Problem with the math

Options
stmokomoko
stmokomoko Posts: 98 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
sd59ykyklnu6.png

Using the values of Carb and Protein being 4 cals each and Fat being 9, why are they 750 (1793 vs 1043) calories off? Am I missing something?

Thanks.
huh.png 16.8K

Replies

  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Options
    Either you're using entries that don't have accurate macro numbers or you have some serious rounding issues happening. My guess is a tiny bit of the latter and a lot of the former.
  • Clobern80
    Clobern80 Posts: 714 Member
    Options
    My guess... something you put in your diary doesn't have the correct Macros. Everything (calories, carbs, fat, protein, etc.) are manually put in by somebody, and somebody didn't put the correct info in. A lot of people ONLY put calories in, so you may have picked an item that you ate which someone put in 257 calories but no macro information.
  • stmokomoko
    stmokomoko Posts: 98 Member
    Options
    But this is just converting the macro totals that MFP calculated already.

    Even if the information users put in is wrong, 108 x 4 is still going to be 432 calories, 69 x 9 is still going to be 621 and 185 x4 is still going to be 740, and the total SHOULD still be 1793.

    Their conversion formula is incorrect on the "Totals" line somehow.
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    It can also be that the 4-4-9 rule is not exactly accurate.

    The FDA allows five different methods of calculating calories from macros. The 4-4-9 is the simplest one but tends to overstate calories. Many companies will use one of the other methods, including subtracting insoluble fiber from carbs before calculating calories using 4-4-9 method, or using specific Atwater factors rather than the generic 4-4-9. For example, a gram of glucose is a carb, but has less than 4 calories per gram (while some other carbs have more).

    Still, unless you had a lot of fiber, the numbers seem way off for you.
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    Options
    stmokomoko wrote: »
    But this is just converting the macro totals that MFP calculated already.

    Even if the information users put in is wrong, 108 x 4 is still going to be 432 calories, 69 x 9 is still going to be 621 and 185 x4 is still going to be 740, and the total SHOULD still be 1793.

    Their conversion formula is incorrect on the "Totals" line somehow.

    MFP does not calculate calories from macros. It sums the calorie values from your entries and it sums the macro values from your entries, but it doesn't calculate one from the other. As mentioned, 4-4-9 is only an approximation; the actual nutritional labels are potentially more accurate.
  • tlbroylesatl
    tlbroylesatl Posts: 1 Member
    edited May 2022
    Options
    I agree. The "Totals" line somehow seems off for some elements. I can do addition and subtraction…so it is very frustrating and confusing. It seems weird MFP doesn’t address this. But I am losing weight, so… 😒
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    edited May 2022
    Options
    tlbroylesatl wrote: »
    I agree. The "Totals" line somehow seems off for some elements. I can do addition and subtraction…so it is very frustrating and confusing. It seems weird MFP doesn’t address this. But I am losing weight, so… 😒

    If you read through the thread, it's not an MFP issue...it is wrong data being input from other users when they make an entry to the database and people selecting incorrect entries. MFP isn't calculating anything, it's just taking whatever entry you chose and summing the values of the calories and macros from that entry...it doesn't do any calculation on the macros to arrive at the calories.

    This is also a 5 year old thread.

Categories