Why don't the numbers add up?
rickdkitson
Posts: 86 Member
Total calories in a food should add up to 9x Fat Grams+ 4 x Protein Grams + 4 x carb grams.
However, for a great many foods, this is not even close.
This is true for packaged processed foods on the manufacturers labeling and on foods here where people have entered in the nutritional value for a generic food.
For example, a Chiqui (sic) Banana in MFP data base is listed at 220 calories but only 30 grams of carbs and 1 of protein for 124 calories by calculation.
I can understand it being a calorie or two out due to rounding errors but this is too much.
However, for a great many foods, this is not even close.
This is true for packaged processed foods on the manufacturers labeling and on foods here where people have entered in the nutritional value for a generic food.
For example, a Chiqui (sic) Banana in MFP data base is listed at 220 calories but only 30 grams of carbs and 1 of protein for 124 calories by calculation.
I can understand it being a calorie or two out due to rounding errors but this is too much.
0
Replies
-
Rounding and users entering the data wrong are probably the two biggest reasons.1
-
Use the USDA food database to search for things such as 'bananas, raw'. Copy as follows: "09040, Bananas, raw" and paste that into the mfp food database to find a database listing which should, but doesn't always, exactly match the USDA food database listing for that item. Users are permitted to edit the mfp database and many do. It is a very powerful tool, so use it cautiously. The USDA database is not user-editable. The Self.com nutrition database is not user editable. I'd use the Self.com site if they weren't so heavy on pop-up ads. The USDA site is an invaluable (that is, the value is inestimable, or in other words, highly valuable) resource.1
-
Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.0
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.
You mean fiber alters this number.0 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.
You mean fiber alters this number.
Yes and sugar alcohols.
Not in his example per se, but it's a reason why you can't always just multiple by 4 and 9 to get the calories.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.
Which ones? Carbohydrate as a macro is 4 calories per gram.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.
Which ones? Carbohydrate as a macro is 4 calories per gram.
Fiber and sugar alcohols are carbs but do not have 4 calories per gram1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Or because some carbs aren't 4 calories per gram.
Which ones? Carbohydrate as a macro is 4 calories per gram.
Fiber and sugar alcohols are carbs but do not have 4 calories per gram
I thought it was actually that fiber does have 4 calories per gram, but passes through the body so those calories are not absorbed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions