er...

[arethinn]

I'm confused. This "track food and nutrition" site I'm using has six entries for "sushi" in its database of known foods:

Sushi, NFS (I don't know what "NFS" stands for; it appears on a number of foods, and I think it must mean "no ____ stated", but I'm not sure quite what)
Sushi, no vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables, no fish
Sushi, with vegetables and fish
Sushi, with vegetables, rolled in seaweed
Sushi, with egg, no vegetables, no fish, rolled in seaweed

Sooo... when you take away egg, vegetables and fish, and it's not specified to have been wrapped in seaweed, aren't you down to just rice? What the heck is the point of that?

Comments

[soundwave106.livejournal.com]

That sounds like Fitday.com's food nutrition chart, which is admittedly, um, very weird in some of its descriptions. I think it's hard to trust anything but the basics on that place, but at least the basics are okay I guess.

I noticed one piece of no vegetables no fish sushi is only 46 calories. That's a lot of calories for essentially nothing. :P

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

I can tell by the way the names are that it is based off the USDA's database (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
(http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/)), but yeah, I agree it's kind of weird in some places.

I'm guessing that must be the calories in just the rice? I really don't know.