Silly question about macros
jelleigh
Posts: 743 Member
So I'm just wondering - I hear people here who say they just eat anything "that fits within their macros". I get the macro ratios etc but I'm wondering do you counce calories as well as macros? Or is it literally ANYTHING that fits within your macros? And if it's the later, do your Calories stay pretty stable?
0
Replies
-
It will have the same result -- if you hit your macros, you'll hit your calorie goal.4
-
If you have a certain number of macros, that equals a certain number of calories so by doing IIFYM you are counting calories as well.0
-
If you hit your macros you will automatically be hitting your calories.0
-
Theoretically, if you hit your macros perfectly, you'll perfectly match your Caloric goal.
That said, rounding of values may make it so that macros and Calories don't perfectly match up. Usually, it's not a big deal, but it could be. As such, it's probably a pretty good idea - at least for a while, so you can see where things are off, and if you need to adjust at all - to pay attention to Calories, as well as macros.0 -
The real problem is that alcohol is not an allocated macro.3
-
I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.1
-
I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.2 -
So I'm just wondering - I hear people here who say they just eat anything "that fits within their macros". I get the macro ratios etc but I'm wondering do you counce calories as well as macros? Or is it literally ANYTHING that fits within your macros? And if it's the later, do your Calories stay pretty stable?
I follow that as well..and yes I still look at my calories. Partially because it's the protein macro I care about really the rest are whatever...
So by looking at both partially I can have ice cream or gelato or cadbury eggs tonight cause it will fit my macros and calories1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.0 -
So I'm just wondering - I hear people here who say they just eat anything "that fits within their macros". I get the macro ratios etc but I'm wondering do you counce calories as well as macros? Or is it literally ANYTHING that fits within your macros? And if it's the later, do your Calories stay pretty stable?
Calories are derived from your macros...1 gram of carbs = 4 calories...1 gram protein = 4 calories...1 gram fat = 9 calories.
If you're hitting your macros, you're hitting your calories.1 -
annacole94 wrote: »The real problem is that alcohol is not an allocated macro.
Alcohol is a free food...2 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
If your entries are correct, your macros should add up to your calories give or take rounding which is pretty insignificant...
1g carbs = 4 calories
1g protein = 4 calories
1 g fat = 9 calories
Your calories are a derivative of your macros.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
The US nutritional facts boxes allow for rounding and the calories entry is derived independently rather than calculated from each macro so macros should be close to calories but may not be exactly equal. The more calories that you have in your budget, the more deviation you may have because each rounding of a number contributes to potential drift. Also the manufacturers have some leeway about fiber reporting so that adds to the issue.
Calories calculated from macros should be in the ballpark with calories shown. If they are not, it's worth investigating the database entries that you are using for accuracy.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
If your entries are correct, your macros should add up to your calories give or take rounding which is pretty insignificant...
1g carbs = 4 calories
1g protein = 4 calories
1 g fat = 9 calories
Your calories are a derivative of your macros.
Yes I understand all of this. What I'm saying is MFP isn't always the most accurate even with the "green checked" verified entries. Even some USDA entries are off. Agree with @seska422 . This seems like a reliable explanation.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.0 -
Going by your day today, if you subtract fiber from carbs then you are at 87 carbs, 53 fat, and 107 protein. MFP gives you 1246 calories. (87 x 4) + (53 x 9) + (107 x 4) = 348 + 477 + 428 = 1253. So you are only off by 7 calories. I'd say that's pretty darn close. If you want to know why that discrepancy exists it's because of fiber, sugar alcohols, and rounding. Fiber has calories but not 4 per gram like most carbs, sugar alcohols can have next to no calories but still get counted as a carb, and the FDA allows companies to round to the nearest 5 or 10 meaning something with 178 calories will read 180 calories. Using macros only is actually less accurate because that will count every carb as 4 calories regardless if it is fiber or sugar alcohol. The best way to follow IIFYM with MFP is to set a protein minimum, a fat minimum, and a calorie limit. By the end of the day if you meet or exceed both your protein and fat minimums and hit your calorie goal you "hit your macros". This also allows much greater flexibility then trying to hit all three numbers as close as possible. Flexibility was the entire reason for IIFYM, after all before the acronym came along it was simply called "flexible dieting".cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.
Unfortunately not all entries have grams. I do weigh in grams and have to use what the entries allow for (i.e 28g =1oz)0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.
Unfortunately not all entries have grams. I do weigh in grams and have to use what the entries allow for (i.e 28g =1oz)
Then choose entries that match the USDA database AND have grams. Not sure what you are arguing here...you've used this tool long enough to know to check if it seems off.0 -
Going by your day today, if you subtract fiber from carbs then you are at 87 carbs, 53 fat, and 107 protein. MFP gives you 1246 calories. (87 x 4) + (53 x 9) + (107 x 4) = 348 + 477 + 428 = 1253. So you are only off by 7 calories. I'd say that's pretty darn close. If you want to know why that discrepancy exists it's because of fiber, sugar alcohols, and rounding. Fiber has calories but not 4 per gram like most carbs, sugar alcohols can have next to no calories but still get counted as a carb, and the FDA allows companies to round to the nearest 5 or 10 meaning something with 178 calories will read 180 calories. Using macros only is actually less accurate because that will count every carb as 4 calories regardless if it is fiber or sugar alcohol. The best way to follow IIFYM with MFP is to set a protein minimum, a fat minimum, and a calorie limit. By the end of the day if you meet or exceed both your protein and fat minimums and hit your calorie goal you "hit your macros". This also allows much greater flexibility then trying to hit all three numbers as close as possible. Flexibility was the entire reason for IIFYM, after all before the acronym came along it was simply called "flexible dieting".cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
Makes some sense, however the noob to IIFYM would have a difficult time trying to remember this so it is just easier to follow macros only and not macros and cals.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
exactly ...per the package...1cup may not weigh 227g...and how do you know how the nutrition is calculated on the 1 cup or the 227 grams...
