The Importance of Verifying Database Entries

Options
callsitlikeiseeit
callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
You will often hear us say to check the accuracy of your database selections when logging your food. Being a mostly user generated database ... inaccuracies are more common than not. Whether by user entry error or simply old entries that are simply no longer accurate due to manufacturing recipe changes.

A perfect example of a HORRIBLY inaccurate (almost comical, really) entry happened to me just now. Blueberries. Pretty simple, right? You would think. I eat them all the time. Have entered them for years without issue. I recently renamed all my diary food 'sections' and added sections and now things are all out of whack and I find myself having to 're-find' things in the database all the time. not a big deal.

Until I came to blueberries.

I filled my little bowl with 88 grams of little berries. went to sit down and eat them and log them.

5x30vdnbvzj1.png


305 calories! The DUCK they are!

ohhhhh MFP....

Find another entry that looks more accurate, compare it against the USDA database, all is good. okay.

Now, if I was new to logging, or simply didn't eat blueberries often, I might never eat them again, thinking that was correct. OR, even worse, continue to eat them (or if it was another item that is eaten regularly and perhaps a key part of your regular diet) and create a larger deficit which could eventually cause health issues. Under eating is bad, y'all....

This is why it is so important to learn how to log accurately, learn how to find accurate database entries, learn how to spot entries that dont look quite 'right', and learn how to VERIFY those entries.

https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/index.html


There used to be a crazy ridiculous entry for garlic, too, if I remember right. Haven't seen any mention of that one in some time. Wonder if it finally got removed from the database LOL



«1

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,953 Member
    Options
    How to Log Accurately

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    How to Log Accurately

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

    one of the greatest posts of all time!
  • socajam
    socajam Posts: 2,530 Member
    Options
    I sometimes think these people are illiterate because how do they come up with these figures
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    socajam wrote: »
    I sometimes think these people are illiterate because how do they come up with these figures

    i knew right away it was wrong but it made me wonder - how many people have used it NOT knowing? and theres so many examples of it in the database, and many just arent that obvious
  • socajam
    socajam Posts: 2,530 Member
    Options
    callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
    socajam wrote: »
    I sometimes think these people are illiterate because how do they come up with these figures

    i knew right away it was wrong but it made me wonder - how many people have used it NOT knowing? and theres so many examples of it in the database, and many just arent that obvious

    I always double check before using any entries in the database because it really annoying to find out that the numbers are way off, especially if one is trying to lower carbs/sodium or increase protein.
  • goal06082021
    goal06082021 Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.

    You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.
  • claireychn074
    claireychn074 Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Ahhh the infamous garlic 😀 yes I discovered it about two years ago when putting together a recipe for bolognaise, and wondered why my meal was so high in calories! Haven’t seen it since, I miss that garlic.

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    goal06082021 wrote: »
    Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.

    You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.

    Yes, there is a glitch in some admin-created entries that list 1 g when the values are actually for 100 g.

    I exclusively use the USDA site for meat - have you found issues with their entries there?
  • ZoneFive
    ZoneFive Posts: 570 Member
    edited September 2021
    Options
    And while you're checking calories, don't just rely on the calorie count alone. There are at least two entries where the calorie count is (as far as I could tell) accurate, but there are no nutrient counts given at all. 66 calories (for one slice of a particular bread, I think it was), but no carbs, no fat, no protein, no fiber given.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,953 Member
    edited September 2021
    Options
    I knew there "used to" be a way, but I didn't know you could still see asterisks on the old recipe builder...however, those "USDA" or "Generic" asterisked ones are not admin-entered, so that's not much of a fix. The admin-entered ones never use the qualifiers of USDA or Generic, nor the lookup numbers (like the 20444.) Those are user entered - which is not to say they are not correct, they may be.

    Why can't they just go back to the real asterisks? I mean, that was a major mistake to take those asterisks away. It got corrupted an an update and never fixed.

    HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE????????

    I keep posting about this (shouting when I feel like it!) every chance I get with the hope that one day the right person will understand what I'm saying and go, "Oh, well that's an easy fix, [click]" and it will work again.

    i387iz2yv5a9.png

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    ZoneFive wrote: »
    And while you're checking calories, don't just rely on the calorie count alone. There are at least two entries where the calorie count is (as far as I could tell) accurate, but there are no nutrient counts given at all. 66 calories (for one slice of a particular bread, I think it was), but no carbs, no fat, no protein, no fiber given.

    That's a user-created entry by someone who only cared about the calories, which is why I use user-created entries as seldom as possible.

    There is another glitch with some entries MFP pulled from the USDA database - 0 calorie entries, like for this cup of pecans:

    qvu01irbhl1z.png

    I wonder if enough people flag "nuts, pecans" as inaccurate they will take a look at it?
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    cmriverside wrote: »
    I knew there "used to" be a way, but I didn't know you could still see asterisks on the old recipe builder...however, those "USDA" or "Generic" asterisked ones are not admin-entered, so that's not much of a fix. The admin-entered ones never use the qualifiers of USDA or Generic, nor the lookup numbers (like the 20444.) Those are user entered - which is not to say they are not correct, they may be.

    Why can't they just go back to the real asterisks? I mean, that was a major mistake to take those asterisks away. It got corrupted an an update and never fixed.

    HOW HARD WOULD THAT BE????????

    I keep posting about this (shouting when I feel like it!) every chance I get with the hope that one day the right person will understand what I'm saying and go, "Oh, well that's an easy fix, [click]" and it will work again.

    i387iz2yv5a9.png

    In that example, no asterisks = admin-created :)
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,953 Member
    Options
    oooooh....well, sure, that's intuitive @kshama2001
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,953 Member
    Options
    At least that would give the syntax. I can see that being useful, but too many clickities.
  • goal06082021
    goal06082021 Posts: 2,130 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    goal06082021 wrote: »
    Entries for meat vary wildly - whenever I put in a recipe for something I feel like I need to check three separate sources to decide what's a reasonable calorie count for 2 lbs of pork loin (or whatever), the find something that's close enough to that in the database.

    You also need to double check if you change the units - there are some entries that are fine and accurate enough when you log it by oz, for instance, but switch to grams and suddenly your 56g of whatever is 10,000 calories. No idea how that happened, if I think of it next time I find such a one I'll take a screenshot.

    Yes, there is a glitch in some admin-created entries that list 1 g when the values are actually for 100 g.

    I exclusively use the USDA site for meat - have you found issues with their entries there?

    That's where I usually end up, yeah. I figure if I'm going to trust anyone to be accurate it's the USDA, I guess.

    Also I want some of those magic 0-calorie pecans, LMAO
  • callsitlikeiseeit
    callsitlikeiseeit Posts: 8,627 Member
    Options
    goal06082021 wrote: »

    Also I want some of those magic 0-calorie pecans, LMAO

    right?

    that was a macro person. the macros are there. EXCEPT the calories LOLOLOL

Categories