Fit Day is Arguing with Me

[AllAboutMe]

I'm adding a customized food and Fit Day is telling me "The number of
Calories in the food does not match with the amount of fat, carbs and
protein." According to the package label there is 200 calories per serving
and Fit Day is telling me there should only be 113 calories per serving.

I gave in to Fit Day and entered 113 calories but fudged on the serving size
so it came out to be about 200 calories.

Any thoughts....which is right?

[Carol Frilegh]

In article >, AllAboutMe
> wrote:

> I'm adding a customized food and Fit Day is telling me "The number of
> Calories in the food does not match with the amount of fat, carbs and
> protein." According to the package label there is 200 calories per serving
> and Fit Day is telling me there should only be 113 calories per serving.
>
> I gave in to Fit Day and entered 113 calories but fudged on the serving size
> so it came out to be about 200 calories.
>
> Any thoughts....which is right?

I ran into this and Fitday was right.

First I enter my new custom food on another future day item by item.
Be careful to see if it is a single serving or multiple. Assume you are
doing. Four servings and the total is 3000 calories. Divide it by four
and each of the other categories, protein, carbohydrate and fat by four
and enetr on the blank spaces for a new custom food. It will tally.
Enter "1" where Fitday asks for number of servings. If you don't want
to change the original, enter "4" servings and when tyou selct it as a
food for your daily entries, change the serving to "1."

Diva
>
>
>
>

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

[AllAboutMe]

<<<SOme details on what the food is, and the counts, would be helpful!>>>

The food is whole wheat tortilla (burrito size)

Serving Size 1 Tortilla (70g)

Calories 200
Calories from fat 40
Total Fat 4.5 g
Saturated Fat 1 g
Poly Fat 1.5 g
Mon Fat .5 g
Sodium 560 mg
Total Carb 31 g
Fiber 21 g
Protein 8 g
Calcium 10%
Iron 4%

Anything not listed assume 0


Thanks

[AllAboutMe]

<<<I ran into this and Fitday was right.>>>

I'm amazed that packaging labels are so incorrect if it's the case that
Fitday is right. It makes you wonder what else is exaggerated or missing on
labels.

I'm going to try your suggestion and see what I come up with.....Thanks

[Beverly]

AllAboutMe wrote:
> <<<SOme details on what the food is, and the counts, would be helpful!>>>
>
> The food is whole wheat tortilla (burrito size)
>
> Serving Size 1 Tortilla (70g)
>
> Calories 200
> Calories from fat 40
> Total Fat 4.5 g
> Saturated Fat 1 g
> Poly Fat 1.5 g
> Mon Fat .5 g
> Sodium 560 mg
> Total Carb 31 g
> Fiber 21 g
> Protein 8 g
> Calcium 10%
> Iron 4%
>
> Anything not listed assume 0
>
>
> Thanks

I just added a 'new food' to my Fitday online using the following
numbers and it added it.
calories=200
fat=4.5g
carbs=31g
protein=8g

Are these the numbers you're trying to add? Could you have entered
something incorrectly? I've had the same problem before and it usually
was an invalid number I was entering.

[The Queen of Cans and Jars]

Ignoramus2491 > wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:08:22 -0500, AllAboutMe > wrote:
> ><<<SOme details on what the food is, and the counts, would be helpful!>>>
> >
> > The food is whole wheat tortilla (burrito size)
> >
> > Serving Size 1 Tortilla (70g)
> >
> > Calories 200
> > Calories from fat 40
> > Total Fat 4.5 g
> > Saturated Fat 1 g
> > Poly Fat 1.5 g
> > Mon Fat .5 g
> > Sodium 560 mg
> > Total Carb 31 g
> > Fiber 21 g
> > Protein 8 g
> > Calcium 10%
> > Iron 4%
> >
> > Anything not listed assume 0
>
> Fitday subtracts fiber count from total carbs

No, it doesn't.

[AllAboutMe]

<<<Who made that tortilla?>>>

The product name is Mission Carb Balance Whole Wheat Burrito Size Tortilla.

And I doubled checked my numbers and everything is correct.

Who would of thought a tortilla could cause so much confusion....language
translation? <g>

[Doug Freyburger]

AllAboutMe wrote:
>
> The food is whole wheat tortilla (burrito size)
> Serving Size 1 Tortilla (70g)
>
> Calories 200
> Calories from fat 40
> Total Carb 31 g
> Fiber 21 g
> Protein 8 g

200 - 40 cal from fat = 160 remaining, can ignore the other fat
numbers.

Carbs 31 * 4 = 124 cal. 160 - 124 = 36 remaining.

Protein 8 * 4 = 32 cal. 36 - 32 = 4 calories not from fat, protein or
carbs.

Clearly those remaining 4 are well within the roundoff levels of
the numbers involved, so they don't really exist.

So what you have is a label using the US standard. The carbs
listed are the total so to get the net carbs of 10 you subtract
the fiber. But fiber does count in the calories at the top.

I haven't used fitday. Does it have the option for entering fiber
separately? Looks to me like your difference is the 21*4 cal
from the fiber.

[janice]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:30:29 GMT, Ignoramus2491
> wrote:


>Fitday subtracts fiber count from total carbs, assuming tat total
>carbs include fiber:

I don't think so - at least, not the online version which is the one I
use.

In the course of having to add almost everything I eat as a custom
food, I found one or two cases where the manufacturer's packaging gave
a breakdown of carbs, fat and protein which didn't tally with the
overall calories they were claiming - it only happened with one or
two foods, but it surprised me a little.

janice

[janice]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:04:45 GMT, Ignoramus2491
> wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:41:10 +0000, janice > wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:30:29 GMT, Ignoramus2491
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fitday subtracts fiber count from total carbs, assuming tat total
>>>carbs include fiber:
>>
>> I don't think so - at least, not the online version which is the one I
>> use.
>
>Nope, I was fully right.
>
>I use their website -- not sure by what you mean by online version --
>and it does subtract fiber.
>
>I just logged on there and created a custom food as follows:
>
>fat: 0
>protein: 0
>carbs: 100g
>fiber: 50g
>Calories: 200
>
>and fitday happily accepted that custom food.
>
>I then tried to enter another custom food:
>
>fat: 0
>protein: 0
>carbs: 50g
>fiber: 50g
>Calories: 200
>
By online, I meant the website rather than the PC version.

I understand why we differ - I don't bother to enter fibre when I put
in custom foods - just carbs, protein and fat, so this situation
hasn't arisen for me. I wouldn't want it to deduct calories for
fibre, as I count them in anyway.

janice

[Rachael Reynolds]

"Ignoramus2491" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:41:10 +0000, janice > wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 15:30:29 GMT, Ignoramus2491
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Fitday subtracts fiber count from total carbs, assuming tat total
>>>carbs include fiber:
>>
>> I don't think so - at least, not the online version which is the one I
>> use.
>
> Nope, I was fully right.
>
> I use their website -- not sure by what you mean by online version --
> and it does subtract fiber.
>
> I just logged on there and created a custom food as follows:
>
> fat: 0
> protein: 0
> carbs: 100g
> fiber: 50g
> Calories: 200
>
> and fitday happily accepted that custom food.
>
> I then tried to enter another custom food:
>
> fat: 0
> protein: 0
> carbs: 50g
> fiber: 50g
> Calories: 200
>
> and fitday rejected it saying:
>
> ``The number of Calories in the food does not match with the amount of
> fat, carbs, and protein.
>
> There should be about 0 Calories.
>
> Cals = fat X 9 + (carb - fiber) X 4 + protein X 4 + alcohol X 7''
>
> Perhaps your version of fitday takes into account that you are in the
> UK and your fiber counts already are subtracted from carb counts. Not
> so in the US, where carb count includes both fiber as well as
> digestible carbs.
>
> i
>
>> In the course of having to add almost everything I eat as a custom
>> food, I found one or two cases where the manufacturer's packaging gave
>> a breakdown of carbs, fat and protein which didn't tally with the
>> overall calories they were claiming - it only happened with one or
>> two foods, but it surprised me a little.
>>
>> janice
>
>
> --
> 223/174.0/180

Why does it subtract the Fibre grams? Just because it is indigestible?
Does fibre count as 4 cals a gram too?


--
Rachael
176/114/<119
>

[Gregory Morrow]

Ignoramus2491 wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:03:55 +0000 (UTC), Rachael Reynolds
> wrote:
> > Why does it subtract the Fibre grams? Just because it is indigestible?
> > Does fibre count as 4 cals a gram too?
>
> Yes, it is indigestible. Think of fiber by imagining sawdust (which is
> one kind of fiber).


Remember about 20 or so years ago when some brand of "high fiber" bread came
out (I forget the name)? IIRC it had *cellulose* as an ingredient...there
was a big media flap about it.

--
Best
Greg

[Doug Freyburger]

Rachael Reynolds wrote:
>
> Why does it subtract the Fibre grams? Just because it is indigestible?

Exactly.

> Does fibre count as 4 cals a gram too?

Yes. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If and only if you are a
bomb
calorimeter. It's not even slightly correct if you're a human.

There's a bug in deducting all fiber:

Insoluble fiber is indigestible by human digestive enzymes and also
human intestinal flora. Basically you need to be a termite to digest
insoluble fiber. What goes in really does come out.

Soluble fiber is indigestible by human digestive enzymes but it is
digestible by human intestinal flora. Beans are high in soluble fiber
and the gas they cause is from our bacteria digesting the soluble
fiber. The point is our bacteria get some of it, we absorb some of
it directly in competition with our bacteria and we end up digesting
some portion of the bacteria as it dies off. So what percentage of
the soluble fiber we absorb varies widely.

