• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

What are the problems with Cronometer.com?

nutrition tools

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Snoopy

  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:58 AM


I have noticed there are a lot of niggles which I feel it could improve on. For example: you have a list of deficiencies and overdoses, now what? It gives you no potential solutions or ideas afterwards on how to remedy these? I understand i could go somewhere else and dig around for ages, but this is inconvenient - I want it all saved in one neat compiled page.

What functions would you like to see on it?

How could you improve on it?


Thanks a lot

#2 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 06 June 2012 - 07:00 PM

one major improvement would accuracy.......wheat germ for example is not credited with any vit. e.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 722
  • Location:Austria

Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:51 PM

one major improvement would accuracy.......wheat germ for example is not credited with any vit. e.


It can only be as accurate as the datasets used are. From the cronometer help file:

Nutriton Data

The results displayed are only as good as the data the program has for the various foods you enter. In many cases the data may be incomplete, incorrect, or simply different (was the apple you ate grown in different soil than the ones studied for the data?).
The data displayed in this software should always be treated as a rough estimate. The data itself may contain errors or be incomplete. The USDA food database, for instance, contains average values for most foods. Local soil and growing conditions can deviate largely from the average values.


There is a pretty extensive list of food databases here: http://www.foodcomp..../fcdb_links.asp

Is anyone know which are tthe better of these?
  • like x 1

#4 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 07 June 2012 - 07:52 AM

Excellent post. It might be a useful change to cron-o-meter if it could be set to use the database of the country you live in; always assuming that they are adequate of course, and are searchable. I make allowances for some of the differences I know about and for things I use all the time I produce recipe versions.

#5 Snoopy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 08 June 2012 - 05:35 AM

That is an excellent citation. Thank you.

Any idea where cronometer got their database from...?

Another improvement I'd like to see is being able to click on a vitamin and see the percentage breakdown of where for example all the potassium is coming from. Drilling down like this really helps you improve your goals. As it stands it just leaves you hanging.

#6 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 722
  • Location:Austria

Posted 08 June 2012 - 11:59 AM

As it's mentioned in the help file, from the USDA food database. However, since I use the installed version I only now realized that the online version uses at least 2 additional databases, one from Canada and one from France. that's a real improvement, which I wished would be included in the standalone version too.

The other improvement I see with the online version is that some missing nutrients, for example iodine, fructose and net carbs have been added, something I'm really missing in the standalone version (along with ability to add a few custom items, like for example polyphenol content).

Another improvement I'd like to see is being able to click on a vitamin and see the percentage breakdown of where for example all the potassium is coming from. Drilling down like this really helps you improve your goals. As it stands it just leaves you hanging.


For that the standalone version works much better already now Though the online version shows a good oversight of all components in one page, while in the installed version one has to find them under different tabs, but with the later the additional graphical representation is much better to find where an individual nutrient comes from (by highlighting the first item of today's foods list, and cruising through each by using the down arrow on your keyboard while keeping the graph in sight).

#7 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 722
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 June 2012 - 09:37 PM

It can only be as accurate as the datasets used are.


Couldn't fine cod liver (note: not the oil) with cronometer.com, but found entries in 2 other databases:


Cod, liver, canned

Content pr. 100 g Unit Content


saturated fatty acids g 11.6
monounsaturated fatty acids g 25.6
polyunsaturated fatty acids g 14.1


Vitamin A retinol µg 5100
Vitamin D µg 100



Dorschleber Konserve in Öl


Inhaltsstoff Menge Einheit

Ges. Fettsäuren 17.469 g
einfach unges. Fettsäuren 42.384 g
mehrf. unges. Fettsäuren 14.535 g

Vitamin A Retinol 13.815 mg
Vitamin D 180.5 µg


Quite a difference between 16.998 and 58.224 IU vitamin A for a 100 g can of cod liver!

Anyone knows which of the two could be the more accurate?

#8 Snoopy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 14 June 2012 - 01:17 PM

Wouldn't it be great if there was some estimate on the threshold for heavy metals we are taking in like mercury, lead.... something that warns us about the potential toxins...?

If I inject 20K into a 'more accurate' tool better than cronometer.com will you guys be my first subscribers? :)

#9 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,841 posts
  • 722
  • Location:Austria

Posted 15 June 2012 - 08:13 AM

Additionally being able to add all ingredients of supplements. :)

Well, how would you make it more accurate in such cases with huge discrepancies in nutrients with different databases, as with cod liver? Or brazil nuts.

#10 Snoopy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:57 PM

I think we need more definition on 'accuracy'...

Crowd sourcing would be one way, and leveraging the full power of social in numbers. For example johnross pointed out that there is no vitamin e in the wheatgerm - that is just a small example of how social could influence how the site evolves into being more accurate.

I understand there would also need to be a certain level of expertise.

Do you think turning it into more of a community would be beneficial so people like us can share and compare our daily, weekly routines/ intake of food?

#11 hivemind

  • Guest
  • 417 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Earth

Posted 15 June 2012 - 04:59 PM

one major improvement would accuracy.......wheat germ for example is not credited with any vit. e.


You can correct this by creating your own wheat germ.

#12 Snoopy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 15 June 2012 - 05:50 PM

I think the operative term is 'wisdom of the crowds'. ...to build a supertool!

#13 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:01 AM

one major improvement would accuracy.......wheat germ for example is not credited with any vit. e.


You can correct this by creating your own wheat germ.


I've done that with a few things now as I get better at using it.....no instructions of course so you just have to play with it. You can also just put wheatgerm into a recipe and add the vit E separately. It would also be useful if it tracked all 8 vit E forms as it does for vitA. Another error I've noticed i
s several foods that don't show the fibre. I've had to make up my own wholemeal spaghetti for example.

#14 Snoopy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 105 posts
  • 16

Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:58 PM

johnross, how much of a difference do you think the different country versions of the database will have? Are you thinking in terms of products not in that country or soil quality/ variations in nutritional content....? Please explain why you ask this question.

Thanks a lot





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nutrition, tools

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users