Bogus calories and macros in database
jaza48
Posts: 9 Member
Where is everyone getting their nutritional data from? I looked at the database here and it is not even close! So if youre counting calories daily and tracking Carbs Protein and Fat where are you getting those numbers from? Thanks!
1
Replies
-
The MFP database allows users to create their own entries, so some are more accurate than others. Nobody is able to double-check entries, so it's a "buyer beware" kind of situation. Generally speaking, look for entries that have the green check mark or include the phrase "USDA" to find more-accurate entries. Stay away from any entries marked generic or homemade, because there's no way to know whether your homemade food matches someone else's. Also, stay away from entries that describe a whole dish (like "1 PB&J" or "scrambled eggs") because, again, who knows whether you make scrambled eggs in the same way as anyone else.15
-
Or, you can go to the USDA nutrition database (use Google) and then look for matches. The admin-entered foods here are taken from that source, and they are in the MFP database, you just have to know how to search for them.
Or you can enter your own foods (or even just edit existing ones) THEN they appear in your MY FOODS list and once you use them they will be in your Recents list. I've done that with the foods I use on a regular basis.6 -
Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.18 -
Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.
Use the USDA entries. Search for whatever it is you want with, for example, 'USDA pork raw', and tada! There is is. You should be able to find all whole foods that way, everything else you can get the info from the packet. Create your own entries for those things if you must.
Yes, the database is full of appalling entries, but it's really not that hard to work around if you care to do so. Once you've added something to your diary, it's there in your recent foods list for future use.17 -
this post really makes you think. or should I say the responses . I started weighing and being aware of generic differences. I use carbs and cals that the hospital advised me to purchase. a good basic guideline to a lot of foods. there are even pictures so you can gage a portion visually as well as by indexed foods.0
-
Where are you seeing "USDA"? I just entered "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw" and got hundreds of entries, but I don't see USDA anywhere.3
-
Yeah, if it says "USDA" that means nothing, because when the site was created, the database did not use the qualifier of "USDA," so if it says "USDA" it is user-entered - and may or may not be correct, you still have to check it.
It takes some work to find the right ones, and you have to know the exact syntax in order to find them. I've been on this site ten years, so I have it dialed in - but in the beginning it's a challenge.
It's still the best database for its purpose on the internet, so you have to make some adjustments.
Use the foods you like, check them against the USDA database. Once you use them, they will be in your personal lists. That's the best answer.7 -
-
I cross check with the USDA site (https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list) and will use the language there to find the right entries (which you can also recognize by comparing them with the USDA site or the many different serving sizes -- if something does not have a 100 g option I usually will not use it). Once you use it you can find it in your recents or favorites.
That said, meat (like boneless center cut pork chops) is not all that simple, because it varies so much. If you have a label, find the entry that matches. If not -- and for me I don't, since I get meat from a farm -- you have to guess, and I think meat is my biggest "who knows" variable when I am logging. But find a way of doing it, be honest about the amount of fat on it, make sure you find a raw entry if weighing raw, cooked if weighing cooked, and be as consistent as possible and then adjust based on results.6 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Yes I understand all of that. But you didn't answer the question. The MFP database is so polluted with bogus numbers that it's really not usable. It's no wonder there are so many failure stories in the community here. I'm searching for a RELIABLE source of data to track calories and macros. Even something as simple as a boneless pork center cut chop has numbers listed in the MFP database that vary up to 100 cals. The folks entering the data are really screwing up the database.
I would like to be within 50 or so cals per day. Meaning, if an item is off 5 or 10 cals I don't sweat it. But the database here is so full of bogus numbers that I don't trust any of it. If a food has a nutrition data label I use that. But most meats don't have a label thus the need for a reliable source.
Use the USDA entries. Search for whatever it is you want with, for example, 'USDA pork raw', and tada! There is is. You should be able to find all whole foods that way, everything else you can get the info from the packet. Create your own entries for those things if you must.
Yes, the database is full of appalling entries, but it's really not that hard to work around if you care to do so. Once you've added something to your diary, it's there in your recent foods list for future use.
Did what you said. "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw"......only looked at USDA listings......8 listings then I quit because it was quite scary.
Highest....Cal 239....Carbs 1g....Pro 24g....Fat 16g
Lowest.....Cal 130....Carbs 0g....Pro 20g....Fat 5g
There is no way anyone can accurately track calories and macros using this database. I feel sorry for people that are struggling with their progress not knowing that they're using bogus numbers from the MFP database.
The whole database needs to go away. Pure rubbish! Shame on MFP for not taking an active role on cleaning this up. Advertising money aside, they should show some integrity and clean up their act.
19 -
ha. I lost nearly 80 pounds using this site.
It works if you are honest and willing to do a little work.
Or you can get mad, refuse to do the work, and stay at your current weight. There is no better database, and even "exact" numbers aren't ever exact - but it works well enough for the purpose. Even the best logging is going to have about a 20% margin of error. Luckily our bodies also are dynamic and will respond to approximations.36 -
Pork, fresh, loin, center rib (chops or roasts), boneless, separable lean only, raw
Use that^ (copy and paste it) - verified, actual USDA entries.13 -
No logging should ever have an error factor of 20% if the data entered is accurate. Being honest and work output has zero to do with a bogus database. You sound like you're responding from your high horse. Great for you losing 80 pounds, congratulations. However, we are not talking about weight loss, comittment, work ethic, desire or anything else. We're talking about a database that has been polluted with bogus data. Your responses are welcome but please try to stay on topic.25
-
No logging should ever have an error factor of 20% if the data entered is accurate. Being honest and work output has zero to do with a bogus database. You sound like you're responding from your high horse. Great for you losing 80 pounds, congratulations. However, we are not talking about weight loss, comittment, work ethic, desire or anything else. We're talking about a database that has been polluted with bogus data. Your responses are welcome but please try to stay on topic.
You will never get exact numbers. Just live with it. That is on topic.23 -
Dear Glob, many, many people have lost weight successfully using that database, using the tips that have been explained to you.
No calorie count is ever going to be exact, because of natural variation between foods. I could have two apples of the same variety, same weight, but from two different orchards, and their calories and nutritional make up will vary slightly based on soil, water content, ripeness, etc, etc, etc.
The database is what it is. You can either learn to work with it, or not. Complaining isn't going to fix it.29 -
I do understand what you are saying though. Everyone is always advising others to weigh your food to be sure you are accurate on portion size. But if the calorie database of foods are inaccurate then being accurate on measuring is rather moot. Then we are told to only aim for a 500 calorie deficit, but are told that the exercise calories are over estimated. Sometimes it feels like you are throwing darts.
That said I consistently have been losing 1.5 to 2 pounds a week.10 -
J9LynnHelton wrote: »I do understand what you are saying though. Everyone is always advising others to weigh your food to be sure you are accurate on portion size. But if the calorie database of foods are inaccurate then being accurate on measuring is rather moot. Then we are told to only aim for a 500 calorie deficit, but are told that the exercise calories are over estimated. Sometimes it feels like you are throwing darts.
That said I consistently have been losing 1.5 to 2 pounds a week.
We are saying that you do have to verify your choices. The database was built by 1.) Admin of MFP and 2.) Users.
It used to be that every entry automatically became public domain, and that is why this database is so huge. There has to be millions of entries. No one could "fix" it at this point without starting over, and then many people would lose their specific foods. It works fine, it just takes time in the beginning. As does anything worth learning.
Once you use a food (that you have verified is correct) then it becomes part of your "favorites" or "Recent" list. You can enter your own food from scratch and then it is in MY FOODS.
11 -
The hints on how to make use of the admittedly very polluted database have been detailed above.
The only thing I would like to add is that some generic entries are actual USDA or well-thought-out entries, though spending the time to verify that they're good could be used to make your own.
And that it's sometimes easier, instead of searching for the exact wording of the USDA database, to search for the standard reference number keeping in mind how many calories per 100g you expect the entry to be (yes, I've seen a couple of entries using the standard reference number that had calories from a different entry)
6 -
I double check the entry the first time I use it and then select from the list of foods that I've already entered going forward to make sure I've got the right figures.16
-
I check here: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list
and I check the nutrition facts on the package, and I weigh the contents of the package.
Do this often enough and you can get pretty good at detecting BS calories.
If you go to the ndb.nal.usda.gov site and search for "pork, raw", you'll get dozens of choices, but not a single one of them is a boneless center cut.6 -
It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Your best bet is to do your own research on a particular food first, then find a matching one in the database. It's the nature of the beast and it's totally workable.19
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Your best bet is to do your own research on a particular food first, then find a matching one in the database. It's the nature of the beast and it's totally workable.
And after 30 days, you have data to work with - are you losing weight more or less as would be expected given your calories in/calories out? Then keep doing what you are doing. No? then take another look at the numbers.9 -
I scan a lot of food when I can (other than fresh produce) using the barcode but never cross checked it and assumed it was accurate, I might start paying more attention.3
-
Fruit and veg are largely "close enough is good enough" because of their relatively lower calorie counts.