So why not deduct insoluble at 100% and soluble at 50% to get
a better count? It would be the most accurate after all. Two
reasons:

1) Almost no food labels distinguish between the two types of
fiber. They just say "fiber" so we can't tell. At best we might guess
that the two types are 50-50 in our diets and deduct 75% of our
fiber intake but by that point it is no longer any more accurate
than just deducting 100% in the first place.

2) Deducting fiber compared to counting fiber really only gives
lower counts for the same foods anyways. Any amount of error
involved is no worse than counting fiber at 100% and it might be a
small amount more accurate. There's motivational effect on
deducting fiber - It gets people to eat more veggies. Folks want
a smaller number in the false belief that lower carb counts mean
better loss, so any counting method that gives a smaller number
for the same food is better for many folks.

Let's say eating some amount of food gives 30 total but 20 net.
Folks early on *want* their number to come out as low as
possible and 20 is the number used in Atkins Induction. If you
can eat to 20 net, at least you're eating a bunch more veggies
than if you're counting to 20 total.

[Carol Frilegh]

In article . com>,
Doug Freyburger > wrote:

> Rachael Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > Why does it subtract the Fibre grams? Just because it is indigestible?
>
> Exactly.
>
> > Does fibre count as 4 cals a gram too?
>
> Yes. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If and only if you are a
> bomb
> calorimeter. It's not even slightly correct if you're a human.
>
> There's a bug in deducting all fiber:
>
> Insoluble fiber is indigestible by human digestive enzymes and also
> human intestinal flora. Basically you need to be a termite to digest
> insoluble fiber. What goes in really does come out.
>
> Soluble fiber is indigestible by human digestive enzymes but it is
> digestible by human intestinal flora. Beans are high in soluble fiber
> and the gas they cause is from our bacteria digesting the soluble
> fiber. The point is our bacteria get some of it, we absorb some of
> it directly in competition with our bacteria and we end up digesting
> some portion of the bacteria as it dies off. So what percentage of
> the soluble fiber we absorb varies widely.
>
> So why not deduct insoluble at 100% and soluble at 50% to get
> a better count? It would be the most accurate after all. Two
> reasons:
>
> 1) Almost no food labels distinguish between the two types of
> fiber. They just say "fiber" so we can't tell. At best we might guess
> that the two types are 50-50 in our diets and deduct 75% of our
> fiber intake but by that point it is no longer any more accurate
> than just deducting 100% in the first place.
>
> 2) Deducting fiber compared to counting fiber really only gives
> lower counts for the same foods anyways. Any amount of error
> involved is no worse than counting fiber at 100% and it might be a
> small amount more accurate. There's motivational effect on
> deducting fiber - It gets people to eat more veggies. Folks want
> a smaller number in the false belief that lower carb counts mean
> better loss, so any counting method that gives a smaller number
> for the same food is better for many folks.
>
> Let's say eating some amount of food gives 30 total but 20 net.
> Folks early on *want* their number to come out as low as
> possible and 20 is the number used in Atkins Induction. If you
> can eat to 20 net, at least you're eating a bunch more veggies
> than if you're counting to 20 total.
>
And what is the point of all this? People who overeat for years are
suddenly splitting calories as if they are hairs and micromanaging.
Then when they "cheat" they immediately erase it from their minds.
Journaling calories IMO should be a guide and a rough estimate, wake up
call as to how much of what you are eating. When it reaches the
abstract level as we have done it's simply some kind of mental
exercise.

A person can't obsess and think only about what they are eating to such
a degree. Fill your life with other thoughts and activities, enjoy your
food and know your limits and stop worrying about whether Fitday
deducts fiber from carbohydrates. Since when did we all care that much?
Weight control has to be a daily aspect of my life but when it reaches
the point of being so precise, the heck with it.

If I had been so consistantly fixated on minutae, I'd have never kept
my weight off for six years. I have gone through short phases of such
concentration on calorie counting but fortunately it didn't last long.

On the other hand if you are just discussing this as a point of
interest I can see it as entertainment and science combined.

--
Diva
********
Completing 6 years of maintenance

[Phil M.]

wrote:

> A person can't obsess and think only about what they are eating to such
> a degree.

Some people can.

> Fill your life with other thoughts and activities, enjoy your
> food and know your limits and stop worrying about whether Fitday
> deducts fiber from carbohydrates. Since when did we all care that much?

Some people don't care that much.

> Weight control has to be a daily aspect of my life but when it reaches
> the point of being so precise, the heck with it.

To each his/her own.

--
Phil M.

