Difference between revisions of "Recipe/Example/Four Nut Mix"
(Created page with " == Data == {| class="wikitable" |+ Four nuts product |- ! Nutrient !! Product !! Expected |- | Fat || 58.0 || Voorbeeld |- | Sat. Fat || 6.4 || Voorbeeld |- | Carbohydrates...") |
|||
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | == Product == | |
+ | [https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/20047238/mixed-nuts-alesto This product] with four ingredients will be used to find the recipe. The ingredients states that 25% of each nut (walnut, hazel nut, cashew nut and almond) was used. | ||
== Data == | == Data == | ||
+ | Four scenarios: | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+ Four nuts product | |+ Four nuts product | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | ! Nutrient !! Product !! Expected | + | ! Nutrient !! Product !! Ciqual Expected !! Median Expected |
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fat || 58.0 || 58.7 || 56.2 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sat. Fat || 6.4 || 5.95 || 5.78 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Carbohydrates || 6.4 || 11.09 || 13.5 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sugars || 4.2 || 4.63 || 4.08 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fiber || 8.5 || 7.93 || 7.16 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Proteins || 20.4 || 16.63 || 17.33 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Salt || 0.01 || 0.042 || 0.006 | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | For easy reuse: | ||
+ | (58.0, 6.4, 6.4, 4.2, 8.5, 20.4, 0.01) | ||
+ | The nutritional values for the Ciqual ingredients. | ||
+ | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |+ Ciqual ingredients | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! Nutrient !! Walnuts !! Hazelnuts !! Cashews !! Almonds | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fat || 67.3 || 66 || 49 || 52.5 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sat. Fat || 6.45 || 4.51 || 8.87 || 3.95 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Carbohydrates || 6.88 || 5.21 || 23.5 || 8.76 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sugars || 3 || 4.26 || 6.63 || 4.63 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fiber || 6.7 || 9.4 || 5.7 || 9.9 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Proteins || 13.3 || 14.4 || 17.4 || 21.4 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Salt || 0.1 || 0 || 0.02 || 0.048 | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | ((67.3, 6.45, 6.88, 3, 6.7, 13.3, 0.1), (66, 4.51, 5.21, 4.26, 9.4, 14.4, 0), (49, 8.87, 23.5, 6.63, 5.7, 17.4, 0.02), (52.5, 3.95, 8.76, 4.63, 9.9, 21.4, 0.048)) | ||
+ | |||
+ | The nutritional values based on the OFF category ingredients. | ||
+ | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |+ OFF median ingredients | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! Nutrient !! Walnuts !! Hazelnuts !! Cashews !! Almonds | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fat || 65 || 60 || 46.7 || 53 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sat. Fat || 6.1 || 4.1 || 8.93 || 4 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Carbohydrates || 10.5 || 4.3 || 28.6 || 10 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Sugars || 3 || 3.2 || 6 || 4.1 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | Fiber || 6.67 || 7.5 || 3.57 || 10.9 | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Proteins || 15.2 || 15 || 17.7 || 21.4 |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Salt || 0.01 || 0.002 || 0 || 0.01 |
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Least squares fit == | ||
+ | === Adrian Stoll site === | ||
+ | The table below present four fit results using [https://adrianstoll.com/post/least-squares-calculator/ this]. This compares the Ciqual ingredients against the OFF median ingredients. And for the product itself and the calculated expected product. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The calculated results are pretty good. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The product results are way off. Negative values should not be allowed. Are the nutritional values of products so sensitive to the values of ingredients used? Or is this a big error in the product? The carbohydrates seem much too small. Increasing them to 10, will at least give positive values for the recipe, but nowhere near the expected results. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |+ Fitting results | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | + | ! model !! Walnuts !! Hazelnuts !! Cashews !! Almonds | |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Ciqual || 0.88 || -0.69 || -0.19 || 1.01 |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Calculated+Ciqual || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 || 0.25 |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Median || -0.96 || 1.55 || 0.27 || 0.28 |
|- | |- | ||
− | | | + | | Calculated+Median || 0.27 || 0.23 || 0.25 || 0.25 |
|} | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | === R studio === | ||
+ | The table below present four fit results using [https://adrianstoll.com/post/least-squares-calculator/ this]. This compares the Ciqual ingredients against the OFF median ingredients. Four different least square methods have been used. the nnls and the glmnet force a solution with positive values. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| class="wikitable" | ||
+ | |+ Fitting results | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | ! model !! Walnuts !! Hazelnuts !! Cashews !! Almonds | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | lm || 0.88 || -0.85 || -0.25 || 1.02 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | lm forced intercept || 0.89 || -0.69 || -0.19 || 1.02 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | nnls || 0.305 || 0.00 || 0.00 || 0.715 | ||
+ | |- | ||
+ | | glmnet || 0.240 || 0.072 || 0.000 || 0.709 | ||
+ | |} | ||
+ | |||
+ | Conclusion is that better fitting methods cannot repair a product that seems wrong. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[Category:Recipe]] |
Latest revision as of 13:16, 4 February 2025
Product
This product with four ingredients will be used to find the recipe. The ingredients states that 25% of each nut (walnut, hazel nut, cashew nut and almond) was used.
