Silly question about macros
Replies
-
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?
macros are in grams...if you measure food by cups and oz then yes there could be a variance based on maths.
anyway...doesn't matter. IIFYM is a good method and it works but truth is that calories are what in the end matter regardless of how you find them.1 -
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.
You were blaming the tool, when it was your poor communication and/or your method of logging using inaccurate entries that was the problem.
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.
I only looked at yesterday, but the two entries that are way off are the Hershey's cocoa and the Syntrax, so you might want to double check the database entry you are using with the nutrition info on the package and see if your entry needs correcting.
But otherwise, as someone else mentioned, the nutritional info is allowed to be rounded. Even if you are doing IIFYM, it isn't necessary to hit your macro goals exactly, just as close as possible.1 -
Carbs aren't carbs according to the FDA. Fiber and sugar alcohols are counted as a carb by the FDA but do not reflect 4 calories in the nutritional label. Again, the carbs in fiber are variable depending on the type and sugar alcohols can have as little as 0.2 calories per gram. So This is why I subtracted fiber when calculating her total, its what the nutritional labels did.
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: »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.
I only looked at yesterday, but the two entries that are way off are the Hershey's cocoa and the Syntrax, so you might want to double check the database entry you are using with the nutrition info on the package and see if your entry needs correcting.
But otherwise, as someone else mentioned, the nutritional info is allowed to be rounded. Even if you are doing IIFYM, it isn't necessary to hit your macro goals exactly, just as close as possible.
8 of the 9 carbs in Syntrax are due to sugar alcohols. 1 carb + 11 protein = 44 cals (rounded to 45). Hershey's cocoa powder 3 carbs + the minimal amount of fat and protein = ~10 cals. Please explain how these are way off?0 -
Carbs aren't carbs according to the FDA. Fiber and sugar alcohols are counted as a carb by the FDA but do not reflect 4 calories in the nutritional label. Again, the carbs in fiber are variable depending on the type and sugar alcohols can have as little as 0.2 calories per gram. So This is why I subtracted fiber when calculating her total, its what the nutritional labels did.
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.
interesting...Is that jsut for the US as I am not sure we do that in Canada.
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.
I only looked at yesterday, but the two entries that are way off are the Hershey's cocoa and the Syntrax, so you might want to double check the database entry you are using with the nutrition info on the package and see if your entry needs correcting.
But otherwise, as someone else mentioned, the nutritional info is allowed to be rounded. Even if you are doing IIFYM, it isn't necessary to hit your macro goals exactly, just as close as possible.
8 of the 9 carbs in Syntrax are due to sugar alcohols. 1 carb + 11 protein = 44 cals (rounded to 45). Hershey's cocoa powder 3 carbs + the minimal amount of fat and protein = ~10 cals. Please explain how these are way off?
so now you are arguing that the entries in MFP are fine...okay.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.
I only looked at yesterday, but the two entries that are way off are the Hershey's cocoa and the Syntrax, so you might want to double check the database entry you are using with the nutrition info on the package and see if your entry needs correcting.
But otherwise, as someone else mentioned, the nutritional info is allowed to be rounded. Even if you are doing IIFYM, it isn't necessary to hit your macro goals exactly, just as close as possible.
8 of the 9 carbs in Syntrax are due to sugar alcohols. 1 carb + 11 protein = 44 cals (rounded to 45). Hershey's cocoa powder 3 carbs + the minimal amount of fat and protein = ~10 cals. Please explain how these are way off?
So I'm first going to apologize because you have your diary ordered different than mine and I was thinking different macros were in different columns! Whoopsie. Having said that 3g carbs = 12 cals and 1g fat = 9 cals, so that would seem to equal 21 cals, not 10 but that could be a rounding issue since the serving logged is so small.
So all this makes my post far less useful LOL, carry on!
0 -
Carbs aren't carbs according to the FDA. Fiber and sugar alcohols are counted as a carb by the FDA but do not reflect 4 calories in the nutritional label. Again, the carbs in fiber are variable depending on the type and sugar alcohols can have as little as 0.2 calories per gram. So This is why I subtracted fiber when calculating her total, its what the nutritional labels did.
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.
interesting...Is that jsut for the US as I am not sure we do that in Canada.
Probably...A lot of how we handle nutrition in this country is less than ideal.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.
I only looked at yesterday, but the two entries that are way off are the Hershey's cocoa and the Syntrax, so you might want to double check the database entry you are using with the nutrition info on the package and see if your entry needs correcting.
But otherwise, as someone else mentioned, the nutritional info is allowed to be rounded. Even if you are doing IIFYM, it isn't necessary to hit your macro goals exactly, just as close as possible.
8 of the 9 carbs in Syntrax are due to sugar alcohols. 1 carb + 11 protein = 44 cals (rounded to 45). Hershey's cocoa powder 3 carbs + the minimal amount of fat and protein = ~10 cals. Please explain how these are way off?
so now you are arguing that the entries in MFP are fine...okay.
I never said that. I said MFP isn't perfect. Not trying to argue with anyone just giving my opinion of my experience with macros and MFP. But she was correct. To someone who didn't know the carbs in Syntrax were mostly sugar alcohols it would be off.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.
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.
Shouldn't be a meaningful difference, but I'd always follow cals, not macros. Even when counting macros there's no need to have macros exact, and going by the calorie number is more likely to be correct and not messed up by rounding or not counting fiber or whatever.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