[Carol Frilegh]

In article >, Phil M.
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > A person can't obsess and think only about what they are eating to such
> > a degree.
>
> Some people can.
>
> > Fill your life with other thoughts and activities, enjoy your
> > food and know your limits and stop worrying about whether Fitday
> > deducts fiber from carbohydrates. Since when did we all care that much?
>
> Some people don't care that much.
>
> > Weight control has to be a daily aspect of my life but when it reaches
> > the point of being so precise, the heck with it.
>
> To each his/her own.

Some people take the time and energy to express an opinion and get
really vague responses of a few non commital and meaningless words.

[Phil M.]

wrote:

> Some people take the time and energy to express an opinion and get
> really vague responses of a few non commital and meaningless words.

Sorry, just having a rough day I guess. ;-)

--
Phil M.

[Carol Frilegh]

In article >, Phil M.
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > Some people take the time and energy to express an opinion and get
> > really vague responses of a few non commital and meaningless words.
>
> Sorry, just having a rough day I guess. ;-)

Markting will do that to you. maybe it's being a V.P.?

[Phil M.]

wrote:

> In article >, Phil M.
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Some people take the time and energy to express an opinion and get
>> > really vague responses of a few non commital and meaningless words.
>>
>> Sorry, just having a rough day I guess. ;-)
>
> Markting will do that to you. maybe it's being a V.P.?

What do you mean?

--
Phil M.

[Carol Frilegh]

In article >, Phil M.
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > In article >, Phil M.
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Some people take the time and energy to express an opinion and get
> >> > really vague responses of a few non commital and meaningless words.
> >>
> >> Sorry, just having a rough day I guess. ;-)
> >
> > Markting will do that to you. maybe it's being a V.P.?
>
> What do you mean?
I thpought you were a marketing VP. Wrong again !

[Rachael Reynolds]

"Carol Frilegh" > wrote in message
...

>>
> And what is the point of all this? People who overeat for years are
> suddenly splitting calories as if they are hairs and micromanaging.
> Then when they "cheat" they immediately erase it from their minds.
> Journaling calories IMO should be a guide and a rough estimate, wake up
> call as to how much of what you are eating. When it reaches the
> abstract level as we have done it's simply some kind of mental
> exercise.
>
> A person can't obsess and think only about what they are eating to such
> a degree. Fill your life with other thoughts and activities, enjoy your
> food and know your limits and stop worrying about whether Fitday
> deducts fiber from carbohydrates. Since when did we all care that much?
> Weight control has to be a daily aspect of my life but when it reaches
> the point of being so precise, the heck with it.
>
> If I had been so consistantly fixated on minutae, I'd have never kept
> my weight off for six years. I have gone through short phases of such
> concentration on calorie counting but fortunately it didn't last long.
>
> On the other hand if you are just discussing this as a point of
> interest I can see it as entertainment and science combined.
>
> --
> Diva
> ********
> Completing 6 years of maintenance

I agree, I was just wondering why US and UK labels seemed to be different.
All just another bit of info to add to the bank I guess!


--
Rachael
176/114/<119

[Scott]

Gregory Morrow <gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@earth link.net> wrote:
> Ignoramus2491 wrote:
>> Yes, it is indigestible. Think of fiber by imagining sawdust (which is
>> one kind of fiber).
>
> Remember about 20 or so years ago when some brand of "high fiber" bread came
> out (I forget the name)? IIRC it had *cellulose* as an ingredient...there
> was a big media flap about it.

Why? How did people expect fiber to be added?

--Scott

[Doug Freyburger]

Scott wrote:
> Gregory Morrow wrote:
> > Ignoramus2491 wrote:
>
> >> Yes, it is indigestible. Think of fiber by imagining sawdust (which is
> >> one kind of fiber).
>
> > Remember about 20 or so years ago when some brand of "high fiber" bread came
> > out (I forget the name)? IIRC it had *cellulose* as an ingredient...there
> > was a big media flap about it.
>
> Why? How did people expect fiber to be added?

Bran. It's also sawdust but at least it's sawdust extracted from
grass not from trees. Not all that different chemically but for
some reason a lot of folks think eating grass is healthy. But
a lot of people think eating trees isn't. Grain and nuts, husks
and hulls.

[The Historian]

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>> Ignoramus2491 wrote:
>>>> Yes, it is indigestible. Think of fiber by imagining sawdust (which is
>>>> one kind of fiber).
>>> Remember about 20 or so years ago when some brand of "high fiber" bread came
>>> out (I forget the name)?

Fresh Horizons, IIRC.

IIRC it had *cellulose* as an ingredient...there
>>> was a big media flap about it.
>> Why? How did people expect fiber to be added?
>
> Bran. It's also sawdust but at least it's sawdust extracted from
> grass not from trees. Not all that different chemically but for
> some reason a lot of folks think eating grass is healthy. But
> a lot of people think eating trees isn't. Grain and nuts, husks
> and hulls.
>