Bogus calories and macros in database
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
I like to think of calorie counting as educated guessing. The basic concept is simple: CICO. The nitty-gritty are incredibly complex and sometimes even completely unknown. However, if you trend consistently close enough to a regular deficit, then you will lose weight. It just takes time and observation. Most people don't eat completely different foods every single day - I would guess the majority of people have a fairly small selection of go-to foods that they eat regularly. Figure out how your body reacts to those foods in combination. See what your weight does over time. Getting too focused on being exactly correct assumes that there is objectively knowable nutrition information out there, but there really isn't. Maybe calorie counting isn't for you at all - plenty of people lose weight just by reducing their portion sizes, relying on common sense and nutrition labels and the number on the scale.4 -
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
You may need to be more specific than "usda pork center cut chops boneless raw" if you want to hone in on a more exact number. The above is sold in various forms of lean-ness and cut so you would have to specify.
from USDA:
And this is, by far, the most complete database out there. Any site where the entries are fully checked by an administrative team are going to be either tiny and/or very expensive. The quality/completeness of the user-entered food name/description usually gives a good idea of the quality of the following information. In some cases, packaged foods have been reformulated at some point so you can get varying information there (with possibly both versions of an item available in different stores). Sometimes the entries don't make it clear whether an item is uncooked/dried or cooked (beans, rice, etc)-don't use those. If you eat something frequently, very closely check the entry or make your own entry (mine are initialled after the description so they come up quicker when searching).3 -
MFP has users from all over the world, not just in the US or wherever you're from. That means that there are thousands of entries for foods you've probably never encountered, let alone the thousands of foods you'd regularly see at your local grocery store (which are different from the thousands of foods someone in a different geographical area would see in THEIR local grocery store, etc.)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.
How would you propose they "take an active role in cleaning this up"? Delete and start from scratch? If so, that would probably mean that people in countries where MFP doesn't have employees would be unable to use the site for much longer than other countries, and that's really not fair. Do you want them to start combing through all the pork chop entries and independently verifying them and deleting the ones that don't match the USDA ones? If so, that's the same thing you're unwilling to do for yourself, and you'd only have to do it for the few entries you actually use.
16 -
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.
The reason there are lots of different USDA listings for pork chops was covered in my post above. Different pork chops have different calories per gram depending on how much fat is in the cut.
There is no database that can fix this, you have to learn to understand what you are eating or, if you need to, buy food with labels and use that.
Personally, I was able to be successful counting calories using meat without labels and the USDA entries, however, so I know for a fact it's false to claim you cannot be successful this way. You do need to be honest with yourself, of course.5 -
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.
What were the serving sizes?
I lost 40 Lbs pretty easily using this data base...it's really not that hard to verify entries unless one is simply lazy.8 -
I love this free app. I think the failure stories are less about the entries from users and more from execution of calorie counting. I also appreciate how I can enter in my own entries when there's something missing from the database.9
-
I find it really easy to match up my entries with the food I'm eating, it's pretty easy to weed through the bad ones, and if you can't find one that matches make your own.2
-
I'm also not especially anal about tracking my macros and micros 100% accurately so if I can't find an entry with barcode or manually, I just quick add from the nutrition info on the packet. Even lazy loggers can find a way.0
-
MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.4 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »MFP needs to find a way to clean up their database for sure. It wouldn't be a difficult task tbh. And possibly require people to make "recipes" for themselves without adding them to the whole database. Finally, it would be smart if they got the official information from the Companies regarding retail products and delete anything that isn't an official
Clearly leave the stuff you can't get an official number on. But anything you can, you don't need to have anything else in the database. Update the database annually.
It wouldn't be difficult to go through the millions of user-entered items and double-check them against packaging and/or the USDA or other national nutrition databases? How do you figure?15
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
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions