How reliable is the nutritional info on MFP?

dshalbert
dshalbert Posts: 677 Member
edited October 3 in Food and Nutrition
I've seen some questionable numbers in nutritional information when recording my meals. For instance, a 6oz pork chop bought at Costco equals 190 calories, but if I look up a brolied 6oz pork chop it comes up at 500 calories. How can I add 310 calories to a pork chop by just broiling it? I could understand if it were fired or smothered. Also, a salad with oil and vinegar shows zero fat grams. How can anything with oil not have any fat?

Replies

  • kyle4jem
    kyle4jem Posts: 1,400 Member
    I tend to only go on the raw ingredients and then always check with the nutritional info provided on the pack. of course you can't always rely on that when you buy fresh from the butcher, greengrocer, fishmonger, baker etc.

    Just have to see what's listed on the packaged goods and base it on that.

    It's not an exact science... and a lot is guess work.
  • nkziv
    nkziv Posts: 161 Member
    yeah, some of them are sketchy, or they don't have all the macro numbers available. The most reliable thing to do here is go by weight instead of cups or tbsp, etc. Also, look around the database for a few different versions of your food and maybe take the mean average? Usually, when I'm in doubt, I ere on the side of caution and overestimate the calories. But I know, I feel your pain.
  • ♥_Ellybean_♥
    ♥_Ellybean_♥ Posts: 1,646 Member
    its' not! ...
  • jatiger83
    jatiger83 Posts: 67 Member
    If something looks hanky to me I do a google search to see what other sites say for nutritional values.
  • JennsLosing
    JennsLosing Posts: 1,026
    i normally dont use the items put in by another member, and when i do i double check the nutrional info. I normally stick to the ones that dont have the * by it. Ive found those have been for the most part accurate.
  • GinNouveau
    GinNouveau Posts: 143 Member
    A lot of items are entered by members, so it's best to check. You can also look at the nutritional facts link and there are user confirmations that the data is correct. The ones with more are usually right (as you can be).
  • ElectricWoman
    ElectricWoman Posts: 8 Member
    I've found that most of the items that come from the original database are pretty good. However, anything that has an * (entered by another user) can't be taken at face value.

    I usually look around in the database until I find a name-brand item with confirmations by a few users. To me this indicates that the information probably came from a label and other people agree with the data.
  • Birder150
    Birder150 Posts: 677 Member
    This is why I bought myself a food scale which gives me the nutrient readout of the foods I eat. It comes recommended by the Canadian Diabetic Association and I think it's pretty accurate.
    If I don't find something in the database that comes close to what my scale says, I create my own entry, usually in grams.

    I agree with you. There are some very questionable food values listed in the database.
  • ilike2run
    ilike2run Posts: 34 Member
    i just paid a lot of attention the first few weeks while I was building my "favorites"/most used lists. I verified everything at first. I agree with the person about going off of "raw ingredients" and then adding the extras. I also use a different web site (nutritiondata.com) that is entered by professionals...so you don't have to wonder if it's accurate. I have changed A LOT of information. Also, you might remember, this site is host to people in a lot of different countries with different foods, etc., so be aware of that when you look through stuff. When I first started, I had to click on 3-4 things at times to get it right---spend time getting the accurate items now so that you don't have to wonder in the future. Welcome to MFP....good luck!!!
  • kym117
    kym117 Posts: 315 Member
    I also work with the raw ingredients rather than method of cooking and always look over the nutritional content before adding it to my diary to make sure they are right or very close there is a lot of guesswork involved but at least we are now aware of what we are eating and make a recognisable effort to control our input, I don't know about you but I never even looked at a label until January this year!
  • dshalbert
    dshalbert Posts: 677 Member
    Thanks everyone for the comments! Like2run thanks for sharing the nutrientdata.com website. Nice site!
  • dleithaus
    dleithaus Posts: 107 Member
    I wish there was a place to report errors. Is there?

    Multiple entries for pistachios indicate a serving size of 1/2 cup = 170 calories.
    This incorrect.

    1/2 cup of pistachios weighs 2 oz. (NO SHELLS)
    1 oz of pistachios = 170 calories (and is 1/4 cup in volume).
    1/2 cup of pistachios contains 340 calories! That is a big difference.
    As I searched, only one generic entry was correct. Not sure where the other entries came from... even the specific brand name for shelled pistachios appeared incorrect.

    Be very cautious....
This discussion has been closed.

Categories