Coronometer can be completely wrong

koky

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
323
from
apple256.jpg
Karen (Cronometer)
Aug 20, 2021, 10:31 CDT:
We have different data sources available that determines the availability of nutrients for each food. There are lab analyzed foods from sources like NCCDB and USDA. These include more complete nutrient profiles for foods compared with brand name sources like ESHA, CRDB, Nutritionix and UPC. The nutrition data for these foods come from the manufacturer reported on the nutrition label.

Branded products oftentimes don't list full nutrient profiles on their nutrition labels.

The best way to get the most nutrition information is to use our most comprehensive database - the NCCDB. By performing text-based searches when adding foods, most whole foods can be found from the NCCDB which lists many, many more vitamins and minerals in their nutrient profiles.

I suggest taking a look at this blog as it should help you navigate Cronometer to it's fullest capabilities to enable you to obtain more accurate information on both macro and micronutrients.

I hope this helps!

Karen

Ive seen lots of people suggest using cronometer on here.. but I ate a full can of smoked oysters and it showed my zinc intake as 0
Any alternatives that are better?
theyre off on many things, i cant remember what else but i think their numbers for folate and some b vitamins are off, depending on food.
I dont think they had the right numbers for milk, nor orange juice nor coconut water. coconut water is like 1.7mg manganese per 16oz or something and cronometer doesnt show it.
it seems to be based on a search engine of some kind which maybe like google searches the food product to search nutrition stats. the method they use, doesn't take into account images. the manganese and other vitamin content of milk, coconut water etc is listed on the nutrition labels for products which are images. cronometer i think only detects things that are in writing. so if theres a website which in writing, mentions milk contains 20mcg folate per cup or whatever itll pick it up, but if its an image it wont

Are you wondering where the data comes from? We enter brand name product data manually from photos of the package label. Foods entered this was are labelled CRDB in the food search. Some foods are provided by outside sources, like ESHA and Food Data Central and the data also comes from the nutrition label on packages of food.

Best,
Karen


Cronometer shows 0 zinc intake: this one sounds like the person is adding a brand name product to their diary. Manufacturers to don't report zinc content of their products. However, if you add a generic version from NCCDB we do include the amount of zinc in foods, as Seven pointed out in this thread.

I'm not quite sure I understand what the last comment is about. Do you have any examples of foods and I could dig in a little deeper. It could be they are confusing the %DV shown on the package label with their % nutrient targets - that's a common misunderstanding.

We also have a process to correct food items that you find are out of date. Having an accurate and curated database is what sets us apart from other nutrition trackers, so we'll want to get this fixed quickly!
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
from
apple256.jpg
Karen (Cronometer)
Aug 20, 2021, 10:31 CDT:
We have different data sources available that determines the availability of nutrients for each food. There are lab analyzed foods from sources like NCCDB and USDA. These include more complete nutrient profiles for foods compared with brand name sources like ESHA, CRDB, Nutritionix and UPC. The nutrition data for these foods come from the manufacturer reported on the nutrition label.

Branded products oftentimes don't list full nutrient profiles on their nutrition labels.

The best way to get the most nutrition information is to use our most comprehensive database - the NCCDB. By performing text-based searches when adding foods, most whole foods can be found from the NCCDB which lists many, many more vitamins and minerals in their nutrient profiles.

I suggest taking a look at this blog as it should help you navigate Cronometer to it's fullest capabilities to enable you to obtain more accurate information on both macro and micronutrients.

I hope this helps!

Karen


theyre off on many things, i cant remember what else but i think their numbers for folate and some b vitamins are off, depending on food.
I dont think they had the right numbers for milk, nor orange juice nor coconut water. coconut water is like 1.7mg manganese per 16oz or something and cronometer doesnt show it.
it seems to be based on a search engine of some kind which maybe like google searches the food product to search nutrition stats. the method they use, doesn't take into account images. the manganese and other vitamin content of milk, coconut water etc is listed on the nutrition labels for products which are images. cronometer i think only detects things that are in writing. so if theres a website which in writing, mentions milk contains 20mcg folate per cup or whatever itll pick it up, but if its an image it wont

Are you wondering where the data comes from? We enter brand name product data manually from photos of the package label. Foods entered this was are labelled CRDB in the food search. Some foods are provided by outside sources, like ESHA and Food Data Central and the data also comes from the nutrition label on packages of food.

