When macros don't add up to the packaging calories

need2belean

So, I count macros. Which in essence is the same thing as counting calories. EXCEPT, when it comes to calories shown on packages that don't match up to the total of P/C/F macros. I do know that CICO works. However, what if someone were to weigh their food based on the packaging size and eat enough calories to fill their quota for the day, but what if those calories weren't accurate.

For example, OLE Xtreme wellness wraps say on the package that there are 50 calories per wrap (45g). The P/C/F breakdown is 1.5g of fat, 16g of carbs, and 4g of protein per serving. If you add up these calories, you get 93.5 calories instead of the 50 that the packaging says. What if someone were to have a 1500 calorie limit and they ate 30 of these wraps in a day to hit their 1500 quota, wouldn't they really be eating 2,805 calories? That would bring them Wayyy over their 1500 calorie allotment and if they weren't losing weight, couldn't this be the culprit?

Another example is Halo Top. The calories for vanilla bean halo top is 70 calories for 1/2c (70g). The macro breakdown is 3g of fat, 12g of carbs, and 7g of protein. That makes the calorie count, 103 calories for 1 serving. If I were to only eat halo top all day to hit my 1500 at the assumption that it's only 70g per pint, I could eat 21 servings. However, at 103 calories x 21 servings, my daily total jumped up to 2,163 calories. Again, if I wasn't losing weight, could this be the issue?
I've been counting macros and sometimes it seems like I'm only eating 1300 calories because the macro breakdown doesn't match up to the calorie count. And that's mainly because I have these wraps and halo top in my diary almost every day.

I've attached the pictures of the halo top and the wraps. Thankfully, I have been losing weight, but I've also been hitting certain macros that hit 1501 (45f, 144c/130p) and I've been paying attention to these instead of calories. I just wanted to post this I guess with the possibility that if someone were trying to lose weight and hit a plateau and they have only been counting calories, that maybe to break it down even further might help.
Please don't hate on counting macros. I just wanted to throw this in there as an alternative to Only calorie counting.

need2belean

To add to the post above, I know some people that don't count fiber carbs when they are carb counting. I am assuming that the manufacturer of these products is doing the same thing with the calorie count. But is that right? Should they Have to include the fiber count in the calorie count?

malibu927

Fiber doesn't get digested. So if you subtract the fiber grams in the wraps from the carbs you really have 5 grams of net carbs, which will leave you with 51.5 calories, rounded to 50 by the manufacturer.

cwolfman13

They're not counting all of the carbs...they're not counting fiber. So the calories are for net carbs.

need2belean

Thank you both for commenting. I figured that. I understand that's what the manufacturer is doing, but shouldn't they have to include the fiber in the total calorie count? If fiber doesn't get digested, then why put the total carbs on the packaging at all?

The_Enginerd

Insoluble fiber may be counted as zero calories for US nutrition labels, but they are still included in the total carbohydrates. The soluble fiber portion is still counted as 4 calories/g, the same as the other carbohydrates, although in reality fiber is somewhere between 0 and 4 calories/gram depending on the particular fiber. Diet foods like these typically use a high proportion of insoluble fiber.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10025962/calories-and-macros-not-adding-up-heres-probably-why

need2belean

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Insoluble fiber may be counted as zero calories for US nutrition labels. The soluble fiber portion is still counted as 4 calories/g, the same as the other carbohydrates, although in reality they are somewhere between 0 and 4 calories/gram depending on the fiber. Diet foods like these typically use a high proportion of insoluble fiber.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10025962/calories-and-macros-not-adding-up-heres-probably-why

Thanks. I was looking for another thread on it, but I guess I didn't search hard enough.

macgurlnet

The halo top is correct when you subtract fiber and the erythritol. Pretty sure neither of those gets "used" by the body, so whatever caloric value (and I think erythritol is less than 5 cal/serve) they may have doesn't count.

~Lyssa

cwolfman13

need2belean wrote: »

Thank you both for commenting. I figured that. I understand that's what the manufacturer is doing, but shouldn't they have to include the fiber in the total calorie count? If fiber doesn't get digested, then why put the total carbs on the packaging at all?

Because US food labeling is weird...we're one of the only countries that show total carbs including the fiber. We're also one of the only countries that displays dietary cholesterol...

need2belean

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Insoluble fiber may be counted as zero calories for US nutrition labels, but they are still included in the total carbohydrates. The soluble fiber portion is still counted as 4 calories/g, the same as the other carbohydrates, although in reality fiber is somewhere between 0 and 4 calories/gram depending on the particular fiber. Diet foods like these typically use a high proportion of insoluble fiber.

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10025962/calories-and-macros-not-adding-up-heres-probably-why

PS. I love your username. I am an Engineer as well.

stealthq

The reason it is more accurate to count calories is because there's an adjustment to account for incomplete digestion. Some of the carbohydrates you have listed for example aren't able to be broken down so we can extract all of the energy from them.

These things have been determined through experimentation.

The_Enginerd

It looks like they have updated some of the regulations since I wrote that. The latest rules revised April 2016 now require a factor of 2 calories/gram for soluble non-digestible fiber, plus a factor of somewhat less for sugar alcohols (depends on the particular type). These newest changes are included with the overall new nutrition label rules (such as stating added sugars, potassium being required, and the different vitamins) that are being rolled out over the next couple of years, so the current labels probably still use the factor of zero.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.9