Accurate calorie counting frustration

Options
chanson104
chanson104 Posts: 859
in Food and Nutrition
I am frustrated with trying to be accurate accounting for my caloric intake. Yesterday we went to Bob Evans for breakfast and I searched for the nutritional information for the Sunshine Skillet and got 5 different responses ranging from 422 calories from the Bob Evans website to 1095 calories from the calorie lab (I'm not familiar with that website?). This morning I was eating my bowel of Kashi go lean Crunch when I noticed that the information on the box did not match what was on MFP so I scanned the bar code on the box, and the nutritional information from that was different from the box and MFP!!

Does anyone have any suggestions on the way to get the most accurate calorie count?

Replies

  • sc1572
    sc1572 Posts: 2,309 Member
    Options
    I hate this! Happens to me ALL the time...I always go with the box or the company's website.
  • DiabeticAlien
    DiabeticAlien Posts: 240 Member
    Options
    I generally always go with the nutritional values on the packaging, as that is what the FDA requires to be there. It's going to be the most accurate. As for foods, eating out, I'd say what is on the company website is probably the most accurate.
  • Strive2BLean
    Strive2BLean Posts: 300 Member
    Options
    I never realized this before. Thanks for sharing. I will be looking at packaging now too.
  • melcowenfitness
    melcowenfitness Posts: 221 Member
    Options
    Definitely go with the company website or packaging. Keep in mind that other MFP users help "build" what's listed for nutritional values in the food dictionary. Not sure where they get their info from, but I know its not always accurate (like french fries not having any carbs or fat as an example!)

    When I recommend the site to friends, I always tell them to make sure whatever nutritional values populate, to ask themselves if it makes sense.
  • leomom72
    leomom72 Posts: 1,797 Member
    Options
    i always look on the packaging, and on websites for restaurants..i notice alot on MFP there are many different numbers for the same item, so i always compare the stuff on packaging/websites to the accurate one on here..i always have to get the right nutritional info, or i dont feel satisfied, like i am cheating in some way..good luck
  • leomom72
    leomom72 Posts: 1,797 Member
    Options
    Definitely go with the company website or packaging. Keep in mind that other MFP users help "build" what's listed for nutritional values in the food dictionary. Not sure where they get their info from, but I know its not always accurate (like french fries not having any carbs or fat as an example!)

    When I recommend the site to friends, I always tell them to make sure whatever nutritional values populate, to ask themselves if it makes sense.
    sodium is my thing..if something has no sodium, and you think it should be XXX amount, you know something is def. wrong..if i cant find nutrition for a certain restaurant, like a local place, i wont eat there, USUALLY
  • cathy6566
    cathy6566 Posts: 14 Member
    Options
    thanks for posting... I will now go by the packing, or the recipe I will be using from the different websites.
  • Alioth
    Alioth Posts: 571 Member
    Options
    I've noticed that the same company may make different variations of the same product for different geographical areas they serve that have DIFFERENT CALORIE COUNTS.

    Example: Nature's Own Double Fiber Bread at Sam's club in Danville, VA has 50 Calories a slice.
    Nature's Own Double Fiber Bread offered in the Martinsville, VA Kroger has 70 Calories a slice.

    In fine print under the label, it says "Special Buy." But the packaging is the same, the bread looks identical. But if you hold one in each hand, one is heavier than the other. Funny, huh? It took me a while to figure out what was going on. I think that this is part of companies trying to serve different areas what the customers want. Danville is a bigger city than Martinsville with a younger and possibly more diet-inclined population.

    So always go with what the label says on your box!
  • sweetiebelle
    sweetiebelle Posts: 332 Member
    Options
    Here's another thing to keep a watch on is measuring cup! Yes you read right. Some of them are made bigger than others! This upsets me because you could be eating more calories than you thing.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,222 Member
    Options
    When you are entering something into your diary, there is a button to confirm or deny the accuracy of the food item in the database. There is also an option to edit it if you are staring at the numbers on the screen and they don't match the numbers on the item in your hand. I've done it a number of times.
  • daves160
    daves160 Posts: 600
    Options
    I have run in to this too. Another thing is trying to fihure out foods that there is no info for. Yesterday I a a biggies burger. No website, no database entry. So I had to pull apart the seperate components and log it in that way. A pain yes. But it is still pretty cool.
    Here is a good website for many raw foods nutritional info;

    http://www.thecaloriecounter.com/
  • ReinasWrath
    ReinasWrath Posts: 1,173 Member
    Options
    I usually go with the bigger amount just in case, I would rather be over and prepared for it then thinking I did well and be wrong.
  • chanson104
    chanson104 Posts: 859
    Options
    Thank you for all the feedback! Definitely some good advice, and it give me some things to think about!
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    Options
    ive also noticed that with the restaurant stuff, some people make "special" entries. like... Breakfast skillet, no sausage, extra veggies. or ceasar salad no dressing no croutons. that could be part of the explanation for the different entries.
  • BarbRigg
    BarbRigg Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I always go with the packaging or website too.

    I found this thread though doing a search for 'sunshine skillet'. I want to have that for lunch today and was pleased to see that it only has 422 calories according to Bob Evans website. Really? I wonder if that is correct.

Categories