Strange things in Cronometer database

I know that Vitamin C is partially destroyed by heat. So, a cooked food can never have more vitamin C than it's raw version. But despite these, Cronometer shows for "Hot Chili Peppers, Red" [NCCDB] the following levels of Vitamin C:

  • 143 mg for raw version
  • 214 mg for cooked version

Did I miss something ? :confused:
The water content it's the same, so the cooked version has the same nutrient concentration.

I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

Comments

  • edited December 2018

    Other thing is that in the canned version of Red Hot Chili Peppers the carotenoids are magically multipied. From 500 ug (raw) to 6000 ug (canned) for the beta! :smiley:
    Also, the green pepper has a bit more carotenoids than red one. But it is known that red foods have more carotenoids.

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • Hi @Marus

    You're right in that cooking food can destroy vitamin C content... But nutrient levels can also be reduced in a raw food that is just left on the cupboard (fridge and freezers slow this process down).

    I'm not exactly sure why there is a discrepancy but I do know that it can be easier to measure carotenoid content in cooked vs. raw food.

    Kind regards,

    Susan Macfarlane, MScA, RD
    Registered Dietitian Nutritionist
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • edited December 2018

    Hi, @Karen_Cronometer
    I think it's an error in Cronometer database. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    It's about folate. As it states here, the folate RDA is for "Folate, DFE" not for "Folate, total". I don't know how it is with NCCDB but when you imported the database from USDA, you used the "Folate, total" for folate amount.

    For example, if you check the food # 43406 "Yeast extract spread" on USDA site it has 3786 ug "Folate, total" and 5881 ug "Folate, DFE", but Cronometer displays 3786 ug Folate for the same food. So it's clear that it's the "Folate, total" amount.

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • Karen, I also want to ask you if you know if "Vitamin B-12, added" nutrient from USDA database is included already in "Vitamin B-12" nutrient or it's separated and I must add it if I want to know the total ? In other words, "Vitamin B-12" nutrient it's the total B-12 or just the one from foods ?
    And the same for "Vitamin E" and "Vitamin E, added".
    Thanks ! :smile:

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • Hi Marus,

    Great questions! The stability of nutrients in raw and cooked foods is complex and involves many interactions with other compounds found in the foods, as well as storage conditions, and preparation methods.

    For some vegetables, the bioavailability of vitamin C is higher for cooked vs raw. This might be because cooking releases more of the vitamin C trapped in the cells than chewing alone.

    It has also been shown that heat processing can dramatically increase the bioavailability of carotenoids. The heat disables an enzyme in the vegetables (lipoxygenase) which breaks down the carotenoids, so there are more left over for you! Canned products also have the benefit of protecting the carotenoids from exposure to oxygen which is another way carotenoids are broken down in fresh veg.

    Green vegetables can have carotenoids too! Their colours are masked by the green from chlorophyll though.

    I'll do some investigating on the units of folate reported by NCCDB and USDA and get back to you about that.

    Best,

    Karen Stark
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • Hi Marus,

    Here's my understanding from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard
    Reference documentation:

    The values for added vitamin B12 is included. They wanted to highlight the amount of added (supplemental) B12 added to a food product to encourage elderly populations susceptible to vitamin B12 deficiency to consume these products.

    Not all forms of tocopherols (vitamin E) have vitamin E activity, but they can still contribute to the tolerable upper intake. It depends on how much information there is about what type of vitamin E is used added whether or not it is included in the vitamin E value.

    Best,

    Karen Stark
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • Regarding Vitamin B-12, it seems that way... because almost all foods have "Vitamin B-12, added" smaller than "Vitamin B-12". But there is one exception. :smile: Food numer 18933 "Waffle, buttermilk, frozen, ready-to-heat, toasted". This has 3 ug of added B-12 and 1.62 ug of non added B-12. So 3 ug can't be included in 1.62 ug. But this may be an error in their database...

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • @Marus Folate update:

    We were importing the total folate values rather than the dietary folate equivalents. We are in the process of updating the values now. You should see an increase in the folate values for foods that have synthetic folate added, soon. Thanks so much for bringing this to our attention - we are always pleased to increase the accuracy of our database.

    Best,

    Karen Stark
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • Hi, again ! :smiley:
    I've come across another mystery.
    Look at carbs amount of "Thyme, Dried" food for 100g.
    It has 63.94g Carbs, of which 37g fiber and 1.71g sugars. But the detailed sugars are all zeros, and the starch too ! And then I wonder, is there an error, or is some hidden type of carb in amount of 25.23g ? The USDA database for the same food doesn't list starch and detailed sugars....
    I would say that this is an error and the remaining amount of 25.23g is starch. What else could it be ? :smile: I don't know any other type of carb. What do you think ?

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • edited June 11

    Hello @Marus ,

    It is important to note that total carbohydrate is not something they measure; for 100 grams of food it is derived by subtracting the amount of fat, protein, ash, and water from 100 grams. The total carbohydrate value for a food from NCCDB is usually from the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory database. Since the data were obtained from a variety of sources, and therefore a variety of food samples, the individual carbohydrate fractions do not necessarily equal the total carbohydrate either.

    https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/02042?n1={Qv=1}&fgcd=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=25&sort=default&qlookup=thyme&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby=&Qv=1&ds=SR&qt=&qp=&qa=&qn=&q=&ing=

    Please let me know if you have any other questions!

    Cheers,
    Marie-Eve

    Marie-Eve
    cronometer.com
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
    https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

  • I know, the individual carbs don't adds up exactly to the total carbs, there are slight variations. But here we are talking about 25g ! :smiley:
    Ok, let's take the record from USDA database. This has no starch or individual sugars. It's not ok to presume that the rest of carbs are starch ? Because this is the only one missing...

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

  • No, it's not ok. It seems there are big differences on other foods too. :disappointed: It can't be an error in so many foods. But... it doesn't make sense...

    I apologise for my misspellings, as English is not my native language.

Sign In or Register to comment.