Skip to content
  • Register
    • Viewing the message boards in:

    Silly question about macros

    2»

    Replies

    • Posts: 15,267 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 34,605 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.

    • Posts: 16,011 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 2,463 Member
      edited April 2017
      SezxyStef wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      actually your math is off

      104 carbs 53 fat 107 protein is 1321...off by almost 100 because carbs are carbs not net carbs.
      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.
    • Posts: 2,991 Member
      kimny72 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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?
    • Posts: 15,267 Member
      vismal wrote: »
      show previous quotes
      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.

      interesting...Is that jsut for the US as I am not sure we do that in Canada.

    • Posts: 15,267 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 16,011 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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!
    • Posts: 2,463 Member
      SezxyStef wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 2,991 Member
      SezxyStef wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    • Posts: 30,886 Member
      cathipa wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      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.
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories