More food Macro confusion

[Sydking]

ok- so im fed up with the inconstant my fitness pal macros on some foods.

I am now doing my own data base of food i eat on the regular,

Now, I cross refrecne with many diff sites. but they are all so dam diffrent.

But this is what baffles me.

Nutrition information for carbohydrates The Food Confessional


Look at the white potatos, no skin and boiled.

Then look at them raw.

why the bigg diff? i know if might not make a huge differance but its annyoing,

And to throw antoehr spanner in the works. I actaully steam my spuds and other vegs.....Will there be diffrent macros for that :s

 

[Bazza20]

Weigh and log everything you can on raw weight.

It's much more accurate. Cooked weight varies so much due to the way you cook it and how long you cook it for can vary the amount of moisture lost from the foods. Which can alter the measurements significantly.

 

[Semillon]

Don't get too hung up on being "right", be concerned about being consistent with the way you track things.

As long as you are consistent, you have a baseline you can work from.

 

[kaz]

This is a good idea. I might make my own also. I'm sick of searching for stuff and cross referencing everything to be sure....

Would be great if Ausbb had its own database that member could add, search send rely upon....

 

[chocchillimango]

Yes macros vary a lot depending on how food is cooked or prepared. Weigh everything raw as a good baseline.

In fact, even the humble calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie....depending on who eats it.

so Semillon makes a good point. don't freak out. just be consistent.

seriously the macro thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things. you don't need to be accurate to the 3rd decimal place on this stuff.

 

[Bazza20]

Yes macros vary a lot depending on how food is cooked or prepared. Weigh everything raw as a good baseline.

In fact, even the humble calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie....depending on who eats it.

so Semillon makes a good point. don't freak out. just be consistent.

seriously the macro thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things. you don't need to be accurate to the 3rd decimal place on this stuff.

My argument here is. Even though there are slight differences between people in how they convert food to energy and over time it can change for the individual for various reasons. This does not change that a calorie is always a calorie. Anything else is voodoo. .

 

[chocchillimango]

My argument here is. Even though there are slight differences between people in how they convert food to energy and over time it can change for the individual for various reasons. This does not change that a calorie is always a calorie. Anything else is voodoo. .

i think I was agreeing with you

 

[D1cko]

I have noticed these differences on my fitness pal, but to be honest if I can be somewhere within 100-200 cals of my needs, I'm happy. I don't think you need to be accurate down to the last calorie...

 

[Sydking]

i do all my meat raw so im consitant with that.

Just makes it a bit more time consuming as last few months i have been doing big batches of sweet potato and white potato mash and weighing them into 200g portions and freezing.

I dont weight any other vegtable, Usualy just leave a little buffer each day, Onyl log the startchy/high carb ones

Wil be doin all raw now

 

[Sydking]

I have noticed these differences on my fitness pal, but to be honest if I can be somewhere within 100-200 cals of my needs, I'm happy. I don't think you need to be accurate down to the last calorie...

i agree, its probly more a mental thing, I feel better when things are spot on and i know its being done correct.

also helps in the fact i could be gipping my self each day, im very protective of my 2000 calories

 

[nazzysmith]

Would be good if there was a definitive answer on calorific values...

Just look around for Chicken calories... 100gms of chicken can range from 100 cals up to 238 cals depending on what site your on....

Notably in this example its more to do with whether its cooked or raw... But even then there is quite a lot of movement...

I find it a constant source of frustration... I try not to get too hung up about it... Consistency is the key IMO...

 

[Sydking]

my original reason for this thread becuase i was seeing big diffrenaces in cookes,boiled potato per 100G.

Then i noticed the cook vs uncooked, but initally.

Cooked calories in a boiled potato per 100G ranges form 36 to 89 calories.

I have found about 15 diffrent readings now.

calorie king says Calories in Potatoes, boiled (without skin), flesh only | Nutrition, Carbohydrate and Calorie Counter

which matches Nutrition information for carbohydrates The Food Confessional


I think if i can link 2 that are spot on or very similar, Then thats what i will base my data base off.


Good idea Kaz, I think we should sticky a Nutirtional Value section.

