Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Interesting. I noticed the fish thing yesterday when looking at my past nutrition tables (it also shows several of the " salmon " options with no Vit D). I just went in and customized it to include Vit D. So what's the error with potatoes? Does make one wonder about other errors. Shanna --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi folks: > > I found another glitch in the data last night. Yesterday I noticed > that, according to Fitday, I was well short of the RDA for vitamin > D. That seemed odd as I had eaten fish, which usually puts me way > over the top of the RDA - but not today for some reason. I checked > Fitday's data which said that the herring I had eaten contained zero > vitamin D. Could this be right? > > So I went to the USDA database to find out what I thought would be > the REAL story! And I wasn't disappointed! I checked the vitamin D > content for Atlantic and Pacific, cooked and raw, mackerel and > herring ....... a total of eight observations. What did I find? A > can of worms. > > For these two fish species the USDA database only lists vitamin D for > raw Atlantic. And the amount listed is substantial. For raw and > cooked Pacific and cooked Atlantic there is simply no line in the > table for vitamin D. > > Not surprisingly, perhaps, Fitday (and presumably all the other > nutrition software too) takes that to mean it contains none, and > allocates zero vitamin D if the item you chose from the list is from > the Pacific (cooked or raw), or cooked Atlantic. But if you had > happened to choose raw atlantic you will be positively swimming in > the stuff. > > So, if you are hoping to get an accurate indication of your nutrient > intake, and are eating fish, you had better be sure you specify an > item from the list that actually does think fish contains the vitamin. > > You may remember that I found another glitch in the data for > potatoes. I emailed them about that. Naturally, as almost always > happens when it is an error, I got no response at all. When it is me > who has made the mistake I always get a very prompt reply! > > Of course the issue this raises is: " How many other errors are > there? " I have not been actively looking for errors. I just tripped > over these because of what looked like anomalies in my nutrient read > out. Are all our data just GIGO? I hope not. > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 The database until recently (SR14 or 15) did not include Vit D. They don't get the value for each item, rather the values that are obtained by someone are submitted for inclusion. The lack of a value, doesn't mean zero. I've always assumed there was some correlation between the fish as a WAG, for want of a better number. Or go to google: (eg) http://waltonfeed.com/self/health/vit-min/d.html herring raw 6.38 mcg per oz. Download the database, and start putting in your own numbers. There are lots of opportunities for folks to submit values. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:37 PM Subject: [ ] Fish and Vitamin D Hi folks:I found another glitch in the data last night. Yesterday I noticed that, according to Fitday, I was well short of the RDA for vitamin D. That seemed odd as I had eaten fish, which usually puts me way over the top of the RDA - but not today for some reason. I checked Fitday's data which said that the herring I had eaten contained zero vitamin D. Could this be right?So I went to the USDA database to find out what I thought would be the REAL story! And I wasn't disappointed! I checked the vitamin D content for Atlantic and Pacific, cooked and raw, mackerel and herring ....... a total of eight observations. What did I find? A can of worms.For these two fish species the USDA database only lists vitamin D for raw Atlantic. And the amount listed is substantial. For raw and cooked Pacific and cooked Atlantic there is simply no line in the table for vitamin D.Not surprisingly, perhaps, Fitday (and presumably all the other nutrition software too) takes that to mean it contains none, and allocates zero vitamin D if the item you chose from the list is from the Pacific (cooked or raw), or cooked Atlantic. But if you had happened to choose raw atlantic you will be positively swimming in the stuff.So, if you are hoping to get an accurate indication of your nutrient intake, and are eating fish, you had better be sure you specify an item from the list that actually does think fish contains the vitamin.You may remember that I found another glitch in the data for potatoes. I emailed them about that. Naturally, as almost always happens when it is an error, I got no response at all. When it is me who has made the mistake I always get a very prompt reply!Of course the issue this raises is: "How many other errors are there?" I have not been actively looking for errors. I just tripped over these because of what looked like anomalies in my nutrient read out. Are all our data just GIGO? I hope not.Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Hi All, Try http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s036b.html for Sardines, Pacific, canned in tomato base and you find over 100$% of the RDA for vitamin D. It is a good reference, because it has bones in it and I eat the bones in my pilchards, which are a form of herring including sardines in the group. Cheers, Al Pater. --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi folks: > > I found another glitch in the data last night. Yesterday I noticed > that, according to Fitday, I was well short of the RDA for vitamin > D. That seemed odd as I had eaten fish, which usually puts me way > over the top of the RDA - but not today for some reason. I checked > Fitday's data which said that the herring I had eaten contained zero > vitamin D. Could this be right? > > So I went to the USDA database to find out what I thought would be > the REAL story! And I wasn't disappointed! I checked the vitamin D > content for Atlantic and Pacific, cooked and raw, mackerel and > herring ....... a total of eight observations. What did I find? A > can of worms. > > For these two fish species the USDA database only lists vitamin D for > raw Atlantic. And the amount listed is substantial. For raw and > cooked Pacific and cooked Atlantic there is simply no line in the > table for vitamin D. > > Not surprisingly, perhaps, Fitday (and presumably all the other > nutrition software too) takes that to mean it contains none, and > allocates zero vitamin D if the item you chose from the list is from > the Pacific (cooked or raw), or cooked Atlantic. But if you had > happened to choose raw atlantic you will be positively swimming in > the stuff. > > So, if you are hoping to get an accurate indication of your nutrient > intake, and are eating fish, you had better be sure you specify an > item from the list that actually does think fish contains the vitamin. > > You may remember that I found another glitch in the data for > potatoes. I emailed them about that. Naturally, as almost always > happens when it is an error, I got no response at all. When it is me > who has made the mistake I always get a very prompt reply! > > Of course the issue this raises is: " How many other errors are > there? " I have not been actively looking for errors. I just tripped > over these because of what looked like anomalies in my nutrient read > out. Are all our data just GIGO? I hope not. > > Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.