calories and macros peeing me off

callumwalker1995

Tomorrow I have planned my eating day at 3650 calories which is just 16 calories what I am aiming for yet my macros are way way behind. My protein is bang on yet my carbs will be 24g less than what I aiming for and my fat is 5g behind. Why do m calories therefore add up to 3493 when I calculate them properly (fat x9 and carbs/protein x4) but on the MFP app it says I hit my calories and will not be 160 behind. Which do I look at - the calories being hit or the macros being way off?

seska422

Rounding.

For example, 4 grams from carbs could be 3.7 to 4.2 for the last carb for each item. The more items you have, the more rounding error is produced.

160 calories is just 4.4% of your calorie total. That's about as close to exact as you are going to get.

As for which one to follow, just pick one.

callumwalker1995

seska422 wrote: »

Rounding.

For example, 4 grams from carbs could be 3.7 to 4.2 for the last carb for each item. The more items you have, the more rounding error is produced.

160 calories is just 4.4% of your calorie total. That's about as close to exact as you are going to get.

As for which one to follow, just pick one.

Thanks for the only clarification I've actually received from weeks of asking, that makes sense.

I might try ad strike a balance i.e. go over on my calories by a bit but also go under my macros by a bit, does this seem suitable?

boolz

callumwalker1995 wrote: »

I might try ad strike a balance i.e. go over on my calories by a bit but also go under my macros by a bit, does this seem suitable?

If you are wanting to lose weight, I would not recommend going over your calorie target. Instead, I'd recommend just varying your food day to day so that you don't stay too low on any given macro for too long. Or, if you like what you're eating and it's working for you, that might just be a signal that you should adjust your macro goals to more closely match what you prefer to eat.

callumwalker1995

boolz wrote: »

callumwalker1995 wrote: »

I might try ad strike a balance i.e. go over on my calories by a bit but also go under my macros by a bit, does this seem suitable?

If you are wanting to lose weight, I would not recommend going over your calorie target. Instead, I'd recommend just varying your food day to day so that you don't stay too low on any given macro for too long. Or, if you like what you're eating and it's working for you, that might just be a signal that you should adjust your macro goals to more closely match what you prefer to eat.

I am bulking. FOr example today was a rest day and MFP says I hit 3520 cals but adding everything up I hit 3993 calories instead which is my maintenance not my bulk which sucks

rankinsect

seska422 wrote: »

Rounding.

For example, 4 grams from carbs could be 3.7 to 4.2 for the last carb for each item. The more items you have, the more rounding error is produced.

160 calories is just 4.4% of your calorie total. That's about as close to exact as you are going to get.

As for which one to follow, just pick one.

Also, carbs are not exactly 4 calories per gram, nor are fats exactly 9 calories per gram, and manufacturers have options. They can use the 4/4/9 estimates, or they can use more accurate estimates based on the exact ingredients. For example, table sugar is actually 3.87 calories per gram, while HFCS is only 2.81.

The 4/4/9 that Atwater came up with were just rough estimates of the average energy density of a number of different carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. All calorie counting is estimated anyway - 4/4/9 is usually close enough.

Wetterdew

I don't think you need to worry so much about fat and carb calories. Just make sure you're eating plenty and getting enough protein.

callumwalker1995

So just hit calories but look at macros?

extra_medium

don't overthink it too much or you'll go nuts. Just keep it in the ballpark of what you're going for.