 

[Sydking]

NDL/FNIC Food Composition Database Home Page

Government nutirional data site. US but looks the goods for a cross refreance check up

 

[chocchillimango]

my original reason for this thread becuase i was seeing big diffrenaces in cookes,boiled potato per 100G.

Then i noticed the cook vs uncooked, but initally.

Cooked calories in a boiled potato per 100G ranges form 36 to 89 calories.

I have found about 15 diffrent readings now.

calorie king says Calories in Potatoes, boiled (without skin), flesh only | Nutrition, Carbohydrate and Calorie Counter

which matches Nutrition information for carbohydrates The Food Confessional


I think if i can link 2 that are spot on or very similar, Then thats what i will base my data base off.


Good idea Kaz, I think we should sticky a Nutirtional Value section.

cross referencing is the way I do it for recipes I post on my blog. I never trust one site... I like to triangulate my data. If I can get three that agree, I'll go with that.
Makes the process more labour intensive but at least I have some confidence in what I put forward as a guideline.

 

[Jay]

I wouldn't use MyFitnessPal because the sources are basically the users for the vast majority of foods... which is all well and good for building a huge database, but not so great for accuracy.

I prefer reading packages, and just writing everything down, physically, than using tech to log. That way I know what I'm eating is accurately logged for the brand I'm using and allows for any changes within that brand (which happens a lot, surprisingly). I think - correct me if I'm wrong - you can 'quick add' calories on MFP if you know what you're eating, so if you still wanted that network, you can do so without having to rely on their database.

But I'd like to +1 just having consistency and correct proportions on your macros rather than being too anal over it.

 

[nazzysmith]

Nothing worse then under estimating your calorie intake... And undoing all your hard effort to count calories... To find out your out by 2 or 3 hundred calories a day....

 

[Bazza20]

I wouldn't use MyFitnessPal because the sources are basically the users for the vast majority of foods... which is all well and good for building a huge database, but not so great for accuracy.

I prefer reading packages, and just writing everything down, physically, than using tech to log. That way I know what I'm eating is accurately logged for the brand I'm using and allows for any changes within that brand (which happens a lot, surprisingly). I think - correct me if I'm wrong - you can 'quick add' calories on MFP if you know what you're eating, so if you still wanted that network, you can do so without having to rely on their database.

But I'd like to +1 just having consistency and correct proportions on your macros rather than being too anal over it.

You are right. MFP isnt always 100% accurate but it's so easy. I have foods that I eat often and I have double checked most of them. If you have something new just double check it and you are fine. Really most foods you can look at the macros and calories and tell if it's in the ballpark.

 

[Jay]

You are right. MFP isnt always 100% accurate but it's so easy. I have foods that I eat often and I have double checked most of them. If you have something new just double check it and you are fine. Really most foods you can look at the macros and calories and tell if it's in the ballpark.

What about things you use on a consistent basis? are the changes users allowed to make retroactive? (I know you can edit foods to correct the info)

i.e. if you've built up a small database of 'meals' or 'recipes' and quickly add those each day, if some eejit were to go and change the values of that food to incorrect info, would that also reflect in your log?

I'm a techy guy, but that's way too complicated for me pen and paper, for me, fo' sho'.

 

[jzpowahz]

You are right. MFP isnt always 100% accurate but it's so easy. I have foods that I eat often and I have double checked most of them. If you have something new just double check it and you are fine. Really most foods you can look at the macros and calories and tell if it's in the ballpark.

This

If you have regular foods just make sure there correct and they'll be the ones that pop up in you're most frequently used list. Pretty easy

 

[Bazza20]

What about things you use on a consistent basis? are the changes users allowed to make retroactive? (I know you can edit foods to correct the info)

i.e. if you've built up a small database of 'meals' or 'recipes' and quickly add those each day, if some eejit were to go and change the values of that food to incorrect info, would that also reflect in your log?

I'm a techy guy, but that's way too complicated for me pen and paper, for me, fo' sho'.

I don't know if they can. I've never tried it. I now rough estimates of what the calories and macros should be on most things so its easy to spot something not quite right.

Way too complicated. Lol. Not really. Pen and paper, love your dedication but way too much work for me.