Something odd about total calories

Thorbjornn

If you take a look at my totals for today, the Total calories don't actually add up properly if you multiply the protein and carbs grams x 4 and the fat grams by 9. The report says I fall short by 246 calories, but doing the math above, I fall short by only 26. Where are the other 220? What am I missing? :huh:

257_Lag

Did you exercise for the 220 difference?

MinnieInMaine

Where does your macro info come from? If you're using the MFP food database, as users are able to add entries, the foods you've picked for your diary may be incorrect or incomplete.

Thorbjornn

Did you exercise for the 220 difference?

No exercise.

kikicooks

Where does your macro info come from? If you're using the MFP food database, as users are able to add entries, the foods you've picked for your diary may be incorrect or incomplete.

I would say it has something to do with this, data isn't always correctly added to the database or at times amounts are rounded.

Thorbjornn

Where does your macro info come from? If you're using the MFP food database, as users are able to add entries, the foods you've picked for your diary may be incorrect or incomplete.

Yes, the MFP database. I noticed a lot of my selections are member created. Maybe small discrepancies add up. OK, this makes sense. Thanks.

Thorbjornn

Update: That's exactly what it is. I checked a few of my food selections for today. The macros of a particular food may be correct, but they don't total up to the proper number of calories. Now I know to be on the look out for that if something looks odd.

majope

Two other things to keep in mind: the food companies will also round the data up or down to come up with nice even numbers. And the 4-for-carbs, 9-for-fat, 4-for-protein stats are also rounded--the actuals are a range, like carbs are 3.7 to 4.2 calories per gram, fats are around 9.2 calories per gram, etc. None of it is absolute, so don't get frustrated if it doesn't add up perfectly. It never will.

BeachIron

magic

Thorbjornn

Thanks. Yeah, numbers are funny. I'm glad to know there's a reason, and not to sweat it.

jonnythan

Some food you entered is very wrong.

MFP doesn't calculate calories from macros. It just adds up the calories you've entered. You could add a bunch of custom foods that have 3 calories but 100 grams of fat and MFP wouldn't care.

jonnythan

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thorbjornn

Ok, I gotcha. It doesn't do cross-checking. In fact, one of the foods I discovered was way off was a grilled chicken breast. :noway:

Thorbjornn

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

BlueInkDot

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

Live and learn, though! None of our calculations are going to be perfect, but you keep at it and keep improving, and hopefully find the calculations and maths that do a good job of approximating your situation.

Don't expect to be perfect cuz nobody's gonna have it perfect. We're all just doin' our best! :P

Thorbjornn

Awesome, thanks. :flowerforyou:

jonnythan

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

Well you want to follow calories and macros. Calories important for weight loss, macros important for body composition and health.

You can do sanity checks on foods by calculating how many calories they should have based on macros listed versus calories listed. The omelette, for instance, is clearly very wrong.

I would delete that food and re-add it using better numbers. I'd probably add the eggs, ham, and cheese separately. Personally I own a food scale so I can weigh out the cheese and ham.

FredDoyle

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

I enter all my own foods unless there is an MFP entry that I have confirmed is correct, then I'll reuse that one if that's the case.

Thorbjornn

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

Well you want to follow calories and macros. Calories important for weight loss, macros important for body composition and health.

You can do sanity checks on foods by calculating how many calories they should have based on macros listed versus calories listed. The omelette, for instance, is clearly very wrong.

I would delete that food and re-add it using better numbers. I'd probably add the eggs, ham, and cheese separately. Personally I own a food scale so I can weigh out the cheese and ham.

When I am home I weigh and measure everything. I had that omelette from the cafeteria this morning. I watched him use two eggs, a slice of ham, 2 slices of cheese and the vegs I asked for. A slice of ham and a slice of cheese is usually about 1 oz (from my WW days counting points). Now, I can take those ingredients myself and create a meal. Why I didn't do that to begin with is a mystery. Considering I eat pretty much the same way every day, this shouldn't be a problem anymore (and I know I could have done better than the pre-made sausage patties :embarassed: ).

jonnythan

Those pork patties report 4g carbs, 28g protein, 20g fat. That's 288 calories. Yet calories only says 244. That's a very big difference.

Also, the "generic ham egg and cheese omelette" adds up to 378 calories. Yet the calories entered is only 266.

Those two incorrect items make up the bulk of your discrepancy.

Thanks for checking. So we follow the macros instead to see that they are in line with goals? I'm new at being this diligent. That's why I went up to 230 lbs at one point, just winging it thinking I wasn't eating as much as I actually was... classic case.

Well you want to follow calories and macros. Calories important for weight loss, macros important for body composition and health.

You can do sanity checks on foods by calculating how many calories they should have based on macros listed versus calories listed. The omelette, for instance, is clearly very wrong.

I would delete that food and re-add it using better numbers. I'd probably add the eggs, ham, and cheese separately. Personally I own a food scale so I can weigh out the cheese and ham.

When I am home I weigh and measure everything. I had that omelette from the cafeteria this morning. I watched him use two eggs, a slice of ham, 2 slices of cheese and the vegs I asked for. A slice of ham and a slice of cheese is usually about 1 oz (from my WW days counting points). Now, I can take those ingredients myself and create a meal. Why I didn't do that to begin with is a mystery. Considering I eat pretty much the same way every day, this shouldn't be a problem anymore (and I know I could have done better than the pre-made sausage patties :embarassed: ).

I'd remove the wrong "omelette" and add 2 large eggs, 2 slices of cheese, and a slice of ham separately.

bcattoes

Two other things to keep in mind: the food companies will also round the data up or down to come up with nice even numbers. And the 4-for-carbs, 9-for-fat, 4-for-protein stats are also rounded--the actuals are a range, like carbs are 3.7 to 4.2 calories per gram, fats are around 9.2 calories per gram, etc. None of it is absolute, so don't get frustrated if it doesn't add up perfectly. It never will.

This ^^ MFP rounds data too. If you enter 24.6 for carbs, it will save as 25.

Thorbjornn

I'd remove the wrong "omelette" and add 2 large eggs, 2 slices of cheese, and a slice of ham separately.

Yep, I just created it as my own recipe, using the separate ingredients. It looks much better. Now I know that when I get the omelette in the cafeteria it will be correct. I replaced the chicken breast too. The one I had was off. The others look OK. If I add a tbsp of oil and another scoop pf whey powder to my shake, I am almost spot on.

Thanks for pointing out the learning curve and pitfalls. This is invaluable.

norman_cates

@Thorbjornn is correct. The calorie total is wrong. And its nothing to do with whether the macro values in a food is correct. (Well, OK, that will of course matter, but that's not the fundamental problem.)

MFP just don't do the calorie calculations correctly. ie the same way that EVERYONE ELSE DOES THEM.

Below I refer to Premium as an example of this.

If you set your macros in MFP premium, ie a certain amount of protein, carbs, fat, then MFP will give you a calorie value for your day. But if YOU actually do the math on what you've entered for macros, then the MFP calorie value is incorrect. Often by hundreds of calories. The problem starts right at the beginning, with MFP not providing anything actually useful for Premium. And in fact, providing WRONG information from the start.

Rant: No one should be paying MFP for Premium. They don't care to give us actually useful information, nor to let us export that information in any format that we can actually use. And they actively don't care. I have demonstrated problems to them, and also actual graphs and tools that would help everyone in their goals. And all those graphs are easily created from existing data that you have entered, and MFP holds onto. But will not then get back to you for your use.

And their support people just say that nothing will be changed.

Lietchi

norman_cates wrote: »

@Thorbjornn is correct. The calorie total is wrong. And its nothing to do with whether the macro values in a food is correct. (Well, OK, that will of course matter, but that's not the fundamental problem.)

MFP just don't do the calorie calculations correctly. ie the same way that EVERYONE ELSE DOES THEM.

Below I refer to Premium as an example of this.

If you set your macros in MFP premium, ie a certain amount of protein, carbs, fat, then MFP will give you a calorie value for your day. But if YOU actually do the math on what you've entered for macros, then the MFP calorie value is incorrect. Often by hundreds of calories. The problem starts right at the beginning, with MFP not providing anything actually useful for Premium. And in fact, providing WRONG information from the start.

Rant: No one should be paying MFP for Premium. They don't care to give us actually useful information, nor to let us export that information in any format that we can actually use. And they actively don't care. I have demonstrated problems to them, and also actual graphs and tools that would help everyone in their goals. And all those graphs are easily created from existing data that you have entered, and MFP holds onto. But will not then get back to you for your use.

And their support people just say that nothing will be changed.

You've resurrected an ancient thread. I'm not sure what you think MFP is calculating incorrectly, do you have an example?
I don't really see what it has to do with premium, premium just gives you more freedom to manage your macro goals.

The reasons why calories sometimes don't add up in MFP:
- incorrect database entries
- rounding issues
- different types of carb counting: US for example includes fiber in carbs but fiber has 0 or 2kcal per gram (in the EU fiber doesn't count as carbs)
- alcohol isn't one of the three macros, but does contain calories