How do I create a My Foods list

@lynn_glenmont (and other MFP pro)s: So if I want to add grapes without looking at a gazillion entries for grapes to find my *favorite* entry for grapes…. well how would I do that efficiently? Sometimes as I start typing, I happen to notice “grapes” in my history and can add, but not always. I just can’t believe how long it takes to sift through all the entries to find the unit of measurement that works best for me (same goes for entering recipes!) Like @grannydl said, the answer is probably pretty simple and staring right at me. Thanks

This is not going to be helpful, especially at first, but gonna say it anyway:

Some of the better entries are the ones loaded from USDA back in the olden days when MFP got started. These will not have "USDA" anywhere in the title (those that do are user entered, and may be slightly higher odds for good data than others).

Some people look up foods in the USDA database ** (using the SR Legacy) tab, get the title syntax from there, then paste it into the MFP search. After a while, one starts to notice patterns in those entries in the MFP database:

* Food titles only a bureaucrat could love. Often, it's things like "Tomatoes, red, ripe, raw, year round average". Normal users wouldn't typically type that!
* Usually, but not always, they're green-checked as verified.
* A default serving in cups, even when cups are stupid. (Grapes are an example: The title is a simple "Grapes - Raw" but the default is 1 cup for 62 calories. Cups are not a great way to measure grapes!) However, when you select that entry, the quantity drop down has many alternative options, which leads me to . . .
* The serving size drop-down usually includes not only volume measures (cups, tablespoons, or fluid ounces, say), but also weight measures (may be grams, pounds, and subdivisions thereof), even sometimes counts and sizes (like, say, an inch measurement for oranges or apples). Other entries don't include different types of serving sizes in the drop down, just maybe variations of one type.

After a while, you start to understand how to guess what these entries will be called, without going to the USDA database first. For example, I don't much eat grapes (just a preferences thing) so it wasn't in my recents list, but I typed in "Grapes raw" (guessing at the syntax), clicked (in the phone app) that I wanted to see green-checked items only, and it was near the top of the list, easily identified by the "1 cup" silly default serving size, and confirmed by noting that the drop down serving sizes were of diverse types.

After a while, even though that's convoluted, it becomes easy/automatic. Also, the ones you use often stay in your recents/frequents, and the important word is usually first, making them relatively easy to find on the lists in the web version.

As a catch, sometimes one serving size in these will be crazy-wrong in calories, like a 1000+ calorie garlic clove, or zero calorie olive oil. You'll know it, when you see it, because in the rare cases where it happens, it's wildly, obviously wrong. Just pick a different serving size, or very very rarely you might have to pick a different database entry. It's not common, but it happens.

Beyond that . . . and this is truly bizarre . . . I've found that among items that are user entered, titles that have proper formal capitalization and complete adjectives from the food label are higher probability of being accurate in details. It's almost like meticulous, detail-oriented people are likely to be comprehensively meticulous and detail-oriented. 😉

For that reason, if I were looking for an entry, scanning a search list, particularly for a food product with a label, I'd first check out one that was really complete/detailed. Example: I'd check "Costco Kirkland Signature Plain Nonfat Greek Yogurt" before one that was titled "kirkland greek yogurt". Both could be correct, but in my experience, the one with complete name and standard capitalization is higher odds for accuracy.

🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Playing the psychology odds, I guess. 🤣

** https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/

Honestly, some of this stuff is like an online adventure game, where you have to be wily to succeed at some of the quests. Most of the time, it's more boring than that, though. Still, I think it's more productive to think of it as a fun puzzle, and not join the "I hate the database" legion. That may just be me, though.