Uh Oh

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

I have previously pointed out errors in the data sources we use to

try to keep track of our nutrient intakes. This latest one looks

like by far the worst I have tripped over so far. It looks so awful

I now wonder if it may be dangerous to believe any of the results we

get from these analyses.

If you use Fitday.com to analyze your nutrient intake the following

exercise should completely destroy any credibility you might have had

for the output it gives.

Try this for the food I did it for this morning (but similar types of

errors have appeared in every one of the half dozen foods I have

tested so far):

Log on and hit the 'foods' button to enter a new food [it is

important that it be the first food you enter for the day, as you

will see later].

Enter 'rice bran' in the box and select the 'rice bran' item from the

listing you get. Adjust the amount of the food to a large amount

(when using the data for analyzing a food I often adjust to 1700

calories for reasons previously explained).

Make a written note of the nutrient contents detailed in the table

for future reference.

Now click 'add to foods eaten'. Make sure it is the only food so far

listed for the day. It should show the amount to be 1700 calories

(if that was the amount you chose). If there are other foods in the

box you have to delete them if you wish to continue with this

exercise. Hit the 'save changes' button.

Now hit the 'reports' button. Then hit 'nutrition today'. Now

compare the data it shows you for micronutients contained in this

1700 calories worth of food with the data it previously gave you for

the exact same amount of the exact same food. They are almost all

completely different. Ignoring the zeros only two of the sixteen are

the same. One, vitamin E, it is 347% greater. Iron is 80% greater.

Some are less.

Next take the protein and carbs (minus fiber) and multiply by 4 and

add the fat x 9 and see how many calories you get. You get

1912 ......... 12.5% more than the 1700 it had previously said you

had. Try the same calculation for what bran ........... the number

of calories is 14% LESS. Try it for oat bran .......... the number

it gives is 39.8% more. These differences are way too big to be

explained by rounding errors or whatever.

Sorry folks. Anyone who thinks the fitday results mean anything

better think again. And since these things are all interlinked via

the USDA database it may be unwise to believe that the other similar

software is any better.

I had thought I had a deficiency of Ca and Zn. Who knows. Given

this fiasco, I could easily believe I have an excess.

I could email fitday about it. But they claim to have more than

three-quarters of a million people using their system and they did

not reply to a previous email of mine on similar issues. So I don't

think I will waste my time doing that. Nor waste any more of my time

using their system - nor anyone else's system if I cannot test it

extensively before having to pay for it.

Have a nice day.

Rodney.