Data
Four scenarios:
Nutrient | Product | Ciqual Expected | Median Expected |
---|---|---|---|
Fat | 58.0 | 58.7 | 56.2 |
Sat. Fat | 6.4 | 5.95 | 5.78 |
Carbohydrates | 6.4 | 11.09 | 13.5 |
Sugars | 4.2 | 4.63 | 4.08 |
Fiber | 8.5 | 7.93 | 7.16 |
Proteins | 20.4 | 16.63 | 17.33 |
Salt | 0.01 | 0.042 | 0.006 |
For easy reuse:
(58.0, 6.4, 6.4, 4.2, 8.5, 20.4, 0.01)
The nutritional values for the Ciqual ingredients.
Nutrient | Walnuts | Hazelnuts | Cashews | Almonds |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fat | 67.3 | 66 | 49 | 52.5 |
Sat. Fat | 6.45 | 4.51 | 8.87 | 3.95 |
Carbohydrates | 6.88 | 5.21 | 23.5 | 8.76 |
Sugars | 3 | 4.26 | 6.63 | 4.63 |
Fiber | 6.7 | 9.4 | 5.7 | 9.9 |
Proteins | 13.3 | 14.4 | 17.4 | 21.4 |
Salt | 0.1 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.048 |
((67.3, 6.45, 6.88, 3, 6.7, 13.3, 0.1), (66, 4.51, 5.21, 4.26, 9.4, 14.4, 0), (49, 8.87, 23.5, 6.63, 5.7, 17.4, 0.02), (52.5, 3.95, 8.76, 4.63, 9.9, 21.4, 0.048))
The nutritional values based on the OFF category ingredients.
Nutrient | Walnuts | Hazelnuts | Cashews | Almonds |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fat | 65 | 60 | 46.7 | 53 |
Sat. Fat | 6.1 | 4.1 | 8.93 | 4 |
Carbohydrates | 10.5 | 4.3 | 28.6 | 10 |
Sugars | 3 | 3.2 | 6 | 4.1 |
Fiber | 6.67 | 7.5 | 3.57 | 10.9 |
Proteins | 15.2 | 15 | 17.7 | 21.4 |
Salt | 0.01 | 0.002 | 0 | 0.01 |
Least squares fit
Adrian Stoll site
The table below present four fit results using this. This compares the Ciqual ingredients against the OFF median ingredients. And for the product itself and the calculated expected product.
The calculated results are pretty good.
The product results are way off. Negative values should not be allowed. Are the nutritional values of products so sensitive to the values of ingredients used? Or is this a big error in the product? The carbohydrates seem much too small. Increasing them to 10, will at least give positive values for the recipe, but nowhere near the expected results.
model | Walnuts | Hazelnuts | Cashews | Almonds |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ciqual | 0.88 | -0.69 | -0.19 | 1.01 |
Calculated+Ciqual | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Median | -0.96 | 1.55 | 0.27 | 0.28 |
Calculated+Median | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
R studio
The table below present four fit results using this. This compares the Ciqual ingredients against the OFF median ingredients. Four different least square methods have been used. the nnls and the glmnet force a solution with positive values.
model | Walnuts | Hazelnuts | Cashews | Almonds |
---|---|---|---|---|
lm | 0.88 | -0.85 | -0.25 | 1.02 |
lm forced intercept | 0.89 | -0.69 | -0.19 | 1.02 |
nnls | 0.305 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.715 |
glmnet | 0.240 | 0.072 | 0.000 | 0.709 |
Conclusion is that better fitting methods cannot repair a product that seems wrong.