Potentially helpful but possibly stupid question.

Grimmerick

Soooooo The way I am understanding it Calories are made up of Carbs/Pro/Fat
Carbs and Protein being 4 calories a gram and Fat being 9 calories a gram.
So it said I was over by 60 calories on MFP yesterday but in the Carbs and Protein section it says I am over by 13g on protein and 34g on carbs which would be 244 calories. Am I doing this wrong or should the carbs and fat that I am over add up to 60. I'm not stressing over it or anything just wondering if I am not doing the math correctly, especially since it's not even close.

Thanks

madwells1

I think you have a mistake in your logic or your text. If you are over 13 for Carbs and 34 for Protein, then

Carbs 13 * 4 = 52
Protein 34 * 4 = 136

Total Calories from overage of Carbs and Protein = 188 (you have 244).

Now, assuming that you are over 60 calories, take 188, subtract 60 and you have a total overage still of 128 calories, which still doesn't make sense. I assume then, you have not met your fat goal, and the remaining calories that you are not over on MFP (128) are coming from you being under in fat (128/9+ = 14.22).

I therefore, given the information, would assume that you are under about 14 grams in fat.

You can be under/over calorie allotment and not meet the macro allotment. These are both mutually exclusive based on the interaction between the 3.

I could of course, be completely wrong on this as I haven't had my coffee yet.

Seffell

madwells1 wrote: »

I think you have a mistake in your logic or your text. If you are over 13 for Carbs and 34 for Protein, then

Carbs 13 * 4 = 52
Protein 34 * 4 = 136

Total Calories from overage of Carbs and Protein = 188 (you have 244).

Now, assuming that you are over 60 calories, take 188, subtract 60 and you have a total overage still of 128 calories, which still doesn't make sense. I assume then, you have not met your fat goal, and the remaining calories that you are not over on MFP (128) are coming from you being under in fat (128/9+ = 14.22).

I therefore, given the information, would assume that you are under about 14 grams in fat.

You can be under/over calorie allotment and not meet the macro allotment. These are both mutually exclusive based on the interaction between the 3.

I could of course, be completely wrong on this as I haven't had my coffee yet.

No, you are correct

Grimmerick

madwells1 wrote: »

I think you have a mistake in your logic or your text. If you are over 13 for Carbs and 34 for Protein, then

Carbs 13 * 4 = 52
Protein 34 * 4 = 136

Total Calories from overage of Carbs and Protein = 188 (you have 244).

Now, assuming that you are over 60 calories, take 188, subtract 60 and you have a total overage still of 128 calories, which still doesn't make sense. I assume then, you have not met your fat goal, and the remaining calories that you are not over on MFP (128) are coming from you being under in fat (128/9+ = 14.22).

I therefore, given the information, would assume that you are under about 14 grams in fat.

You can be under/over calorie allotment and not meet the macro allotment. These are both mutually exclusive based on the interaction between the 3.

I could of course, be completely wrong on this as I haven't had my coffee yet.

Sorry I should have mentioned fat, I was under by 3 grams of fat, so that's where I thought the calories would have been but that didn't add up either. So just to go over it one more time, I was 34 over for carbs, 13 over for protein and 3 under for fat. Also I have to laugh I actually had 188 the first time and redid the math somehow coming out with 244 thinking it was right.

Seffell

emmydoodles83 wrote: »

madwells1 wrote: »

I think you have a mistake in your logic or your text. If you are over 13 for Carbs and 34 for Protein, then

Carbs 13 * 4 = 52
Protein 34 * 4 = 136

Total Calories from overage of Carbs and Protein = 188 (you have 244).

Now, assuming that you are over 60 calories, take 188, subtract 60 and you have a total overage still of 128 calories, which still doesn't make sense. I assume then, you have not met your fat goal, and the remaining calories that you are not over on MFP (128) are coming from you being under in fat (128/9+ = 14.22).

I therefore, given the information, would assume that you are under about 14 grams in fat.

You can be under/over calorie allotment and not meet the macro allotment. These are both mutually exclusive based on the interaction between the 3.

I could of course, be completely wrong on this as I haven't had my coffee yet.

Sorry I should have mentioned fat, I was under by 3 grams of fat, so that's where I thought the calories would have been but that didn't add up either. So just to go over it one more time, I was 34 over for carbs, 13 over for protein and 3 under for fat. Also I have to laugh I actually had 188 the first time and redid the math somehow coming out with 244 thinking it was right.

The entries in MFP do not always have the correct calories and macros. If you aim for macros you need to check every entry against your food label. Many people don't care about macros (I don't) and could be sloppy when entering a food item into the database.

blondie_mfp

my guess is that one (or more?) of your individual entries doesn't add up exactly, either, causing the grand total to be off. sometimes several can be off due to rounding, and then the grand total at the bottom looks more skewed.

in my experience, the total calories listed is often slightly more than what the actual calories would be if you multiplied fat, carbs, and protein by their respective calorie allocations. which is actually the opposite of what you have, so maybe there is an error in one of your diary items? hmmm.

Grimmerick

OMG it's so simple why didn't this cross my mind, Thanks guys. God it was so obvious that the macros and calories were probably a bit off.

SezxyStef

yes entries in mfp can be off...

that's why you often see me ask the question "are you logging accurately and consistently using a food scale and the correct entries?"

blondie_mfp

if it makes you feel any better, mine's the same

calories are over by 38, but carbs*4 + fat*9 + protein*4 = over by 95.

ipmac22

emmydoodles83 wrote: »

Soooooo The way I am understanding it Calories are made up of Carbs/Pro/Fat
Carbs and Protein being 4 calories a gram and Fat being 9 calories a gram.
So it said I was over by 60 calories on MFP yesterday but in the Carbs and Protein section it says I am over by 13g on protein and 34g on carbs which would be 244 calories. Am I doing this wrong or should the carbs and fat that I am over add up to 60. I'm not stressing over it or anything just wondering if I am not doing the math correctly, especially since it's not even close.

Thanks

I just absolutely love your profile photo. It cracks me up whenever I see it in a thread.

madwells1

... and when it comes to math, there is never a stupid question

Grimmerick

SezxyStef wrote: »

yes entries in mfp can be off...

that's why you often see me ask the question "are you logging accurately and consistently using a food scale and the correct entries?"

yea I don't really care about it being slightly off, you can't be dead on balls accurate on everything. It's just not worth it to me to stress over something slightly off. If I was losing weight for a competition or job then I might stress it more but as long as I'm losing I wouldn't sweat it. But it's nice to know I had the right idea about the math.

LiftHeavyThings27105

Lots and lots of labels are incorrect.....

I have seen chicken that has 22g of Protein, 0g of Carbs and 9g of Fat show 150 Calories.

So, 22 x 4 = 88 and 9 x 9 = 81 so when I went to school (high school was 1981 - 1985....lots and lots has changed since then) that was 169 Calories......not 150 Calories. So, if you *blindly* followed the label and *assumed* that it was correct your totals would be off. Slightly off, but off nonetheless.

Props to you for noticing that your macros do not add up to your calories.

colorfulcoquette

Another thing to note with carbs is that the fiber portion of carbs generally isn't included in the calorie count so if you have a lot of fiber in your diet that can skew your macro/calorie calculations.

cs2thecox

gebeziseva wrote: »

The entries in MFP do not always have the correct calories and macros. If you aim for macros you need to check every entry against your food label. Many people don't care about macros (I don't) and could be sloppy when entering a food item into the database.

This
Some of the entries have calories and no macros, some have calories + carbs, some are just plain wrong...
I try and edit what looks like the most accurate entry to start with rather than trying to introduce yet another one in to the mix.

I admit that the entry I use for my tea with a bit of milk has calories and no macros, but it's 8 calories so I can't get too excited. For actual food, I do try and use accurate entries.
But at the end of the day I try and meet my protein goal and my calories, and pretty much let the carbs and fats fall where they will. My fat isn't stupid low, and nor are my carbs, and I'm not on any kind of super tight regime, so this works for me.

AnnPT77

I think the 4 calories and 9 calories values are approximately true rather than exactly true, besides.

No matter how accurate we are, there's an unavoidable error of at least a few percent in daily logging, anyway (one apple is a little sweeter than the next, one day has more non-logged movement, label calories can be +/- 20%, etc.). It's all estimates, in the end.

I try to be as accurate as I can without obsession, to keep the controllable estimating variation controlled. After that, I don't sweat it (burns no extra calories ). That's worked fine through losing about 1/3 of my body weight, and maintaining a healthy weight for almost 2 years now.