Huge difference between packaging serving size and mfp serving size!!!

Options
Hannahwalksfar
Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
edited September 2019 in Food and Nutrition
y3c31hc9r50n.png
tw8kzz632sou.jpeg
tjrhsom65sny.jpeg
So this is my sweet treat. I love it but I’m really confused. I scanned the barcode and mfp says the serving size is 1.5tsp at almost 400cal butthe packaging says serving size is 1.5tbsp at 110cal. I only ever have 1tsp but I’m so confused. What do I do?

Replies

  • Kathryn247
    Kathryn247 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    What's the product?
    Info that comes up when you use the bar code scanner is entered by users and may not be accurate.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    What is it? Probably the packaging is correct. Could you google their website?
  • Hannahwalksfar
    Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    I just updated with photos
  • Kathryn247
    Kathryn247 Posts: 570 Member
    Options
    The pictures just came up. Go by the info on the nutrition label. If you search in the database instead of using the bar code scanner, you might find a more accurate match.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    Options
    The vast majority of entries on MFP, including the scanned ones, are entered by users. Because of that, there are a lot of inaccuracies. I would double check the company's website and then update the entry if necessary (and I suspect it would be necessary).

    Note too that 1 tbsp of canola oil is 124 calories so I highly doubt the MFP entry you found is correct.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    Whoever entered it entered calories, fat, carbs, protein for 100 grams, not the 30 gram serving. Use the package.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,964 Member
    Options
    Clearly the database entry you selected is wrong. No food has 368 calories per 1.5 tsp. The most would be about 65 calories in 1.5 tsp of a pure fat.

    That said, the package label also seems inflated for the calorie value (110 cals per 1.5 tbsp). This product appears to be a mix of cocoa powder, which has about 18 calories in 1.5 Tbsp (note the label uses a different serving size than the database entry: a teaspoon is one-third the size of a tablespoon), and sugar, which has about 72 calories in 1.5 Tbsp. You cannot combine two solid ingredients and end up with something that is more energy dense than either was alone.
  • BarbaraHelen2013
    BarbaraHelen2013 Posts: 1,940 Member
    Options
    It’s unfortunate that the light flare on the photo is right over the cals per 100g figure! Certainly looks as if Corinasue is right though. I’ve come across this countless times in the past too.

    I’d log it as 0.05 of the serving size if that is the only entry for that product. I think that’d work, maths wise, even it looks like a crazy entry in your diary.
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    Options
    Personally I would add it to my foods, using the weight per 100 grams instead of teaspoon measurements if it were food I consumed regularly. Some user entries are so inaccurate it is scary.
  • Hannahwalksfar
    Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    I just did a quick add of calories.
  • MikePTY
    MikePTY Posts: 3,814 Member
    Options
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Clearly the database entry you selected is wrong. No food has 368 calories per 1.5 tsp. The most would be about 65 calories in 1.5 tsp of a pure fat.

    That said, the package label also seems inflated for the calorie value (110 cals per 1.5 tbsp). This product appears to be a mix of cocoa powder, which has about 18 calories in 1.5 Tbsp (note the label uses a different serving size than the database entry: a teaspoon is one-third the size of a tablespoon), and sugar, which has about 72 calories in 1.5 Tbsp. You cannot combine two solid ingredients and end up with something that is more energy dense than either was alone.

    They are saying it is for 30 grams. So 30 grams of pure sugar would be 120 calories, and this has a bit of fat. So it seems like it is almost pure carbs, with a little bit of fat and protein.
  • Hannahwalksfar
    Hannahwalksfar Posts: 572 Member
    Options
    So here is the rest of the info. The per 100gm was entered as per serving instead dbj0xapjjj6n.jpeg
    tc3hcb119sgm.jpeg
  • Lillymoo01
    Lillymoo01 Posts: 2,865 Member
    edited September 2019
    Options
    Misread!

    I really wish we could delete our own posts sometimes!
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 9,964 Member
    Options
    MikePTY wrote: »
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Clearly the database entry you selected is wrong. No food has 368 calories per 1.5 tsp. The most would be about 65 calories in 1.5 tsp of a pure fat.

    That said, the package label also seems inflated for the calorie value (110 cals per 1.5 tbsp). This product appears to be a mix of cocoa powder, which has about 18 calories in 1.5 Tbsp (note the label uses a different serving size than the database entry: a teaspoon is one-third the size of a tablespoon), and sugar, which has about 72 calories in 1.5 Tbsp. You cannot combine two solid ingredients and end up with something that is more energy dense than either was alone.

    They are saying it is for 30 grams. So 30 grams of pure sugar would be 120 calories, and this has a bit of fat. So it seems like it is almost pure carbs, with a little bit of fat and protein.

    I may have gotten mixed up switching back and forth between the 1.5 tsp in the MFP entry and the 1.5 Tbsp for the label and gram equivalents for each. Thanks.
  • corinasue1143
    corinasue1143 Posts: 7,467 Member
    Options
    Lillymoo01 wrote: »
    Misread!

    I really wish we could delete our own posts sometimes!

    Actually, I think your first answer was a good one.
    If it’s something you use a lot, better to have it correct in your own foods than to keep struggling with how to make an incorrect one come out at least close to right. And easier, too.


Categories