The accuracy of macros
Options
moonlights
Posts: 141 Member
Does anyone ever think about how we are all basically shooting ducks in the dark regarding our macros?
For example, say 2 slices of x brand bacon is listed as having 100 calories and 6g fat. That is an average taken from a couple of batches they tested.
When I look at packs of bacon in the shop, they all have different ratios of fat to meat. So the two slices I have may be 88 calories and 4g fat.
Then I cook it. I don't use butter and a lot of the fat seeps out into the pan. By the time I'm eating it, unless I scrape all the grease out and put it on the plate, that fat ratio is down again.
But in my mfp log it still says 100 cals and 6g fat.
Most meat products list their raw nutrition on the packet. You can look up averages for cooked meat on mfp of course but these are still very much averages, and they don't always take into account your cooking method etc.
Today I'm eating a small beef roasting joint which I have cut up as steaks. I've entered the raw nutrition into mfp - my particular joint has an extra thick fat layer so I assume as per raw weight it's actually lower in protein and higher in fat than the nutritional info states. I don't know how much though and I don't know by how much cooking will reduce the fat content (which in turn reduces calories).
So all this must mean my macros are just a vague guideline and esp if I'm eating home cooked meats my protein / fat / calories ratios are probably quite different to what I imagine.
Or am I wrong in this?
For example, say 2 slices of x brand bacon is listed as having 100 calories and 6g fat. That is an average taken from a couple of batches they tested.
When I look at packs of bacon in the shop, they all have different ratios of fat to meat. So the two slices I have may be 88 calories and 4g fat.
Then I cook it. I don't use butter and a lot of the fat seeps out into the pan. By the time I'm eating it, unless I scrape all the grease out and put it on the plate, that fat ratio is down again.
But in my mfp log it still says 100 cals and 6g fat.
Most meat products list their raw nutrition on the packet. You can look up averages for cooked meat on mfp of course but these are still very much averages, and they don't always take into account your cooking method etc.
Today I'm eating a small beef roasting joint which I have cut up as steaks. I've entered the raw nutrition into mfp - my particular joint has an extra thick fat layer so I assume as per raw weight it's actually lower in protein and higher in fat than the nutritional info states. I don't know how much though and I don't know by how much cooking will reduce the fat content (which in turn reduces calories).
So all this must mean my macros are just a vague guideline and esp if I'm eating home cooked meats my protein / fat / calories ratios are probably quite different to what I imagine.
Or am I wrong in this?
3
Replies
-
I think you're spot on, and it's mostly broad generalization. The only exact I know of is if I'm still losing. And I don't weigh jack. I eyeball allot and use cups and spoons. But I'm still losing, which says that even with the broad generalization I'm still under maintenance.
Note: this does not count my last two ridiculous weeks.0 -
I guess you could separate meat from fat, weigh each before and after cooking and go with the average?0
-
True that would be more accurate, but a pain to do (and very hard with bacon)!
I agree, shooting blind is working so I'm not really worried I just know so much of my log must be wild generalization even though I'm so careful about keeping it!3 -
I've thought about this quite a bit mostly in regards to bacon - I like mine crispy, which means more fat is rendered off, so I assume there's less of a percentage of fat. Then my thoughts derail because the bacon is finished and it tastes so good.3
-
@moonlights USUALLY for bacon the macros and calories are determine after the strips have been pan fried given that you drain the excess fat and don't cook your eggs with it or otherwise eat the grease in anyway that drips out. You have to read the package for this. Same with tons of other food products such as rice for example. Most packages have the nutritional info for 1/4th cup of COOKED right which is astonishingly different than 1/4th cup UNcooked rice. For the most part labels are very accurate, even though they are averages. It may very by a few calories +/- but in terms of macros, probably less than .25 of a difference.1
-
I'm sure my logging is never 100% accurate but I like the results and the way I feel so I don't stress it. I never weigh things and I usually just eyeball measurements. Before keto I just tried to watch my calories and everyone said how important a food scale was because you are eating more than you think...I started to buy one but then it occurred to me that if I am eating even bigger portions than I think and I'm still starving all the time then clearly I just need to make different food choices and find something where I can eat moderate portions and be satisfied.3
-
Never thought of that but that's a good point OP!0
-
For a lot of meat, it does give raw nutrition, which I think is odd as most of us do cook our T-Bone steaks before eating them. IMO, this is not too big of a deal as it is not the carbs that are varying. If the carbs could be off by 10% on each food meaning my end of day results could be +/- 10%, that would not be good. However, if my protein is 28% instead of 18%, that is not nearly as concerning to me.1
-
I totally agree with it not being an exact science. I will say that I weigh everything. It has worked for me. Starting weight the middle of August was 255.5. Today, weighed in at 232. I will take the strategy I am using. I wish I was even more exact some days. Bacon alone and homemade mixed foods like my Brussels sprouts hash with bacon, I would love to be more exact on.1
-
I agree with the others. It's almost impossible to be perfect with logging food. As long as you're losing with what you're taking in go with it!
Logging food was a tool that taught me what I could eat, how to continue weight loss while eating foods I love, and how to eat (and continue losing) when not logging anymore! It's been a wonderful learning experience that I wouldn't have learned without doing it.
Main thing is to not let yourself stress because of it! Hang in there and allow yourself to learn from it too! Good luck! Stay plugged in here, and you will succeed too!2 -
I guess what I think about is what was I doing before this WOE? I wasn't paying attention to anything, I was eating all the wrong foods, I was eating way too much of those foods so when my macros are off due to inconsistencies in things like bacon, I'm still doing way freaking better than I was a year ago. I don't see a need to be more exact unless I were not losing weight and inches or was hungry all the time with no explanation or having unexplained medical issues that could be food related. I only buy thick sliced bacon from my local store Brookshire's and some days the thickness is really thick and some days its more like normal bacon. I figure it all evens out at the end of the day and the average is good enough. I would not eat more bacon unless I was hungry for it just because the slices were not as thick today.1
-
Oh I'm totally not stressed about it, it's just something I think about when eg: I notice I have an extra fatty cut of beef and feel pretty sure it won't match the average on the packet! It works so I'm not worried but I suspect my real macros are quite different to the ones I'm working from.
My fatty cut of beef today was deeelicious and so filling that I'm eating less accompaniments than I expected so it's all good by me.0 -
Here's a thread on "the end of the calorie," which provides plenty of fuel to cook your ducks (or the fish in your barrel).moonlights wrote: »Does anyone ever think about how we are all basically shooting ducks in the dark regarding our macros?
...
So all this must mean my macros are just a vague guideline and esp if I'm eating home cooked meats my protein / fat / calories ratios are probably quite different to what I imagine.
1
