About
Methodology
Plant Based Macro Log app reviews and database audits follow a written methodology. The methodology evolves; this page documents the current version and is dated.
App review protocol
Each app review involves at minimum:
- Two weeks of hands-on use by the reviewer, logging real meals from the reviewer's own diet.
- Database audit against a fixed list of 60 plant-food reference items: 8 tofu varieties (calcium-set firm, calcium-set extra-firm, calcium-set silken, nigari-set firm, nigari-set silken, smoked, baked, sprouted), 4 tempeh forms, 12 plant milk brands at current fortification, 10 mock-meat SKUs, 5 nutritional yeast SKUs, plus 21 whole-food USDA-curated entries (kale, collards, lentils, chickpeas, black beans, quinoa, etc.).
- Photo capture testing for apps with photo features, against five mixed-dish reference photos: a Buddha bowl, a stir-fry over rice, a chickpea-flour pancake with chutneys, a lentil dal with naan, and an oat-bowl with toppings.
- Micronutrient coverage check: does the app track B12 (cyanocobalamin and methylcobalamin distinguished), iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, iodine, selenium, magnesium, potassium, omega-3 ALA, and (where reported) EPA and DHA?
Scoring rubric
The vegan database score is on a 0-10 scale and reflects:
- Database breadth on plant foods (0-3 points)
- Database accuracy on plant foods (0-3 points; user-submitted entries with poor reliability cap this category at 1)
- Micronutrient depth (0-2 points)
- Workflow quality on mixed plant dishes (0-2 points; photo workflow gets a half-point bonus where it works)
Citation policy
Citations are to real journals (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Nutrients, British Journal of Nutrition, Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, Advances in Nutrition, Public Health Nutrition, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition) and real cohorts (EPIC-Oxford, Adventist Health Studies AHS-2, NHANES). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) position paper on vegetarian and vegan diets is the standard backbone for clinical guidance.
Where we cite specific findings, we summarize the literature direction faithfully. We do not invent specific quantitative findings beyond what the literature supports.
Validation evidence for tracking apps
For app validation specifically, we cite the Dietary Assessment Initiative's 2026 cross-sectional study (Weiss et al., n=180 USDA-weighed reference meals) where it is methodologically relevant. This is the most rigorous independent validation currently available for image-based dietary assessment apps. We do not cite vendor-funded validation studies as primary evidence.
Conflict of interest
The site is reader-supported and editorially independent. We do not run affiliate links, sponsorships, or referral codes. None of our editors or contributors hold equity, advisory positions, or paid relationships with any of the tracking apps reviewed.
Updates and re-tests
Reviews are re-tested at least annually. Database audits are re-run at least every 12 months because plant-food fortification values change frequently (especially branded plant milks). The "Last updated" date on each piece reflects the most recent re-test.