so for a Granny Smith apples, the pulp and skin are separate listings. Government efficiency at it's finest.
But that doesn't tie into a program that helps you track your daily intake.
The USDA entries (I think that's what you mean) are all in MFP's database, in fact they are what the site creator used to create the database here. Mostly that's what I use, I just know how to search for them in the database.
Fruit (apples) - it doesn't really matter which variety (Delicious, Gala, etc.) of apple you choose, the calories are so close as to be insignificant. Just the gram weight is sufficient. In the MFP database, search for "Apples raw." Then choose the one at the top and skin or no skin. It will also have a variety of portion sizes displayed if you click the drop-down list in the box. For instance, ounce, gram, pieces, small, medium, large, cup, 100g, etc. That's how I can tell I've found an admin entered one - the long list of portion sizes.
2 -
I'm curious how this might help me, because it's something I keep running into. For instance, I bought bags of green, red, and black grapes for this week. Servings are generally listed in cups, well a cup is 8oz., so away I go setting up containers each with 5.3oz. of each type of grapes (I wanted to get 2 cups total in for the day as something I could snack on throughout my work day). Great right? Apparently not, because when dealing with this stuff, 1 cup doesn't mean 8oz. it would seem. Information is conflicting on how I should arrive at my portions. For me this is the most ridiculous aspect of things. Everything should be by weight, unless fluid, IMO. I bought a food scale that does lb. oz./oz./g for this reason.
As for the variety of measurements, I've been finding that those calculations can be hilariously off. For instance, using "Grapes - Raw" (which has a long list of available measurements) from the search function, apparently .6 cups is 3,698 calories. How in the fsck is that? What crazy math is going on behind the scenes to arrive at such an obviously wrong calculation?0 -
I get 37 calories for .6 cups of grapes.
Check your inputs.
Really, if you have the ability to weigh 5.3 ounces, I'm not sure why you wouldn't use that - since cups are for baking (like sugar/flour) or liquid measure. I even weigh my sugar/flour these days, because although cups work fine for baking - they don't work at all for accuracy in calories. So I would use the gram or ounces for solid things such as grapes...but to be fair, grapes are so low-cal it isn't a huge issue.0 -
What is the use of a database that does not enforce accurate entries?
That's a rhetorical question isn't it?
I can think of two other huge databases that depend on consensus rather than accuracy. Google and Wikipedia.0 -
Recently the site had an article which basically said we overestimate the calories that we burn and underestimate the calories that we eat.
It seems irresponsible then to allow the food database to contain measurements which are not specific. I.e. Food which is measured as a 'portion' or as a 'cup'. Whilst a 'cup' may be meaningful in the US, it has no firm measurement for most other parts of the world, and a 'portion' is so vague as to be ridiculous. I do not see how the site can preach that we underestimate our food when it allows vague measurements to be used in its own database which encourage the practice. Surely a specific weight or volume is the only way to display food, it could be pounds or grams, but please something more definitive than vague terminology!
Some people would rather log "loosely" to get a general idea of what they are eating and don't want to be fussed by weighing everything.
Some people only use their log to make sure they are getting enough servings of veggies or protein and see no need to be exact.
Some people benefit from baby steps, and find changing from mindless eating to eyeballed measurements is enough initially to get them moving in the right direction.
Some people are trying to maintain their weight and do so just fine logging estimates.
In other words, MFP is used by many people whose goals and parameters are different than yours. It does not promote itself as a program that will force you to be as accurate as possible regardless of what you want to do. It is just a food log, to be used however you see fit.
The accurate entries are in there for you to find if that is what you want to do, and it is easy to create your own entries or amend an existing entry if you need to.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I get 37 calories for .6 cups of grapes.
Check your inputs.
What exact db entry are you using for that? I ended up using "Fruit - Red/green Seedless Grapes (Usda)" and for 10.6 servings (1oz.) I get 207 calories. I used "Generic - Black Grapes" for those, the default is 1 cup for serving, I used .3 because the ounce options specifically state fluid ounces. Grand total: 243 calories for "2 cups" or 16oz. of grapes.Really, if you have the ability to weigh 5.3 ounces, I'm not sure why you wouldn't use that - since cups are for baking (like sugar/flour) or liquid measure. I even weigh my sugar/flour these days, because although cups work fine for baking - they don't work at all for accuracy in calories. So I would use the gram or ounces for solid things such as grapes...but to be fair, grapes are so low-cal it isn't a huge issue.
I do use it. The issue is that when something calls for "1 cup" as the serving, the actual weight/volume is not what one would expect. Apparently 1 cup of grapes is not 8oz. so my calculations are probably wrong, thus making my calorie count wrong too. I'd prefer that all non-liquid servings were given in grams or some other actual weight based measurement, and that I could find them easily. Both Googling and searching the MFP db provides so many different measures and calorie counts that it's discouraging.
The second paragraph of my reply was mainly in pointing out how flawed many parts of the MFP database are, esp. when calculations are so far off. I weigh my grapes, I input them in MFP, and magically I've ingested nearly 4K calories? Someone needs to check that stuff.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I get 37 calories for .6 cups of grapes.
Check your inputs.
What exact db entry are you using for that? I ended up using "Fruit - Red/green Seedless Grapes (Usda)" and for 10.6 servings (1oz.) I get 207 calories. I used "Generic - Black Grapes" for those, the default is 1 cup for serving, I used .3 because the ounce options specifically state fluid ounces. Grand total: 243 calories for "2 cups" or 16oz. of grapes.Really, if you have the ability to weigh 5.3 ounces, I'm not sure why you wouldn't use that - since cups are for baking (like sugar/flour) or liquid measure. I even weigh my sugar/flour these days, because although cups work fine for baking - they don't work at all for accuracy in calories. So I would use the gram or ounces for solid things such as grapes...but to be fair, grapes are so low-cal it isn't a huge issue.
I do use it. The issue is that when something calls for "1 cup" as the serving, the actual weight/volume is not what one would expect. Apparently 1 cup of grapes is not 8oz. so my calculations are probably wrong, thus making my calorie count wrong too. I'd prefer that all non-liquid servings were given in grams or some other actual weight based measurement, and that I could find them easily. Both Googling and searching the MFP db provides so many different measures and calorie counts that it's discouraging.
The second paragraph of my reply was mainly in pointing out how flawed many parts of the MFP database are, esp. when calculations are so far off. I weigh my grapes, I input them in MFP, and magically I've ingested nearly 4K calories? Someone needs to check that stuff.
"Grapes raw" the first entry of the list. Keep it simple.
That one you used is User-entered. The admin entries don't say USDA. Same with any produce. The name = "Apples raw," then look at the first ones on the list that say, "apples raw." Squash is a problem, though. Instead of, "Zucchini raw," you have to look at the "Squash zucchini baby raw," dunno why some are different like that. I mean I've been on this site ten years so the stuff I use I know the syntax. You can go to USDA to get the exact syntax. That's a lot of work.
Don't even get me started on meat and seafood.
Second paragraph; you know you can check the nutrition of it before you add it to the diary, right? Use the "Nutrition info" green button link inside the nutrition box. Usually the admin-entered ones will have 50 or so "verifications," too. And what I'm saying is that when you use the admin-entered entries, you get a variety of options for measurement sizes such as: grams, tablespoons, ounces, each, small, medium, large, 100g, cup, milliliter. So you choose the most appropriate one from the drop-down list and use that for your item. Sometimes grapes are blended - then a cup or milliliter would be appropriate I guess. (Although I would have to argue that milliliters of garlic and some other things is a coding error - unless it is for commercial use, maybe.)2 -
cmriverside wrote: »"Grapes raw" the first entry of the list. Keep it simple. That one you used is User-entered. The admin entries don't say USDA. Same with any produce. The name = "Apples raw," then look at the first ones on the list that say, "apples raw." Squash is a problem, though. Instead of, "Zucchini raw," you have to look at the "Squash zucchini baby raw," dunno why some are different like that. I mean I've been on this site ten years so the stuff I use I know the syntax. You can go to USDA to get the exact syntax. That's a lot of work.
Don't even get me started on meat and seafood.
