Contradiction

Go_Deskercise

MaltedTea wrote: »

mlgsmtl wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

mlgsmtl wrote: »

cmriverside wrote: »

mlgsmtl wrote: »

steveko89 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 support

Well that just sounds unnecessary

mlgsmtl

kimny72 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

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.

After this explanation, I understood everything. Thanks you.
Thanks everyone for your answers.
Good luck! Always be in shape

mlgsmtl

I understood the reason and if it is interesting to someone I can write about it.
The reason is that when I created my products, I rounded up the calorie numbers. For example, if 21 (p) + 7(f) + 1.6(c) indicators of the macro in the calculation did 153.4 calories, I indicated 154. This is exactly the reason.

AnnPT77

Something to be aware of, if it could ever apply to you, since you're this concerned about cross-totals: If you ever consume anything that includes alcohol, your numbers will be off. Alcohol has calories (about 7 per gram), but it's not a carbohydrate, fat, or protein. It's like a pseudo-macro (though I wouldn't call it a "macronutrient" personally, because it's not a nutrient. ).