Reading Nutrition Labels Help!

kitkatkarr

Often times the calories per serving does not match up to the macros (fats,carbs,proteins per gram).

So sometimes I manually do the math
protein g x 4 = cal
Carb g x 4 = cal
Fat g x 9 = cal

Add all cals = Total cals per serving

^Is this the most accurate in identifying the actual calories? If so, is this suppose to match up with the nutrition label's serving exactly?

Thank you!

rainbowbow

kitkatkarr wrote: »

Often times the calories per serving does match up to the macros (fats,carbs,proteins per gram).

So sometimes I manually do the math
protein g x 4 = cal
Carb g x 4 = cal
Fat g x 9 = cal

Add all cals = Total cals per serving

^Is this the most accurate in identifying the actual calories? If so, is this suppose to match up with the nutrition label's serving exactly?

Thank you!

Can you give an example? It pretty much always matches up for me.

DeguelloTex

There are rounding errors that could cause the math to add up exactly, but it should be pretty close.

I just use the macros when I enter the food.

kitkatkarr

Trying to figure out these rice cakes for tonight dinner
@rainbowbow

If I do the calculation its 229 per serving and not 198 per serving?

davert123

Try Fat @9.4, Carbs @4.1, protein 5.6. Protein seems funny because takes a lot of energy to break it down - perhaps 1.5 kcal/grm to process s you could try 4.1 as well :-)

vedanta66

That label indeed looks wrong.
Although gms fiber does not typically get included in calorie calculations...but even in this case, this label looks wrong.... calories from fat would be 9 not 5 as listed on the label....
My calculation would be: 49x4 = 196 1x9 = 9 and 5 x 4 = 20.... for a total of 225.

However, if the calories calculations are using the actual number of grams of macro's per serving rather than those on the label, it could be right... say, for example there is actually .55 gms of fat per serving...the company may round this to 1g for the label...but the calorie calculation would be 5kcal/svg rather than 9kcal/svg.

In the end, I think there is probably enough variation in food composition (due to soil, different varieties, harvest conditions, storage, food production etc) that I treat the food label as imprecise anyway... and just use what they list...and my best guess.

rainbowbow

kitkatkarr wrote: »

Trying to figure out these rice cakes for tonight dinner
@rainbowbow

If I do the calculation its 229 per serving and not 198 per serving?

That's what i thought too upon first inspection. BUT, here's what i think is going on here.

It's 198 per serving, but the math says 229. It should be 31 cals less according to SOMETHING.

I see that it says "calories from fat 5". So i'm guessing that knocks off 4 from that because they can't put ".6-7g fat".

So, that's 27 cals not accounted for. Then there's the fiber which they don't have to count so again -4.

That's 23 cals not accounted for. So.... okay.... i.... i dont know....

SLLRunner

To me, it appears the nutrition information is incorrect.

I suggest looking up the same product, different brand, to see what comes up.

kitkatkarr

what a headache. Thank you all for helping. seems like its hard to come to a conclusion and ill look up more info on other rice cakes lol. Then again, I gotta enjoy the food and not kill myself over it. Thanks!!

DeguelloTex

It looks to me like it's possible that 5/9 of a gram of fat got rounded up to 1g of fat.