Contradiction
Options
mlgsmtl
Posts: 10 Member
Hello everyone.
I can't understand something.
When I look at my "nutrients" section it shows that I have a protein - 135 and goal 140 or carbohydrates total - 240 and goal - 256, or. This means that I still need to add protein and carbohydrates:
But when I look at the "Calories Remaining" it shows that I have already eaten all the calories for today, I ate more than I should:
I can't understand something.
When I look at my "nutrients" section it shows that I have a protein - 135 and goal 140 or carbohydrates total - 240 and goal - 256, or. This means that I still need to add protein and carbohydrates:
But when I look at the "Calories Remaining" it shows that I have already eaten all the calories for today, I ate more than I should:
1
Replies
-
Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.2
-
Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.0 -
Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy 1 -
It's very strange, it shouldn't look like that, it having reached your macros but having eating too many calories.
Have you perhaps at one point manually set your macro goals (fixed amounts) instead of what MFP gave you as a goal (grams based on percentages of your total calorie goal/consumption)?
Edit: errors in the database seem a more likely cause, after thinking it over0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
Unfortunately, this isn't an exact science kind of thing.
Also, if you're not using entries from the database to create your meals, where are you getting the calories and macros from? As mentioned, prepackaged goods are allowed a margin of error up to 20%.
I understand the OCD aspect here, but you're going to have to let that *kitten* go...trying to be bang on perfect with an imperfect science is only going to drive you crazy.13 -
MFP doesn't calculate the total calories based on how many grams of the three macros the logged foods contain, it just adds all of the calorie counts of the individual foods together as they are stated in the food entries.
So if the entry isn't fully correct, these kinds of weird numbers can happen.
Extra confounding factor: depending on the country, fiber (which doesn't add calories) can be counted as a carb, which can give a lower calorie amount than expected based on adding up the macros.7 -
It's very strange, it shouldn't look like that, it having reached your macros but having eating too many calories.
Have you perhaps at one point manually set your macro goals (fixed amounts) instead of what MFP gave you as a goal (grams based on percentages of your total calorie goal/consumption)?
Edit: errors in the database seem a more likely cause, after thinking it over
Yes, calories and % total macronutrients percentage I set manually. But how much will it be in grams the MFP did it. In principle, everything is correct here. I manually wrote 1859 calories, set 30% proteins, 55% carbs and 15% fats. The program calculated the amount correctly. 1859/30% = 557 calories. 557/4 = 140 proteins and so on the rest. I installed a macronutrients percentage of the program correctly, but it counts calories incorrectly. Something is wrong here, you are right, but what exactly, I cannot understand.1 -
It's very strange, it shouldn't look like that, it having reached your macros but having eating too many calories.
Have you perhaps at one point manually set your macro goals (fixed amounts) instead of what MFP gave you as a goal (grams based on percentages of your total calorie goal/consumption)?
Edit: errors in the database seem a more likely cause, after thinking it over
Yes, calories and % total macronutrients percentage I set manually. But how much will it be in grams the MFP did it. In principle, everything is correct here. I manually wrote 1859 calories, set 30% proteins, 55% carbs and 15% fats. The program calculated the amount correctly. 1859/30% = 557 calories. 557/4 = 140 proteins and so on the rest. I installed a macronutrients percentage of the program correctly, but it counts calories incorrectly. Something is wrong here, you are right, but what exactly, I cannot understand.
You said you created all your own database entries, you aren't using anything from the public database, right? If so, it seems like at least one of your foods doesn't have correct data.6 -
Can I just add: I really think there is something wrong with the used food entries, eating almost 2000 kcal and ZERO grams of sugar and fiber is highly unlikely.11
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
Unfortunately, this isn't an exact science kind of thing.
Also, if you're not using entries from the database to create your meals, where are you getting the calories and macros from? As mentioned, prepackaged goods are allowed a margin of error up to 20%.
I understand the OCD aspect here, but you're going to have to let that *kitten* go...trying to be bang on perfect with an imperfect science is only going to drive you crazy.
I take information from the Internet, manually create food, add carbs, protein and fats. But that's not the point. It's about counting. Why do I entered 1, 3, 5, but the MFP adds them up and instead of 9 gets 11. That is the question.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »It's very strange, it shouldn't look like that, it having reached your macros but having eating too many calories.
Have you perhaps at one point manually set your macro goals (fixed amounts) instead of what MFP gave you as a goal (grams based on percentages of your total calorie goal/consumption)?
Edit: errors in the database seem a more likely cause, after thinking it over
Yes, calories and % total macronutrients percentage I set manually. But how much will it be in grams the MFP did it. In principle, everything is correct here. I manually wrote 1859 calories, set 30% proteins, 55% carbs and 15% fats. The program calculated the amount correctly. 1859/30% = 557 calories. 557/4 = 140 proteins and so on the rest. I installed a macronutrients percentage of the program correctly, but it counts calories incorrectly. Something is wrong here, you are right, but what exactly, I cannot understand.
You said you created all your own database entries, you aren't using anything from the public database, right? If so, it seems like at least one of your foods doesn't have correct data.
Yes it is.
Thanks for your reply. I will check my products again.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
It's not going to happen unless YOU enter every food into the database yourself AND you use ONLY whole foods (as whole foods don't have labels.
Labels are allowed to be OFF by 20%.