Perhaps now part of the issue is just pedantry, but different grapes have different caloric values. Apparently red and green are pretty close to the same, but black apparently are not. I s'pose I could just use the one and not worry about the few calories difference, I just like to be as accurate as I can.Second paragraph; you know you can check the nutrition of it before you add it to the diary, right? Use the "Nutrition info" green button link inside the nutrition box. Usually the admin-entered ones will have 50 or so "verifications," too. And what I'm saying is that when you use the admin-entered entries, you get a variety of options for measurement sizes such as: grams, tablespoons, ounces, each, small, medium, large, 100g, cup, milliliter. So you choose the most appropriate one from the drop-down list and use that for your item. Sometimes grapes are blended - then a cup or milliliter would be appropriate I guess. (Although I would have to argue that milliliters of garlic and some other things is a coding error - unless it is for commercial use, maybe.)
I have a feeling I'm not explaining myself right on this. I'm well aware of checking the nutrition of an item. That's not the issue here. There seems to be a math error on the backend on some entries. Like, I can use the default of 1 cup or whatever, and it'll be right. But if I switch it to oz. or gram or even use a decimal less than 1 for the cup, I suddenly get an absurdly high calorie count from it. With Grapes - raw, it seems the exact "1 cup" entry works fine, but there's a separate "1 cup(s)" entry, and that bugs right the hell out telling me .6 of a cup is nearly 4K calories. I've had other entries where this happens using the usual gram or oz. entries in the dropdown, which has caused me to seek different entries with working conversions.0 -
Not everyone weighs their food. Not everyone has to weigh their food to lose weight. For them, cups or pieces works fine.0
-
Oops, yeah USDA. I agree, it's great for a scientist of finding which apples to use for space exploration where weight is absolutely critical. It's extensive, just not very practical for most people. The database here is mostly good. If I can't find it, I'll either research something on my own, or use the higher calorie entry so as not to underestimate my caloric intake (I try to get close to my recommended + 80-90% of my quatifiable cardio).cmriverside wrote: »VeronicaA76 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I've found the official entries or entered my own. It's worth it for the extra couple minutes it takes. I've looked on the internet for a better database and it doesn't exist - this one is by far the best.
The FDA does have a better database, it's just a nightmare to go through. Everything is in single gram or ml, and it's pure alphabetical - by how it's sold. So you can't look up "Honey nut Cheerios", you have to scroll to find "General Mills Honey Nut Cheerios". Fruit and vegetables, same thing. Can't just look up apple, you need the type of apple and it's proper name - oh yeah, it also separates fruit from it's skin so for a Granny Smith apples, the pulp and skin are separate listings. Government efficiency at it's finest.
But that doesn't tie into a program that helps you track your daily intake.
The USDA entries (I think that's what you mean) are all in MFP's database, in fact they are what the site creator used to create the database here. Mostly that's what I use, I just know how to search for them in the database.
Fruit (apples) - it doesn't really matter which variety (Delicious, Gala, etc.) of apple you choose, the calories are so close as to be insignificant. Just the gram weight is sufficient. In the MFP database, search for "Apples raw." Then choose the one at the top and skin or no skin. It will also have a variety of portion sizes displayed if you click the drop-down list in the box. For instance, ounce, gram, pieces, small, medium, large, cup, 100g, etc. That's how I can tell I've found an admin entered one - the long list of portion sizes.0 -
Not everyone weighs their food. Not everyone has to weigh their food to lose weight. For them, cups or pieces works fine.
And some foods are rather rediculous to weigh every time, like arugala or spinach or kale. If your off by 1/2 cup that's a whole 3 calories. Not something to be worried about. The eyeball method is just fine.0 -
Not everyone weighs their food. Not everyone has to weigh their food to lose weight. For them, cups or pieces works fine.
Okay, and?VeronicaA76 wrote: »Not everyone weighs their food. Not everyone has to weigh their food to lose weight. For them, cups or pieces works fine.
And some foods are rather rediculous to weigh every time, like arugala or spinach or kale. If your off by 1/2 cup that's a whole 3 calories. Not something to be worried about. The eyeball method is just fine.
That's great for you then. Just because you don't need it doesn't refute or negate my or others personal needs, which includes weighing, etc. MFP clearly can provide a plethora of ways to count your calories. It needs to, you know, actually work. That's my point with this, and there's nothing wrong with me making a point of it. You are fine with eyeballing? Cool. That's great /for you/. You're not really helping me or anyone else who isn't happy with that though.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions