How can a 65g Power Bar have 46g carbs, 8g protein, 4g fat, 2g fiber, and 26g sugar? That equals 80g

hmrambling
hmrambling Posts: 321 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
My question is specifically about the PowerBar Performance Vanilla Crisp (65 grams) I shoved in my pie hole this afternoon.

How can a 65g Power Bar have macros that add up to 80g?

Replies

  • BusyRaeNOTBusty
    BusyRaeNOTBusty Posts: 7,166 Member
    edited September 2017
    Fiber and sugar are carbs, so you don't add those in. Of the 46g of carbs, 2 are fiber and 26 are sugar, which leaves 18 "other" carbs. It'd really only be 46g + 8g +4g, which is 58, and that leaves you with some rounding errors, or maybe water.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    How can a 65g Power Bar have macros that add up to 80g?

    Fibre and sugar aren't macros.
  • shaunshaikh
    shaunshaikh Posts: 616 Member
    Fiber and sugar are carbs and are included in that weight

    Not everything that has weight has calories. See: water.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,109 Member
    Renaissance_Turtle wrote: »
    zgvd3vgd3wem.png


    Most of the unaccounted for weight is almost certainly water. (Micrograms of vitamins and minerals aren't going to add up to much.)
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    The sugar number is less than the carb number because sugar is a subset of carbs.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Also, all of the fiber may not be reflected in the carbohydrate listing since some fiber is not absorbed.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    <head thumping on table>
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Holy frijoles. It's math day on MFP.
  • Renaissance_Turtle
    Renaissance_Turtle Posts: 960 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    Renaissance_Turtle wrote: »
    zgvd3vgd3wem.png


    Most of the unaccounted for weight is almost certainly water. (Micrograms of vitamins and minerals aren't going to add up to much.)

    Probably so. Makes perfect sense, since it's non-caloric & thus it's not required to be listed in the nutritional value.
  • not_a_runner
    not_a_runner Posts: 1,343 Member
    I'm very confused by some of the "woos" on this thread..... :confused:
  • bobshuckleberry
    bobshuckleberry Posts: 281 Member
    It's the new math.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,109 Member
    not_a_runner wrote: »
    I'm very confused by some of the "woos" on this thread..... :confused:

    Some people seem to have gotten "woos" for statements that are true, but which had nothing to do with the question that was asked. OP asked about why the total weight of various nutrients, some of which overlapped with each other, was greater than the weight of a serving of the food. Some people pulled the relationship between calories and macros into their answers. I'm assuming they got "woo-ed" for irrelevance.

    Since MFP offered two diametrically opposed meanings for "woos" when they rolled them out, I guess we have to expect a certain variability in how they get used.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories