Mis-information
Options
georgebrackley361
Posts: 2 Member
Hi have signed up today and already have noticed that this is very inaccurate. Salmon is higher in fat than bacon according to this app... Not impressed
0
Replies
-
Worth mentioning that I checked this with a registered dietician, nutritionist, biomedical scientist and google. All of which disagree with the information provided.0
-
Most entries are user-entered, you need to check the entries you use, as there are many incorrect and incomplete ones.6
-
It's not "according to this app," it's "according to the user-created database entry that you pulled up."
Those of us who use the app successfully are verifying the entries we're using. No need to pay an RD, nutritionist, or biomedical scientist for that, it's pretty easy to do.10 -
georgebrackley361 wrote: »Worth mentioning that I checked this with a registered dietician, nutritionist, biomedical scientist and google. All of which disagree with the information provided.
1) The database is vastly populated by user created entries, many of which are inaccurate. You can search for entries using the USDA format such as "Salmon, raw" and compare with that data to validate entries or even create your own. It takes a little extra work up front sometimes.
2) This section of the forum is not monitored by MFP support, it's a user forum and those users have no ability to change your experience with the website or app. You can post in the "Feedback and support" subforum or send a message to MFP support, but your mileage will vary greatly.
5 -
I go through all the choices and look for verified items. I also go on several web sites off MFP to check. Often times there is a margin of error even in the most ideal situation based on different aspects- volume vs weight, hydration, manufacturer, etc. Use discression and mindfulness. If your eating is relatively consistant you will also know by results. It is not an exact science, using this app has helped a mass amount of people.
I f you do want the most precise and accurate information you may want to consider referring to several sources. You could even do the math for each macro to see if it adds up correct. Some nutrition labels do not include fiber calories for thier total caloric count.2 -
oh yeah, the database is an absolute sh*tshow. Who thought allowing anyone to enter anything was a good idea was probably the single worst decision the engineers ever came up with.
You then have the "verified" ones, they have a green check mark next to them. That supposedly means the information is more correct than the other. We then have 50 "verified" sweet potato entries most of which say sweet potato's have 70 mg of sodium in them.0 -
WehttamThims wrote: »oh yeah, the database is an absolute sh*tshow. Who thought allowing anyone to enter anything was a good idea was probably the single worst decision the engineers ever came up with.
You then have the "verified" ones, they have a green check mark next to them. That supposedly means the information is more correct than the other. We then have 50 "verified" sweet potato entries most of which say sweet potato's have 70 mg of sodium in them.
How would you have set up the database?1 -
georgebrackley361 wrote: »Worth mentioning that I checked this with a registered dietician, nutritionist, biomedical scientist and google. All of which disagree with the information provided.
That was some fast work since this morning.
Seriously though, it's a free tool that's basically crowd sourced. There are good entries, find and use them and they should be the ones that appear first next time. Should.
7 -
What everyone else said.
However, it is worth noting that without knowing the amount or type of bacon or the amount (or type) of salmon, it is really impossible to say whether those particular entries were wrong.
From a reputable site (USDA):
100 g of sockeye salmon (raw) has 131 cals and rounds up to 5 g of fat.
100 g of farmed Atlantic salmon (raw) has 208 cals and just under 13.5 g of fat.
Bacon is typically going to have the numbers given for cooked, and varies a lot by brand (if you get bacon in a package search until you find the matching entry - and the package is more reliable than some nutritionist, etc., who would need to look at the package and can't possibly have all brands of bacon memorized). But using the USDA again:
100 g of pork bacon, smoked or cured, cooked has 468 cal and 35 g of fat. Way more, right? But in reality people aren't usually eating that much, and 2 medium slices (a more typical serving size) will have (according to this entry, again it varies by type, some storebought kinds are leaner) 75 cals and just over 4.5 g of fat. Even two thick slices have 112.5 cal and under 8.5 g fat.10 -
WehttamThims wrote: »oh yeah, the database is an absolute sh*tshow. Who thought allowing anyone to enter anything was a good idea was probably the single worst decision the engineers ever came up with.
You then have the "verified" ones, they have a green check mark next to them. That supposedly means the information is more correct than the other. We then have 50 "verified" sweet potato entries most of which say sweet potato's have 70 mg of sodium in them.
How would you have set up the database?
Actually, one superior way would be how it used to be, with the USDA entries easy to identify (those were added by MFP). Having the rest available is better when logging packaged items, of course, and it's easy to compare to the package.
In a perfect world (IMO), they wouldn't allow people to make their homemade meals public, as there's a surprising lack of common sense that "one plate" of someone else's "homemade chicken and potatoes" might not have the same cals or macros as anyone else's. But eh, although those clutter up the database it's not very hard to learn to navigate, IMO.3 -
WehttamThims wrote: »oh yeah, the database is an absolute sh*tshow. Who thought allowing anyone to enter anything was a good idea was probably the single worst decision the engineers ever came up with.
You then have the "verified" ones, they have a green check mark next to them. That supposedly means the information is more correct than the other. We then have 50 "verified" sweet potato entries most of which say sweet potato's have 70 mg of sodium in them.
How would you have set up the database?
Actually, one superior way would be how it used to be, with the USDA entries easy to identify (those were added by MFP). Having the rest available is better when logging packaged items, of course, and it's easy to compare to the package.
In a perfect world (IMO), they wouldn't allow people to make their homemade meals public, as there's a surprising lack of common sense that "one plate" of someone else's "homemade chicken and potatoes" might not have the same cals or macros as anyone else's. But eh, although those clutter up the database it's not very hard to learn to navigate, IMO.
The 'cardinal sin' of MFP's crowdsourcing plan was that they made it too permissive initially, and never implemented an effective plan for curating the database and culling bad entries. Wikipedia, probably the best Web 2.0 era crowdsourcing system, went through a pretty similar phase years ago, and they only solved it with a very strong volunteer curation team that tries to keep the garbage out as much as they can.
I believe that initially MFP user entries were public by default, and they changed it several years ago, but I don't know when that would have happened.
Better search and filter options would be helpful (say options to filter for USDA entries, product country, etc) but that presumes that the data was captured on entry.
Someday, MFP may have to rebuild their database model and start over applying some best practices they learned over the years to support a more sustainable design. They could keep the present database as a 'legacy' source until the new one gets populated enough. But that could confuse users as much as help them. I doubt UA is that invested in improving MFP though.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions