Recently I've noticed some difference between some nutrition profiles in crono and nutritiondata. Especially for vitamins. For example (serving size 100g):
Lettuce, green leaf, raw / nutritiondata / cron-o-meter
Vitamin A: / 7404 IU / 1232.1 IU
Vitamin K: / 174 mcg / 126.3 mcg
Lettuce, cos or romaine, raw / nutritiondata / cron-o-meter
Vitamin A: / 8711 IU / 1451.9 IU
Vitamin C: / 24 mg / 4 mg
WTF? Why is this happening?
Tags: cronometer, nutritiondata, vitamin A
Permalink Reply by YourSugaBumps on I went to the national database that actually supplies these values, USDA. Here's what I found interesting:
Cron-o-meter got the Vit C right on the romaine lettuce and the Vit K right on the green leaf, but Nutritiondata got the Vit A on both...
So, yeah, that is weird and I don't know what is going on with that...
Permalink Reply by Figa on Ok, ive got the answer from cronometer's creator:
nutritiondata.self.com uses a much older data set (USDA sr21) whereas we have the most recent data (USDA sr24).
They also report Vitamin A IU in a very outdated manner -- the absorbability of vitamin A from plant sources is much lower than once previously thought. Our reported values are reflecting the more current scientific analysis.
so Cronometer +1
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