Best,
Karen


Cronometer shows 0 zinc intake: this one sounds like the person is adding a brand name product to their diary. Manufacturers to don't report zinc content of their products. However, if you add a generic version from NCCDB we do include the amount of zinc in foods, as Seven pointed out in this thread.

I'm not quite sure I understand what the last comment is about. Do you have any examples of foods and I could dig in a little deeper. It could be they are confusing the %DV shown on the package label with their % nutrient targets - that's a common misunderstanding.

We also have a process to correct food items that you find are out of date. Having an accurate and curated database is what sets us apart from other nutrition trackers, so we'll want to get this fixed quickly!
good stuff mate, you copy/pasted some of our comments in the email you sent them?
 

TripleOG

Member
Joined
May 7, 2017
Messages
371
The NCCB and USDA entries give you the full nutrient profile.

The CRDB entries just copy the food label, which is limited.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
The NCCB and USDA entries give you the full nutrient profile.

The CRDB entries just copy the food label, which is limited.
wheres NCCB and USDA, whats the websites and meaning mate
crdb= cronometer database?
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
from
apple256.jpg
Karen (Cronometer)
Aug 20, 2021, 10:31 CDT:
We have different data sources available that determines the availability of nutrients for each food. There are lab analyzed foods from sources like NCCDB and USDA. These include more complete nutrient profiles for foods compared with brand name sources like ESHA, CRDB, Nutritionix and UPC. The nutrition data for these foods come from the manufacturer reported on the nutrition label.

Branded products oftentimes don't list full nutrient profiles on their nutrition labels.

The best way to get the most nutrition information is to use our most comprehensive database - the NCCDB. By performing text-based searches when adding foods, most whole foods can be found from the NCCDB which lists many, many more vitamins and minerals in their nutrient profiles.

I suggest taking a look at this blog as it should help you navigate Cronometer to it's fullest capabilities to enable you to obtain more accurate information on both macro and micronutrients.

I hope this helps!

Karen


theyre off on many things, i cant remember what else but i think their numbers for folate and some b vitamins are off, depending on food.
I dont think they had the right numbers for milk, nor orange juice nor coconut water. coconut water is like 1.7mg manganese per 16oz or something and cronometer doesnt show it.
it seems to be based on a search engine of some kind which maybe like google searches the food product to search nutrition stats. the method they use, doesn't take into account images. the manganese and other vitamin content of milk, coconut water etc is listed on the nutrition labels for products which are images. cronometer i think only detects things that are in writing. so if theres a website which in writing, mentions milk contains 20mcg folate per cup or whatever itll pick it up, but if its an image it wont

Are you wondering where the data comes from? We enter brand name product data manually from photos of the package label. Foods entered this was are labelled CRDB in the food search. Some foods are provided by outside sources, like ESHA and Food Data Central and the data also comes from the nutrition label on packages of food.

Best,
Karen


Cronometer shows 0 zinc intake: this one sounds like the person is adding a brand name product to their diary. Manufacturers to don't report zinc content of their products. However, if you add a generic version from NCCDB we do include the amount of zinc in foods, as Seven pointed out in this thread.

I'm not quite sure I understand what the last comment is about. Do you have any examples of foods and I could dig in a little deeper. It could be they are confusing the %DV shown on the package label with their % nutrient targets - that's a common misunderstanding.

We also have a process to correct food items that you find are out of date. Having an accurate and curated database is what sets us apart from other nutrition trackers, so we'll want to get this fixed quickly!
Cool thanks
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
Also I have another question for you guys unrelated to cronometer....

Why would a 3oz can of sardines from 2 different companies with skin and bones in water vary so much in nutrition listed on their label?

One can lists 56% rda calcium and the other lists 15%?
Serving size is same at 3oz
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
Also I have another question for you guys unrelated to cronometer....

Why would a 3oz can of sardines from 2 different companies with skin and bones in water vary so much in nutrition listed on their label?

One can lists 56% rda calcium and the other lists 15%?
Serving size is same at 3oz
theres different standards that can be used so the percentage doesnt tell everything. I think the older nutrition labels had calcium at 1400mg or 1200mg and now its been downgraded to 1200mg or 1000mg. but thats only a small variance, so even if ones using older vs newer label, it could potentially be an error when measuring of some kind, or it could be the source they use...
I dont know if the other company is measuring the bones calcium?
it could be sourcing, could be that one brand is much higher quality, but seems unlikely. is one organic, fed a specific way or something
do you eat the bones with them? it could be only one of the companies is measuring the calcium in the bones
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
theres different standards that can be used so the percentage doesnt tell everything. I think the older nutrition labels had calcium at 1400mg or 1200mg and now its been downgraded to 1200mg or 1000mg. but thats only a small variance, so even if ones using older vs newer label, it could potentially be an error when measuring of some kind, or it could be the source they use...
I dont know if the other company is measuring the bones calcium?
it could be sourcing, could be that one brand is much higher quality, but seems unlikely. is one organic, fed a specific way or something
do you eat the bones with them? it could be only one of the companies is measuring the calcium in the bones
Ok could be that but even 15% is a lot of calcium if they dont measure bones. Same thing with vitamin d content varies tremendously based on brand.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
Also I have another question for you guys unrelated to cronometer....

Why would a 3oz can of sardines from 2 different companies with skin and bones in water vary so much in nutrition listed on their label?

One can lists 56% rda calcium and the other lists 15%?
Serving size is same at 3oz

One probably has bones in, the other one most likely doesn't.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
Ok could be that but even 15% is a lot of calcium if they dont measure bones. Same thing with vitamin d content varies tremendously based on brand.
i dont know mate, its 150mg, there are some random foods which contain lots of calcium, like even dried figs, two dried figs contain like 100mg calcium, alongside 100 calories.
coconut water contains like 60mg per cup, even orange juice has 30mg per cup
they may have lots of phosphorus too and that isnt require to be listed on labels, actually almost nobody lists phosphorus, the companies know its bad so they want to keep that hidden
like 4 years ago, i had no idea of phosphorus content, i was drinking milk, meat, whey protein, but literally bought like 100mg or 200mg phosphorus capsules! can you believe it, i thought i was deficient since none of the food labels listed it...
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
i dont know mate, its 150mg, there are some random foods which contain lots of calcium, like even dried figs, two dried figs contain like 100mg calcium, alongside 100 calories.
coconut water contains like 60mg per cup, even orange juice has 30mg per cup
they may have lots of phosphorus too and that isnt require to be listed on labels, actually almost nobody lists phosphorus, the companies know its bad so they want to keep that hidden
like 4 years ago, i had no idea of phosphorus content, i was drinking milk, meat, whey protein, but literally bought like 100mg or 200mg phosphorus capsules! can you believe it, i thought i was deficient since none of the food labels listed it...
Its probably your theory I'm thinking they dont measure the bones.
Yea very easy to get phosphorus
Sardines with bones have a lot if calcium, 56% in only 3oz. All the people struggling to digest milk forcing it down can easily get it from sardines
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
Like I mentioned they both have skin and bones
Both 3oz serving

The container with the lower amount of calcium probably pulled the nutrition fact values frm the canned sardines that dont contain skin and bones.

If I understand correctly most manufacturers put the nutrition facts because its required by law, not because they are trying to advertise the nutrition from the food. If they cared about the nutrition in the food they'd list more than the paltry amount of info they do. I assume they just pull the nutrition fact label for their product from a database of labels and slap it on to meet the legal requirements.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
The container with the lower amount of calcium probably pulled the nutrition fact values frm the canned sardines that dont contain skin and bones.

