Automatic Water Content Tracking

Assuming the gross weight of an food item is known, as well as the weights of all its component parts, couldn't the water content be deduced and populated? This would be especially easy for beverages, I think. A field denoting that the amount was an estimate could be added.

[Moderators, please feel free to relocate this post if it is redundant.]

Comments

  • Hmm. I'm not sure if I understood you.

    The only item that has known component parts is a recipe. A recipe already currently has the total water content of the component foods. If you are making a recipe from raw ingredients, and know the final, different weight of the cooked food, then it's a simple addition or subtraction of water from the recipe. Adding a mechanism for the user to specify the final weight of the food for Cronometer to calculate water content seems a bit much.

    Or have I totally misunderstood you?

    #AllTheDots

  • No, I mean having realistic water content values for known items. Take "Vitamin Water, Zero, Rise, Orange" as a random example. It's got 17 known nutrients, but is still mostly water. Yet its water content is listed as 0g in Cronometer. In this case "1 bottle" is 20 fluid oz. (591 mL), which would be roughly 20 x 29.57g (or 591.4g) if 100% water. Can't the known non-water ingredients be subtracted from the 591.4g to approximate the actual water content? It'd be useful to know daily water intake and simple programming tweaks could help us know it better.

  • I see. You meant the user submitted custom items. Those items are bound to have incomplete nutrient information and are unreliable. In fact, in the "Vitamin Water, Zero, Rise, Orange" example you listed, the person who submitted it didn't even bother to set the bottle content weight. If it's something you have often, I would create your own custom copy so that you can track your water intake. Or you could report the error in the listing so that a staff can update it for you.

    #AllTheDots

  • edited October 2019

    Yep. I am well aware I can create my own items. Big picture, I'm suggesting that anything put out there for our usage could be enhanced in this and other ways easily through an automated process. Alternately, such obviously flawed entries should be kept from circulation as part of QC.

  • (In my 7 years of using Cronometer I don't believe I've ever used, or had the urge to use, an entry from the CRDB.)

    #AllTheDots

  • That's fantastic. I'm new to this tool and when I scan a bar code and the data on a 20 fl. oz. drink lists no water, the tool seems less useful to me. If I have to enter everything manually, the tool isn't as valuable to me. But we obviously have different perspectives and ways of using Cronometer. I've no need to justify my way nor invalidate yours. I'm merely expressing a feature that would be valuable to me.

  • Products that haven't been analyzed by NCCDB and USDA, have nutrition labels that only include a very basic set of 14 nutrients mandated by law. We are not a lab and do not test foods for their nutrient content, and can only provide the information that is available to us from the manufacturer.
    You can learn more about how to choose the best data for your needs here: https://cronometer.com/blog/6-tips-getting-nutrition-data/
    If your priority is to get the most detailed information for a food, I recommend choosing entries from the NCCDB in the Common Foods Tab. By choosing entries in the common foods tab (as described in the above link to Blog post) you can ensure that you are getting accurate information. NCCDB listings typically contain data for water.

    Hilary
    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 still come back to the basic idea that data pulled up by a bar code scan should be accurate (or closer to accurate), especially in a curated dataset. A drink should not contain 0g water.

  • I'm also trying to track my water intake, and was frustrated when I found that many of my past entries for seltzers etc contained no water.
    (Yes, the 'dreaded' CRDB being the only option as 'best guess' for many of these.)
    I've tried to do it by creating a copy of said CRDB food/water to create my own CRDB entry for an ingredient, then adding water its nutrients - but that still doesn't seem to add the water to my totals for daily tracking.
    So I think I will have to create a Recipe with the specific water product as one ingredient to track it's stated nutrients, then add water as another ingredient.

  • I've also been copying entries and then modifying them in My Foods to include estimated water. But that has worked for me.

    BTW, I have not bothered using the option to correct the public database because the results are delayed (obviously) and if the correction is accepted you still have to go back and modify your entry! Who has time to do twice the data entry for free (or, for paid subscribers, to actually pay to do the data entry)?! Cronometer needs a better correction and submission process that better motivates the crowd.

    So both your corrections and mine end up trapped in our accounts ... not efficient.

    I digress ...

    Again I wish water content corrections could be automated. Even if our local siloed copies were where the estimated water was stored it'd be more convenient for us for the program to populate the field than for us to do it manually. Ultimately, convenience begets usage, too.

  • edited November 2019

    I agree with pangloss that the water content should be added/counted.
    I agree with others that an accurate water content can't be always known. Especially not for the more solid foods. For example how much water does an apple contain?
    Because of that I don't expect this feature to be implemented soon.

    But I think there is a solution that goes a very long way. Everything in the catagory beverages is counted as 95% water by default. Vitamin water will be very close to 100% but chocolate milk is 90%.
    I'm in no way claiming the 95% I suggested has a solid scientific basis, but I'm sure everyone agrees it's far more accurate than 0%.....

    The 95% should be a warning it's a rough estimate. The 95% could be user definable. Those who hate the idea for whatever reason just set it at 0%.

    I think my suggestion can be implemented without much work for the programmers.

    Just my 2 cents calories :-)

    EDIT: Did I type all the above for no reason? I just checked and tea, Coke zero and milk do count towards water intake.....

  • I had a lenghty comment written but it somehow ended up deleted.
    I suggested to set all beverages at 95% water.
    Then I checked again and noticed that milk, tea and Coke zero are counted toward water intake.
    Was this option implemented (very) recently?

  • I've personally edited some of those entries in my own Foods database and have submitted a few for updates. I assume some others have also done that. I think user edits explains what you're observing (not any implementation of this feature).

Sign In or Register to comment.