cheese in grams not oz...accuracy...
choosing correct entries that reflect how you are measuring is important.
Choosing entries that are accurate based on USDA is important.
I have more calories logged but have less of a variance than you do...should tell you something.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.
Unfortunately not all entries have grams. I do weigh in grams and have to use what the entries allow for (i.e 28g =1oz)
Then choose entries that match the USDA database AND have grams. Not sure what you are arguing here...you've used this tool long enough to know to check if it seems off.
My original statement was that MFP is not perfect. A noob would not know what someone who has been on here a while would deem as common knowledge.
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
exactly ...per the package...1cup may not weigh 227g...and how do you know how the nutrition is calculated on the 1 cup or the 227 grams...
cheese in grams not oz...accuracy...
choosing correct entries that reflect how you are measuring is important.
Choosing entries that are accurate based on USDA is important.
I have more calories logged but have less of a variance than you do...should tell you something.
However as everyone else has stated there should be no variance since macros and calories should be equal right?0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.
Unfortunately not all entries have grams. I do weigh in grams and have to use what the entries allow for (i.e 28g =1oz)
Then choose entries that match the USDA database AND have grams. Not sure what you are arguing here...you've used this tool long enough to know to check if it seems off.
My original statement was that MFP is not perfect. A noob would not know what someone who has been on here a while would deem as common knowledge.
But you didn't phrase it that way. It took us fifteen more posts for you to phrase it in a way that is sensible.
And macros or calories, it doesn't matter. They should closely match if you are using accurate database entries which should always be checked against the USDA database.1 -
Going by your day today, if you subtract fiber from carbs then you are at 87 carbs, 53 fat, and 107 protein. MFP gives you 1246 calories. (87 x 4) + (53 x 9) + (107 x 4) = 348 + 477 + 428 = 1253. So you are only off by 7 calories. I'd say that's pretty darn close. If you want to know why that discrepancy exists it's because of fiber, sugar alcohols, and rounding. Fiber has calories but not 4 per gram like most carbs, sugar alcohols can have next to no calories but still get counted as a carb, and the FDA allows companies to round to the nearest 5 or 10 meaning something with 178 calories will read 180 calories. Using macros only is actually less accurate because that will count every carb as 4 calories regardless if it is fiber or sugar alcohol. The best way to follow IIFYM with MFP is to set a protein minimum, a fat minimum, and a calorie limit. By the end of the day if you meet or exceed both your protein and fat minimums and hit your calorie goal you "hit your macros". This also allows much greater flexibility then trying to hit all three numbers as close as possible. Flexibility was the entire reason for IIFYM, after all before the acronym came along it was simply called "flexible dieting".cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
actually your math is off
104 carbs 53 fat 107 protein is 1321...off by almost 100 because carbs are carbs not net carbs.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »I follow IIFYM and yes if it fits you can eat it. Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories. If you are going to do IIFYM then follow only macros and not calories. Try to get at all zeros, but if not then at least within 5+/-.
It is accurate if you use MFP database entries with the correct macros input.
OK, but I beg to differ.
How so? If you use correct nutritional information then macros should certainly = calories.
My diary is open.
okay? your entries are suspect hence why you have 1321 calories based on macros but only 1246 logged...
for example your kirkland yogurt 1cup....cheese 1.5 oz and other entries...
mine at present is off by about 50 calories...
Don't know what is suspect. Kirkland yogurt 1 cup =227g per the package and I weigh out exactly 227g. Macros match the package as well. Cheese 1.5oz is measured on a digital scale so again not sure what you are calling suspect.
What exactly is your argument? That your calories don't match what your macros would indicate? It's maths again.
that by logging items in cups or oz it will be inaccurate as said up thread.
to be as accurate as possible using a food scale in grams and choosing correct entries is key.
Unfortunately not all entries have grams. I do weigh in grams and have to use what the entries allow for (i.e 28g =1oz)
Then choose entries that match the USDA database AND have grams. Not sure what you are arguing here...you've used this tool long enough to know to check if it seems off.
My original statement was that MFP is not perfect. A noob would not know what someone who has been on here a while would deem as common knowledge.
But you didn't phrase it that way. It took us fifteen more posts for you to phrase it in a way that is sensible.
And macros or calories, it doesn't matter. They should closely match if you are using accurate database entries which should always be checked against the USDA database.
From my original statement..
Unfortunately MFP is not so accurate that macros always equal calories.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions