Nutrition scores for minerals

edited July 2020 in Help

Salutation from Sunny Greece. I have been using Cronometer for a little over a month now in my attempt to lose weight, once and for all. This is a first time that I have utilized an online tool to screen/help with my daily nutrition, and I have to say that I am incredibly happy with it until now.

A question. I am trying to fulfill as much of the nutrition scores as possible, while also limiting my daily calorie intake. This is of course easier said than done, although I have to admit that following something like a Mediterranean diet is extremely easy for me (since this is what we have been eating here anyway). Here is an image from my diary.

As you can see, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the minerals nutrition score. It is always hovering around 71-72 percent, while all the individual minerals listed are pretty much covered as far as daily intakes are concerned?

What is happening? Am I doing something wrong or misinterpreting something? Any help would be vastly appreciated, Cheers..C:


  • There are a few more minerals that you can track in Cronometer and are included in the minerals nutrition score - fluoride, iodine and molybdenum, for example.

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

  • edited July 2020

    Agreed on that, but they are not tracked in the diary at default. The reason is that for those minerals there is very scant information in the database. So essentially, most of the foods we enter do not include said information. We are not talking here about niche foodstuffs and recipes, but pretty basic stuff.

    Btw, this is stated in a tool-tip when you try to enable the tracking for those minerals in the Targets/Nutrient Targets/Minerals section: ("Warning: Our food database currently contains very sparse data for xxxx"). So, essentially the tool is giving us a result in this category that relies on data that is not available, and probably won't be available for some time. The score is simulating daily nutrition deficiencies that we don't have.

    Is there a way around this or should we choose to ignore the result, given the specifics? Many thanks for the prompt reply btw!

  • Many thanks for the prompt answer.
    The minerals you are talking about are turned off at default, because the information available in the database is very sparse. When you try to enable them, you get a tooltip that says: "Warning: Our food database currently contains very sparse data for XXXXX".

    And that makes sense. We are not talking about some niche foods and recipes here, but basic stuff that is missing said information. So in essence, the nutrition score for minerals is showing and counting a plasmatic deficiency in elements that we cannot track properly in the tool. And won't be able to track for years to come I figure.

    Is there a way around this problem, or should we ignore the minerals score result, given the specifics. Many thanks again!

  • Hi Dante80,

    We don't have a way to customize the scores - though that would be a great project to add in the future! I can see the confusion with including the minerals with sparse data. I'll discuss removing these ones with the team. Thanks so much for your feedback on the Nutrition Scores.


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

  • edited July 2020

    Many thanks for the answer Karen, it would indeed be great if we had a way to customize our own scores sometime in the future. I think it would be a very neat feature to have on the tool! (especially when you combine it with the existing way we can set our own daily intake goals and limits per individual nutrient/entry).

    Having the option to remove obscure element weight from nutrition scores would also be very handy, given the fact that we simply don't have the available information to input their contributions to our diet with any amount of accuracy or validity.

    In any case, thanks for hearing me out, cheers..C:

Sign In or Register to comment.