Just move on. It's 95 cals.
Why do Macros mean so much to you? They aren't That Important in the scheme of things. Just concentrate on calories and forget this obsession. I used to worry about every gram too.
It's not important and it's not worth it.
7 -
Can I just add: I really think there is something wrong with the used food entries, eating almost 2000 kcal and ZERO grams of sugar and fiber is highly unlikely.
I am not counting anything other than carbs, protein, and fats. Only these indicators are important to me. I leave the rest empty, do not entered anything during creating food.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
It's not going to happen unless YOU enter every food into the database yourself AND you use ONLY whole foods (as whole foods don't have labels.
Labels are allowed to be OFF by 20%.
Just move on. It's 95 cals.
Why do Macros mean so much to you? They aren't That Important in the scheme of things. Just concentrate on calories and forget this obsession. I used to worry about every gram too.
It's not important and it's not worth it.
I just want to understand where and what is the error. Why do I entered 1, 3, 5, but the MFP adds them up and instead of 9 gets 11.0 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
It's not going to happen unless YOU enter every food into the database yourself AND you use ONLY whole foods (as whole foods don't have labels.
Labels are allowed to be OFF by 20%.
Just move on. It's 95 cals.
Why do Macros mean so much to you? They aren't That Important in the scheme of things. Just concentrate on calories and forget this obsession. I used to worry about every gram too.
It's not important and it's not worth it.
I just want to understand where and what is the error. Why do I entered 1, 3, 5, but the MFP adds them up and instead of 9 gets 11.
MFP doesn't generate the total calories from the macros, it just adds up the columns. It adds up all the carbs to get your total carbs, all the protein to get your total protein, all the fat to get your total fat, and all the calories to get your total calories.
If your total macros don't add up to your total calories, then the same is true in at least some of your individual food entries.5 -
It's likely rounding. Whether from the internet (how do you know it's more accurate than any other number) or not, macro amounts are usually going to be rounded. You may see and put in 5 g fat, but the real number may be 5.4 g fat, and so the math won't work out perfectly for the planned calories (again, because the numbers are rounded).1
-
If you are using information from the internet, you may put in 5 g fat, but the real number may be 5.4 g fat, and so the math won't work out perfectly (because the numbers are rounded).
Just as an example, I just got a can of soup from my cabinet. This is the macros and cals listed for one serving:
9g Fat, 14g carbs, 7g protein, 170 calories.
If you multiply out the macros, you only come up with 165 calories. As lemurcat2 said, that is because of rounding. Maybe there were really 13.875g of carbs and 6.95g of protein. (please don't check my math on that, I'm sure it's wrong but you get the point) Macros are listed without the decimal places, so there will almost always be slight discrepancies, and those slight discrepancies can add up to a noticable difference over a full day.
Luckily you don't need perfect numbers to achieve success. Just be as accurate as possible, understand that literally every formula and number we use is an estimate, and tweak as you go based on your results over weeks and months.5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
Unfortunately, this isn't an exact science kind of thing.
Also, if you're not using entries from the database to create your meals, where are you getting the calories and macros from? As mentioned, prepackaged goods are allowed a margin of error up to 20%.
I understand the OCD aspect here, but you're going to have to let that *kitten* go...trying to be bang on perfect with an imperfect science is only going to drive you crazy.
I take information from the Internet, manually create food, add carbs, protein and fats. But that's not the point. It's about counting. Why do I entered 1, 3, 5, but the MFP adds them up and instead of 9 gets 11. That is the question.
MFP doesn't use the macros to arrive at the calories..it just puts those macros in a column for those targets and calories are whatever you entered. Getting information from the internet doesn't make it correct either. You're trying to make an inherently flawed process perfect...do not let perfect be the enemy of good, or good enough.5 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Remember that the database is largely user-generated and there are plenty of entries that don't include accurate macros. Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. If those macros are right you'd only be at 1770 for the day so something is amiss.
I am not adding anything from the MFP database. I personally create each meal myself.
If you are entering new foods into the database yourself (not using foods that are in there already) then I would ask where you get your macro numbers that you're adding in?
Many products are going to round up or down, plus packaged goods in the U.S. are allowed a 20% error rate in either direction. It's going to be difficult if not impossible to get accuracy unless you only use whole foods.
95 calories is well-within the margin of error on any given day, don't stress out about it.
Thank you for your answer, but unfortunately I did not receive an answer to my question. I understand that a little difference is not scary, but still, I am an accurate person and I want to know why this is happening.
There are amounts of proteins(135), carbohydrates(240) and fats(30). Carbs and Proteins are 4 cal/g and fats are 9 cal/g. That's 540 + 960 + 270 = 1770 calories. Why then the counter counts 1954? 184 calories difference. But I want everything to show accurately. I love the accuracy
It's not going to happen unless YOU enter every food into the database yourself AND you use ONLY whole foods (as whole foods don't have labels.
Labels are allowed to be OFF by 20%.
Just move on. It's 95 cals.
Why do Macros mean so much to you? They aren't That Important in the scheme of things. Just concentrate on calories and forget this obsession. I used to worry about every gram too.
It's not important and it's not worth it.
I just want to understand where and what is the error. Why do I entered 1, 3, 5, but the MFP adds them up and instead of 9 gets 11.
Contact support2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions