Inaccurate calcium numbers
Options
ruinsane
Posts: 1 Member
I am a free my fitness pal member. I was considering upgrading because I need to track my calcium intake. I am over 50, eat a plant based diet, and have mild osteopenia. I looked at the phone app which shows daily RDA percentages of calcium, and they are way off (showing over 100% when I am closer to maybe 10%). Has anybody noticed this problem, and if so, how do you accurately track calcium intake?
0
Replies
-
You would have to check and verify the accuracy of each database entry you use.
(Once you have done that for the entries most freqently used by yourself it would get less onerous.)
It's the same food database whether preumium or free version, mainly user entered using a wide variety of food labelling regulations from across the world and with very different degrees of accuracy.6 -
I am a free my fitness pal member. I was considering upgrading because I need to track my calcium intake. I am over 50, eat a plant based diet, and have mild osteopenia. I looked at the phone app which shows daily RDA percentages of calcium, and they are way off (showing over 100% when I am closer to maybe 10%). Has anybody noticed this problem, and if so, how do you accurately track calcium intake?
Free and Premium use the same exact database. The database by and large is crowdsourced from users over the years. That being the case, there are numerous entries that are either bad all around, or missing certain things because a particular user entered something, and that particular user only really cared about the calories and the protein or whatever the case may be.
In my experience, accurately tracking micro-nutrients with MFP is a complete crap shoot. If particular nutrients aren't included on a food label, a user isn't going to put them in...if a user doesn't particularly care about certain nutrients when they're making an entry to the database, they're not going to put them in...etc, etc, etc.1 -
As others have said, premium uses the same database as the free version.
I'm anemic and verify/update iron for every single USER entered item, as they are mostly wrong.
I've never had an issue with micro nutrients with ADMIN created entries that come from the USDA database.
Unfortunately, the green check marks in the MFP database are used for both USER-created entries and ADMIN-created entries that MFP pulled from the USDA database. A green check mark for USER-created entries just means enough people have upvoted the entry - it is not necessarily correct.
To find ADMIN entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
The USDA changed the platform for their database in 2019 and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but “SR Legacy” - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.3 -
I wouldn't trust the numbers completely. A supplement is a good idea.0
-
It's difficult because there are members from all over the world inputting the nutrition data for the product in their region, and nutrition label requirements vary across the world. I am in Australia, and I buy a locally-sourced milk. Obviously I know that milk contains calcium, but the nutrition label regulations here don't require that the producer include it, so they don't. As such, any calcium in the milk I use, I can't track on MFP unless I estimate how much based on other, similar products and create my own entry in the food database including this estimate.
If you're looking to track a specific micronutrient like calcium, you're going to need to verify the data on every entry you make, I'm afraid!1 -
I tracked on nutritiondata.com for years. MFP has more logging features, but nutritiondata’s database entries are all verified (usda) and entries include comprehensive micronutrient information. If micronutrient accuracy is important, give it a look.1
-
I am a free my fitness pal member. I was considering upgrading because I need to track my calcium intake. I am over 50, eat a plant based diet, and have mild osteopenia. I looked at the phone app which shows daily RDA percentages of calcium, and they are way off (showing over 100% when I am closer to maybe 10%). Has anybody noticed this problem, and if so, how do you accurately track calcium intake?
Yes!! I am over 60, eat a plant based diet and HAVE osteoporosis! MFP has my numbers very high. My calcium goal is 100 and yesterday I was at 342. I am taking a calcium supplement daily and decided to take it every other day. After reading this post I am going back to taking it every day. Thanks for the post.1 -
Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.0
-
cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.1 -
I am a free my fitness pal member. I was considering upgrading because I need to track my calcium intake. I am over 50, eat a plant based diet, and have mild osteopenia. I looked at the phone app which shows daily RDA percentages of calcium, and they are way off (showing over 100% when I am closer to maybe 10%). Has anybody noticed this problem, and if so, how do you accurately track calcium intake?
Yes!! I am over 60, eat a plant based diet and HAVE osteoporosis! MFP has my numbers very high. My calcium goal is 100 and yesterday I was at 342. I am taking a calcium supplement daily and decided to take it every other day. After reading this post I am going back to taking it every day. Thanks for the post.
Speaking as someone who also has osteoporosis (F, age 67) . . . I'd suggest a different approach.
Why? Too much calcium may not be ideal, either. Certainly too much isn't necessary.
I acknowledge that intake levels for therapeutic reasons may differ, but just as an illustration, the US RDA for older women (both 51-70 and 70+) is 1200mg. The recommended tolerable upper limit is 2000mg. If your 342 is an actual accurate percent (or close), you'd be getting over 4000mg of calcium already.
What I'd suggest instead, and what I personally do for nutrients of concern to me for which MFP database's accuracy is suspect: I pick out 2-3 fairly typical days of eating that I've logged. Then I go to a sound source like the USDA FoodData Central Database** and look up the items. (I may start with items I know have the nutrient, or something like that, to minimize how much I need to look up.)
**https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/
I add up the actual values from that better source. If my typical days are in good shape, I figure I'm OK.
