Is a carb calorie the same as a protein calorie?

I was looking at this article http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/27/calorie-vs-calorie-study-evaluates-three-diets-for-staying-slim/ and assuming that they are referring to a 2300 calorie a day diet, I can calculate that a gram of carbs is closer to 6 calories instead of the typically assumed 4 in its affect on the body. I went back and recalculated my calorie intake based upon this assumption and found it matches the weight loss I have experienced (1.4 lbs vs 2 lbs/week) .

Does anyone know of a way to change MFP so it uses 6 calories/gram for carbs?
-mu

Thermic effect of food already accounts for the differences in net energy value once you factor in digestion. This is done on the energy-out side of the equation, not energy-in.

I wouldn't bother making this change.

EDIT: After re-reading this, it looks like I might be misunderstanding you.

Can you clarify where you are getting 6cal/g as a more accurate estimate?

The article reports on 3 equal calorie diets one with 60% carbs, one with 40% carbs, and one with 10% carbs. The one with 40% carbs showed weight loss equivalent to 150 calories a day, and the 10% one with 325 calories. If I assume they are using a 2300 calorie a day diet, then that works out to 1380, 920, 230 carb calories respectively. Subtracting 1380-920=460 and 1380-230=1150 and then adding in the net calorie difference 460+150=610 and 1150+325=1475. Finally dividing actual/expected 610/460=1.32 and 1475/1150=1.28 taking the average results in a ratio of 1.30. multiplying this by the 4 calorie/gram and you get 5.22 calories/gram actual carb effect. If you change the assumption to 1800 a calorie diet it results in 5.56 calories/gram. Obviously this doesn't take into account possible other effects from the other changes in protein and fat. But I think this is a more accurate starting point than 4/gram. Especially given the quantity of literature suggesting there is something weird going on with how the body processes carbs, this is the first study I have seen that quantifies it.

In looking at my own diet, MFP predicted I would loose 2lbs/week. Instead I have been loosing 1.4lbs/week. When I recalculated my own diet with this new number for carbs the 1.4lbs/week makes sense.

4kcal/g is accurate as far as energy-in. Energy-out changes based on TEF and that differs for each macronutrient.

Granted, and it would require further study to tease out the exact effect of the other macronutrients are. However if the effect of eating 1 gram of carbs is not 4kcal of weight gain but instead is a higher number then we should consider that when making weight loss assumptions.

We know from other studies that high glycemic index foods cause an increase in insulin which causes fat cells to take up the sugar. And that high carb diets can make the body think its starving causing a decrease in metabolism. If the result of eating 1 gram of carbs is a 1.5kcal decrease in metabolism then we should take that into account. I think it is safe to assume that the effect is greater than 4kcal/g.

If I *assume*

I went back and recalculated my calorie intake based upon this assumption and found it matches the weight loss I have experienced (1.4 lbs vs 2 lbs/week) .

Does anyone know of a way to change MFP so it uses 6 calories/gram for carbs?
-mu

Just to comment a bit further on my previous statement about over-complicating things, so that I don't come across as dismissive of your question:

While energy balance is valid, it's a gigantic estimation. Each macronutrient has a different thermic effect and more importantly, you're making estimations on your total intake AND estimations on your total calorie expenditure through activity, BMR, TEF, NEAT.

Saying that your results of 1.4lb lost vs your expectation of 2lb lost, are confirmed or accounted for by a difference in energy-in for one macronutrient, is a big leap in logic. You could have a much greater degree of error that could all be accounted for in water weight, for example.

That's really what I was getting at when I said overcomplicating things.