If I understand correctly most manufacturers put the nutrition facts because its required by law, not because they are trying to advertise the nutrition from the food. If they cared about the nutrition in the food they'd list more than the paltry amount of info they do. I assume they just pull the nutrition fact label for their product from a database of labels and slap it on to meet the legal requirements.
i think they do have to personally test whats on their label, but the law only requires testing the bare minimum. calories, fats, carbs, nutrients like sodium, calcium, vitamin d, iron, and maybe one other nutrient. things like vitamin c, i believe and even potassium arent even required to be listed. even PUFA arent required, they only need to list total fat and saturated fat.
but honestly these things shouldnt be legally mandated, should be the companies own choice. pricier companies would probably continue to list them, also some whey protein and other companies list a huge amount of things like different b vitamins or manganese or other things.
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
Its probably your theory I'm thinking they dont measure the bones.
Yea very easy to get phosphorus
Sardines with bones have a lot if calcium, 56% in only 3oz. All the people struggling to digest milk forcing it down can easily get it from sardines
are you supposed to eat the sardine bones?
whats the fat content like btw, low pufa?
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
i think they do have to personally test whats on their label, but the law only requires testing the bare minimum. calories, fats, carbs, nutrients like sodium, calcium, vitamin d, iron, and maybe one other nutrient. things like vitamin c, i believe and even potassium arent even required to be listed. even PUFA arent required, they only need to list total fat and saturated fat.
but honestly these things shouldnt be legally mandated, should be the companies own choice. pricier companies would probably continue to list them, also some whey protein and other companies list a huge amount of things like different b vitamins or manganese or other things.
"N37. Is there a problem with using ingredient composition data bases to calculate the values for nutrition labeling?

Answer: If manufacturers choose to use ingredient data bases, they should be assured of the accuracy of the databases and validate the resulting calculations by comparing them with values for the same foods obtained from laboratory analyses. Manufacturers are responsible for the accuracy of the nutrition labeling values on their products. Although FDA specifies the laboratory methods that will be used to evaluate the accuracy of the labeled products, FDA does not specify acceptable sources for the labeled values."

This is on Page 32.


There seems to be a loose requirement for analysis, however databases seem to be an accepted source by the FDA. The onus is on the corporation to do the testing or use the database, the FDA may spot check the product randomly or not at all.


Rational standards are important.
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
are you supposed to eat the sardine bones?
whats the fat content like btw, low pufa?
Yes you cant even tell they have bones it's super soft.
Like you or clash mentioned they dont list pufa only sat and un sat fat.
For the amount of calcium and protein and vitamins d they contain I wouldnt care about the pufa. Its prob around 2 - 3 grams
 

Dr. B

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
4,321
Yes you cant even tell they have bones it's super soft.
Like you or clash mentioned they dont list pufa only sat and un sat fat.
For the amount of calcium and protein and vitamins d they contain I wouldnt care about the pufa. Its prob around 2 - 3 grams
they could also have lots of phosphorus which doesnt have to be listed on label
ancestral supplements bones product is 2:1 calcium phosphate. shark cartilage is apparently 2:1 calcium to phosphate. but depending on the metabolic state of the animal etc it could contain lots of phosphorus in those bones. im not sure what quality is used, i dont think its even possible to get anything certified organic if its an ocean product? but the better quality would help ensure its lower phosphate
 
OP
J

Jack Earth

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
335
they could also have lots of phosphorus which doesnt have to be listed on label
ancestral supplements bones product is 2:1 calcium phosphate. shark cartilage is apparently 2:1 calcium to phosphate. but depending on the metabolic state of the animal etc it could contain lots of phosphorus in those bones. im not sure what quality is used, i dont think its even possible to get anything certified organic if its an ocean product? but the better quality would help ensure its lower phosphate
All animal products will be high phosphorus. Can anything antagonize it like coffee does to iron?
If anything you can add calcium supplements. Unless if course dairy suits you well. I need to avoid milk my hair and gut is always better without it. But I do well with some heavy cream and sometimes cheese
I had some chicken tikka masala from whole foods buffet today digested it great. It was made without any oil just butter and heavy cream.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom