Don't rely on Nutritional Info from CRDB

I have been using Cronometer for a while and have never questioned the nutritional results. This morning I scanned a can of "KirklandSignature, Wild Alaskan Pink Salmon, Boneless & Skinless." It uses the CRDB for that item. I looked at the Vitamins and Minerals and it seemed like very few were present even though it says "15 listed nutrients" on Cronometer. Hardly any vitamins, and only a couple of minerals. I found this hard to believe and plugged in "Salmon, King or Chinook, raw, Alaska Native" and it comes back with 76 listed Nutrients from the NCCDB. It has tons of vitamins, minerals. I would assume the NCCDB is accurate.

I am stunned and a little angry by the difference. I never knew how much of a difference there is between the two databases. Now that I think of it, it makes sense, since, I believe the CRDB comes from users entering the info and nobody (including myself) can enter all of the Nutrients. Not knowing that, I have always trusted the total end-of-the-day nutritional information and have taken supplements to meet my vitamin and mineral targets. WOW, WOW, WOW.

Macros are probably accurate, however, when it comes to Vitamins and minerals, I will try to stay away from the CRDB items. If it is a bag of mixed frozen veggies that I scanned, I will question, nutritional content for all of the CRDB items.

This is quite disheartening, however, it is good to know.


  • @jbj

    As a healthcare professional, I tend to look to the "USDA" database as a reference for the nutrition value of a food. However, it can take a bit of searching to find the right product in their database.

    Kind regards,

    Susan Macfarlane, MScA, RD
    Registered Dietitian Nutritionist
    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:

  • Sorry, I know this reply is super late. I also noticed the community database sometimes having too many nutrients listed. There are 22 nutrients listed for Tofurky beer sausage in the CRDB but only 15 is the ESHA, which is the only other source for this product. The CRDB lists lots of B12, which would be super helpful as someone who is mostly vegan, but there's nothing on the label to indicate that it has any B12 at all. The only place it may fall in the ingredients is under "spices" if they're using nutritional yeast; and, even then, it would probably be only a small amount and not enough to give 450% DV for B12 as the user claims.

  • Here at Cronometer, we take pride in curating an accurate and complete database. Every user submitted food is reviewed by our curation team before being added to the database; Branded products that are submitted by users only contain the nutrition information that is contained on the nutrition facts table on the packaging or on the Brand's official website. If you do find a mistake (We are human!) we would love it if you could let us know!

    On the web version, you can report an issue with your specific food by right clicking on the food entry in your diary to select "view/edit selected food". Then select the settings icon in the top right corner, and select "report an issue". In the mobile app version, tap "More details" and select the "!" icon in the top right corner. Submitting your issues helps us maintain an accurate and complete database. Thanks for your diligence in making sure our food entries are accurate!

    You can learn more about how to choose the best data for your needs here:
    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.

    If your priority is to log foods exactly as the nutrition facts appear on the package, I would recommend using the barcode scanner feature on the mobile app or entering the bar code number into the search bar on the Web version. If you cannot find the corresponding nutrition information, you can create a custom food and enter the nutrition information manually as seen on your foods packaging, and save the data in your custom foods to easily enter it again the next time you eat the food. When creating a custom food, you can submit it for publishing to our public database for use by you and other users later!

    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:

  • Thank you, I just reported the error. Also, I made an error in my post. It lists the B12 as 180%, not 450%. I swear I saw 450 somewhere, but maybe I mistakenly was looking at something else. Anyhow, hopefully, this can be corrected. Thanks!

  • Just a note regarding % values - I recommend keeping a closer eye on the actual grams listed as opposed to the percentage. Depending on what screen you are looking at you could be seeing the %DV of you could be seeing the % DRI. A lot of people confuse DRI's with %DV, it is a common error. The %DV that you see on nutrition labels is a standardized value used for nutrition labels to help people better understand amounts on labels. In the Cronometer Calories Summary, the Nutrient Targets shows your nutrition targets for the day. Each target has an optional minimum and maximum value. By default, the minimum is set to the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) value for your body type, and the maximum is set to the Tolerable Upper Limit (TUL), when available, values which can be quite different than the %DV value on a label.

    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:

  • OK...let me try to "digest" (pun intended) what you are saying. I admit I'm a bit of an techno geek with OCD tendencies. :p

    As an example I have a product where the nutrition label says Vitamin D is 6.7mcg / 35% DV but CM displays this as 268 IU / 44%

    I understand the conversion from mcg to IU for Vitamin D is 1 IU = 0.025mcg and that puts those 2 values in agreement.

    What I think I (we) need is a better understanding (Is there a tutorial I'm missing?) of nutrimental labels reporting %DV vs how CM reports percentages in relationship to DRI and TUL. It appears that the color coding (yellow, green, red) on the diary relies on a nutrient falling between DRI and TUL values and might not bear a recognizable resemblance to %DV.

    Me, Sandee & German Shepherd Dog Zeus Full Time RVers that left Illinois for better weather.
    Using the KETO "diet" for weight loss but working on making keto a life style.

  • The percent that shows in your report is a percentage of your personalized target - whatever that may be, whether you are using the default targets set in Cronometer or if you have set your own. The Colour coding is not necessarily related to the DRI values - they will correspond to DRI's if you have not adjusted your targets, but the colour coding will adjust based on any targets you set.

    We are hoping to update the app soon to provide more information and insight into this very thing! To help users understand better the DRI values.

    Learn more about how to set your targets in our user manual:

    As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:

  • edited July 4

    I just found a branded food item where CRDB gives the right information and NCCDB has it wrong. Lay's Barbecue potato chips. I have a package in front of me: serving size about 15 chips (28 grams), 150 calories. Protein - 2g/total fat - 9g/total carbs - 16 g. That agrees with CRDB. NCCDB has the data at, for 28g, 153 calories: Protein - 1.2g/total fat - 10g/total carbs - 15.3. So NCCDB has the percentage of calories from protein as 2%; CRDB at 5%. That's a big difference. In science, 1.2g doesn't get rounded up to 2g, the last time I checked! [Edit: Same error with the Lay's Classic Potato Chip, 2% for NCCDB and 5% for CRDB. The CRDB numbers are straight off the packaging.]

  • edited July 4

    One thing I can say for sure is that nutritional labels from brands vary. An alternate entry is not necessarily wrong. It's one of the reasons you see so many repeat entries on sites like MFP.

  • Even with a product in your hand, I don't think you can have confidence in the nutrition a company presents to the public on its Nutrition Facts panel! Nowadays everything is averaged. Data-points are backed into, with a lot of assumptions along the way. Maybe in 20 years, analyzers will be available for home-use that match the accuracy in a laboratory. Even now, with a smartphone, I've read about the ability to take a photo of a pill and determine if it has been adulterated!

Sign In or Register to comment.