Do you buy all of your meat from a butcher? I don't because I don't have one local enough to me. Though our supermarkets have in store butchers but as with their regular meat, the labels have all the nutrition info on them. Things like bread from the bakery that don't have the info are generally on their website.
You're making it a lot harder than it really needs to be. Those who struggle are generally not struggling because of database entries, it happens but nearly as often as you seem to think.8 -
No logging should ever have an error factor of 20% if the data entered is accurate. Being honest and work output has zero to do with a bogus database. You sound like you're responding from your high horse. Great for you losing 80 pounds, congratulations. However, we are not talking about weight loss, comittment, work ethic, desire or anything else. We're talking about a database that has been polluted with bogus data. Your responses are welcome but please try to stay on topic.
Actually the FDA allows for up to a 20% margin of error on all nutritional information on packaging. So there is definately some wiggle room in these numbers. However, it was pointed out in another thread that this goes both ways (higher or lower) and that overall it would balance out. More accurately, if you track your intake and weight loss as suggested, you will find the number that helps you lose weight at a safe rate. This number (whether it is in reality 20% different than what you thought ) will still work all the same. If people on here truly struggle and do not lose, they are often advised to drop by a few hundred calories and monitor their progress. For example: lets say I *think * im eating 1500 calories but it's 20% off. That means I'm eating 1800 calories. If I made no progress for a while, I might try dropping to 1200 calories. If I'm using entries that are indeed off by 20% , then in reality I will be eating 1500 and losing accordingly. If I lose too quickly then I know I've cut it down too much.
Im a data person, and a database administrator , so I get feeling irritated by 'dirty data' but realistically the strength of MFP is that it is crowd sourced (and thus free), and any time things are crowd sourced there are bound to be errors. You know how it works now so you can handle it accordingly.13 -
Honestly, I've found so many suspect entries in MFP that I ignore it altogether. I default to USDA and/or conventional wisdom gathered from multiple sites.2
-
Actually the FDA allows for up to a 20% margin of error on all nutritional information on packaging.
I have also seen this number mentioned on MFP. I have not done a lot of research on this yet - I will put it on my list of research projects for a rainy day. My initial guess is that the 20% number is actually a range centered on the target value; meaning an allowance of 10% below or 10% above the target number, resulting in a 20% range.
I believe this range is specified in the FDA or USDA guidelines for implementing a quality control program. I will check on that later. The quality control range is normally applied to the weight of packaging, so I would assume the target number is the actual weight of the item per package, and sometimes per serving. Most manufacturers do not want to package more weight than labeled/advertised (that would cost them money), nor do they want to package less weight than labeled/advertised (that would cost them customer dissatisfaction - think of the controversy about Subway foot-long sub that measured 11 inches instead of 12 inches).
On average, the majority of items I have weighed are slightly above the target weight as labeled. Very few items I have weighed turn out to weigh below the packaged weight label. Very few items have weighed more than 10% of the packaged weight label.
The items that tend to weigh below the packaged weight label are either non-branded items or some branded items that are sold at discount stores that are edible, but have been rejected by the manufacturer's quality control program for being under the stated package weight label. Those are normally sold to discount dollar-store chains and sold at deep discounts to patrons.4 -
Huh, I haven't really had your problem at all. The entries I've used so far have all been accurate. Are you only having an issue with meat?5
-
No logging should ever have an error factor of 20% if the data entered is accurate. Being honest and work output has zero to do with a bogus database. You sound like you're responding from your high horse. Great for you losing 80 pounds, congratulations. However, we are not talking about weight loss, comittment, work ethic, desire or anything else. We're talking about a database that has been polluted with bogus data. Your responses are welcome but please try to stay on topic.
Do you have an alternative website/database that you feel is more accurate, is also free, and offers the benefits that MFP has (social network, message boards, knowledgeable members, ability to track a variety of KPIs in line with individual goals, syncs with various apps and other devices)? Because if that's out there and a better fit for you - maybe MFP isn't a good solution for you. It has worked well for countless numbers of us to achieve our goals and stick around during maintenance to help others and remain a part of the community; even with the "bogus database" as you describe it.17 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Your best bet is to do your own research on a particular food first, then find a matching one in the database. It's the nature of the beast and it's totally workable.
This. Unfortunately it's possible that not all of the exact information you need is going to be handed to you from the MFP database. It takes some effort and tweaking in the beginning but figuring things out is part of the process.
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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