User-friendly serving sizes & conversions
planned (soon)
L
Luis
After scanning a food, a good amount of time there is only one unit of measurement, such as ounces, but no option to use grams (this can be extended to volumetric units as well). My most recent experience it was only in sets of 12 fl oz but I was measuring in mL and was going to measure a smaller amount. Could you integrate a converter so foods that typically only have one unit of measurement can have others? Thanks!
Amanda
Merged in a post:
Measurement units for foodstuffs
3dg.arakis
Is it possible to simply choose from scratch whether you want grams or oz? When tracking in grams, it is unfortunately often cumbersome because, for example, I then have 100g as a reference value (if grams are available), instead of 1g primarily.
Would be great if:
- Gram/oz setting
2nd setting reference value 100/10/1
:)
Amanda
Merged in a post:
Separate nutrition base (per 100 g) from portion size with automatic scaling
Lennart Kobosil
Most nutrition labels are per 100 g. When creating a new dish, Bevel defaults to “1 portion = 100 g,” which forces me to enter scaled values for larger portions manually. I would like to store nutrition per 100 g and choose the portion size separately so Bevel calculates per-portion values automatically.
Current behavior
• New dish is created with a single portion of 100 g.
• If my actual portion is 500–600 g, I have to do the math and type the scaled macros myself.
• This leads to errors and inconsistent data, because some items end up stored “per portion” instead of the normalized 100 g base.
Proposed solution
1. Add a Nutrition base selector on create/edit:
• per 100 g, per 100 ml, per piece.
2. Keep Portion size independent from the nutrition base.
3. Auto-calculate per-portion calories and macros from the base as the user edits the portion size.
4. Remember my last choice and offer a global default in Settings.
5. Show a live preview: “Per 100 g → Per portion” so users can see both.
6. Keep the database normalized to the base values, and derive portions on the fly.
Example
Label per 100 g → 124 kcal, 6.0 g fat, 9.0 g carbs, 8.0 g protein.
Portion = 570 g → Bevel should compute 706.8 kcal, 34.2 g fat, 51.3 g carbs, 45.6 g protein automatically.
(This mirrors my screenshot: 2 beef roulades, 570 g.)
Amanda
Merged in a post:
Easier food tracking
B
Brandon
When tracking food and inputting the details, it only allows you to input per serving.
For example if a serving is 2oz and I am trying to track 1.8oz, it shows up as 1.8 servings instead.
It should allow you to put in the whole numbers and it calculates the serving size + macros for you as opposed to trying to calculate it yourself
Amanda
Merged in a post:
Based on 100g of nutritional input for new foods
M
Markus
Is it possible that you always have to state the nutritional input for 100 g/ml when creating new foods? It is bad if you have to give the values for the portion amount, as the nutritional values on the products are actually always 100 g. You always have to convert it that way.
Where do you actually enter the value for salt? Should this be stated under sodium and chloride, since table salt actually consists of sodium and chloride. If so, how are you supposed to know how much is what if only salt is specified. Or should 4 (sodium) be converted to 6 (chloride)?
Amanda
Merged in a post:
Suggested improvement — automatically calculate portion sizes from 100 g data
Max Heusinger
Hi Bevel team,
The scan function for nutritional tables works great. However, by law, the information on packaging in Germany always refers to 100 g or 100 ml. This makes tracking a bit cumbersome if you only eat 50 g or 30 g of a package, for example.
My suggestion: After the scan, you should be able to directly enter the actual amount eaten in grams or the portion size. The app could then automatically calculate the values from the 100 g data. Optionally, it would be helpful if portion sizes from the packaging (e.g. “1 bar = 45 g”) are identified or predefined.
Currently, tracking is relatively useless because I have to calculate my portion size myself every time. Unfortunately, this means that scanning loses its actual usefulness. I don't know whether nutritional information in other countries is portion-based as standard, but in Germany it is definitely a problem because almost always only the 100 g information is on the packaging.
This would significantly simplify tracking and make it faster.
Best regards
Max Heusinger
I would also like this feature.
Scanning nutritional information could be very practical, but it is currently useless as a portion almost always differs from the nutritional information, which relate to 100 g.
Max Heusinger
I would also like this feature.
Scanning nutritional information could be very practical, but it is currently useless as a portion almost always differs from the nutritional information, which relate to 100 g.
Amanda
planned (soon)
Hi Luis, thank you for the suggestion. We have plans to improve the serving size options so I'll mark it as planned.