Personally, I don't like supplementing when I don't need to. Sure, it's more expensive, but in some cases it can increase health risks rather than reducing them. Calcium isn't a super scary nutrient from an overdose toxicity standpoint, but I feel that way even about the less risky ones. YMMV.
There's specific information about calcium here:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Calcium-HealthProfessional/
US NIH has a long list of nutrient and supplement fact sheets and other resources here:
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/list-all/
There are consumer versions of the factsheets, but I prefer the "for professionals" ones, because they're more detailed and include links to the research they're relying on. I haven't found them to be too technical for me as an average consumer.
0 -
cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
Let us know how that goes. Years back, I tried to have erroneous values for ADMIN-created entries fixed, and got nowhere. MFP won't address errors with USER-created entries.
I'll reiterate that premium uses the same database as the free version, so no, you do not have to pay to track.
See below for what I did when I was anemic and tracking iron.kshama2001 wrote: »As others have said, premium uses the same database as the free version.
I'm anemic and verify/update iron for every single USER entered item, as they are mostly wrong.
I've never had an issue with micro nutrients with ADMIN created entries that come from the USDA database.
Unfortunately, the green check marks in the MFP database are used for both USER-created entries and ADMIN-created entries that MFP pulled from the USDA database. A green check mark for USER-created entries just means enough people have upvoted the entry - it is not necessarily correct.
To find ADMIN entries for whole foods, I get the syntax from the USDA database and paste that into MFP.
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov
The USDA changed the platform for their database in 2019 and it is unfortunately a little more difficult to use. I uncheck everything but “SR Legacy” - that seems to be what MFP used to pull in entries.
1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.
In my discussions with MFP, they've claimed that they do provide the data for many of the products in the database. You can tell the difference when you review a product. If it says member submitted, then a customer provided the data. If it doesn't say that, then they sourced the data elsewhere.0 -
cherylhoover1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.
In my discussions with MFP, they've claimed that they do provide the data for many of the products in the database. You can tell the difference when you review a product. If it says member submitted, then a customer provided the data. If it doesn't say that, then they sourced the data elsewhere.
What's an example of an ADMIN-created entry that is incorrect?0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.
In my discussions with MFP, they've claimed that they do provide the data for many of the products in the database. You can tell the difference when you review a product. If it says member submitted, then a customer provided the data. If it doesn't say that, then they sourced the data elsewhere.
What's an example of an ADMIN-created entry that is incorrect?
Some of them seem to have had errors introduced when they ran a database-wide "fix" to add metric-unit servings to entries that only had imperial units, and ended up with the values for 1 gram being 100X what they should be. Or the infamous (but I think finally fixed) clove of garlic with more than a thousand calories (the secret was to choose the three-clove serving, and say you had 0.33 of a serving). It had both mass and per-clove servings, and I believe volume servings as well, so that had to have been an admin-created entry.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.
In my discussions with MFP, they've claimed that they do provide the data for many of the products in the database. You can tell the difference when you review a product. If it says member submitted, then a customer provided the data. If it doesn't say that, then they sourced the data elsewhere.
What's an example of an ADMIN-created entry that is incorrect?
Some of them seem to have had errors introduced when they ran a database-wide "fix" to add metric-unit servings to entries that only had imperial units, and ended up with the values for 1 gram being 100X what they should be. Or the infamous (but I think finally fixed) clove of garlic with more than a thousand calories (the secret was to choose the three-clove serving, and say you had 0.33 of a serving). It had both mass and per-clove servings, and I believe volume servings as well, so that had to have been an admin-created entry.
These I know about. Plus the cup of pecans with zero calories. Ditto for broccoli, but, compared to pecans, who cares
I've never seen any micro values that were odd, however.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cherylhoover1 wrote: »Just recently started tracking calcium and I'm seeing the same thing. They're putting the mg of calcium as the % of daily total. So the example here makes sense. I'm going to open a ticket to try to discuss this because there's no benefit to me paying for this app for tracking if the nutrients they're putting in for basic foods aren't correct.
"They" being MFP don't put nutrients into the database. As has been explained throughout this thread, the database is crowdsourced from other users, not MFP.
In my discussions with MFP, they've claimed that they do provide the data for many of the products in the database. You can tell the difference when you review a product. If it says member submitted, then a customer provided the data. If it doesn't say that, then they sourced the data elsewhere.
What's an example of an ADMIN-created entry that is incorrect?
Some of them seem to have had errors introduced when they ran a database-wide "fix" to add metric-unit servings to entries that only had imperial units, and ended up with the values for 1 gram being 100X what they should be. Or the infamous (but I think finally fixed) clove of garlic with more than a thousand calories (the secret was to choose the three-clove serving, and say you had 0.33 of a serving). It had both mass and per-clove servings, and I believe volume servings as well, so that had to have been an admin-created entry.
These I know about. Plus the cup of pecans with zero calories. Ditto for broccoli, but, compared to pecans, who cares
I've never seen any micro values that were odd, however.
Good point. After reading the whole thread, I guess I forgot what the original issue was.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions