Measuring calcium intake

Generally, these are the percent of the US recommended daily value as defined in product labeling regulations, so based on a generic 2000 calorie per day diet. IMU, per this article:

https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/how-understand-and-use-nutrition-facts-label

. . . the current 100% value would be 1300mg.

Two things to be aware of, though:

1. The MFP database is crowd-sourced, i.e., entered by regular MFP users like you and me. Some users are not careful about accuracy. Some users are in other countries where the label regulations may differ.
2. The US recommended daily value has changed over time. That means that foods user-entered from food labels long ago may've been based on now-outdated 100% definitions.

If you care about a particular nutrient, it is a good idea to check the accuracy the first time you log a food, to make sure it's current and accurate for the nutrients you care about. If you're in the US and the food has a nutrition label, verify against the label. If the food doesn't have a nutrition label, verify against a reliable source such as this one:

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

Once you log a food in MFP, it will be in your recent/frequent foods and come up first when you log that food again, as long as you eat/log the food semi-frequently. That means you won't have to verify foods you eat regularly every time you log them.

Best wishes!

SueEllenLawton3047 wrote: »

Hi AnnPt77,

I have the same concerns and found this same question posted last (2023) September and November. An MFP staff person replied to both and basically cut and pasted their response along with links to the FDA's site discussing the breakdown of DVs and food labels.

Unfortunately, the staff person incorrectly states in the text of his response that the current DVs for Calcium is 1000mg and that is what MFP bases it on. As we now know, the correct DV for Calcium is 1300mg, as cited in all three links he included. So, now, I'm trying to figure out if MFP actually bases their DV on 1000 mg as he stated or if they simply mis-spoke? I don't know how to get an answer to that ...

In one sense - a practical sense - "MFP" doesn't base the percent on anything. Regular users enter the foods in the database. They enter whatever they please. It may've been from an old label, it may've been a typo, it may've been in another country where labeling was different, it may be completely bogus if the person doing the entry didn't care about calcium. Ideally, they will've accurately entered what's on a current US label, but there's no assurance of that.

I believe the US DV recommendation has changed at some point(s). That complicates the situation. Possibly what used to be accurate (when it was entered) isn't accurate now.

In general, when I was starting out here (and still, when I eat new foods), I checked the database entries I was picking to make sure that the nutritional values I cared about were both current and accurate. When I say "checking", I mean verifying against the package (which, under current regulations IMU, will give both a mg and % value for calcium), or against the USDA Food Central database I linked above.

The percent and mg value on the package (or in the Food Central DB) will allow a person to see the mg value, and see whether that mg value is the given percent of 1000 or 1300 or something else entirely. Using a simple example, if the package in my hand says "10%" and "130 mg" that's using a DV base of 1300 mg. If my package says "10%" and "100 mg", that implies a DV base of 1000 mg. Then I need to find or create a matching database value, or maybe even convert. IOW, if the package says "10%" and "100 mg", but I want the basis to be 1300 mg, I need to figure out what percent of 1300 mg that 100 mg is (it's 7.69%, rounded), and enter that percent in MFP (or find a matching entry)

Yes, that can be a lot of arithmetic, though not particularly difficult arithmetic. If there's something I care about, I do that arithmetic, and make sure the entry I choose accurately has what I need to know in it. If it doesn't, I can add my own database entry with different values that I think are more accurate. As long as I eat a given food semi-regularly, my checked and corrected entry will come up first (from my recent/frequent foods) when I go to log a food in the database. If it's been too long since I ate that food, and it has slipped out of my recent/frequent foods, I'd recheck when I selected a food from the larger (more unreliable) database. (If I entered it, it should be in "My Foods".)

I get that that's extra work. For some nutrients, that's worth it to me.

Am I thrilled that I need to do this? No. Do I see a clear, easy solution to the problem that MFP could implement? No, not within the product architecture as it currently exists. Making it work differently would be a big change in the design philosophy of MFP, as far as I can see: Move away from the crowd-sourced database, get rid of old entries, curate all new entries (which inherently limits the breadth of the database and requires more MFP staff). IMO, that would have other consequences I personally wouldn't like. YMMV.