Why do MFP Calorie Calculations Not Add Up?

Options
Ploogy
Ploogy Posts: 115 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
For example, on February 8th I ate 187g Carbs, 99g Fat and 149g Protein. Given that Carbs and Protein are 4 calories per gram and Fat is 9 calories per gram, one would think that the total calories consumed for the day would be:

(187*4) + (99*9) + (149*4) for a total of 2,235. Yet MFP shows total calories at 2,465! What am I missing here?
«1

Replies

  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    Options
    entries arent verified when added by users, and there are a lot that are inaccurate. someone could enter a potato for 200 calories, 20g of carbs and 50g of protein and there ya go.
    between nutrition labels that round up or down, and people entering incorrect info (sometimes not knowingly) theres a lot of error and you just kinda have to weed through the bad entries
  • Ploogy
    Ploogy Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Holy crap. There isn't even a mathematical check on the user-created entries?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard - and really unfortunate. What is the point of a database, when the numbers for a given entry don't internally add up?
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    Options
    Holy crap. There isn't even a mathematical check on the user-created entries?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard - and really unfortunate. What is the point of a database, when the numbers for a given entry don't internally add up?
    its all just estimates anyway - i mean sure, there are some entries that are REALLY bad, but even nutrition labels on food are legally allowed to be off by 20%.
    personally, i like the huge database. even with some wrong entries its the largest ive found and i havent had any problems losing weight using it. there are also a lot of entries that are "official" - not user entered. they dont have an * by them and tend to match up a lot better. i use those whenever possible
  • Ploogy
    Ploogy Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    I understand that they are estimates, I'm just surprised that MFP would allow the entry of C, F, P and Calories in a way that doesn't immediately throw up an error if the numbers don't cross-check. It's simple to do.

    But I do like the database too! Just shocked that I didn't realize until now about these errors, or that items without asterisks are official. Thanks for the advice!
  • issyfit
    issyfit Posts: 1,077 Member
    Options
    Also, often fiber and sugar alcohols are included in carbs but not in calories because they aren't digested.
  • ModoVincere
    ModoVincere Posts: 530 Member
    Options
    Meh....plus or minus 5% I'm good. Not even worried about trying to backout fiber since its not digestible.
  • tgh1914
    tgh1914 Posts: 1,036 Member
    Options
    A lot of folks are only concerned with calories, not macros, and therefore do not even enter the P, C, F numbers in their food entries - only the calorie total. Which sucks cuz then if you use that entry unwittingly your own macro numbers will be screwed up.
  • MidwestAngel
    MidwestAngel Posts: 1,897 Member
    Options
    obama_zpsa1424a97.gif
  • rockerbabyy
    rockerbabyy Posts: 2,258 Member
    Options
    I understand that they are estimates, I'm just surprised that MFP would allow the entry of C, F, P and Calories in a way that doesn't immediately throw up an error if the numbers don't cross-check. It's simple to do.

    But I do like the database too! Just shocked that I didn't realize until now about these errors, or that items without asterisks are official. Thanks for the advice!
    i understand your frustration with it :) when i first realized that was an issue i was shocked too.
    but with using the official entries and such, my macro math is usually only 5-20 calories off from what the calorie count for the day says.
  • trudijoy
    trudijoy Posts: 1,685 Member
    Options
    i think you're over analysing it personally. Just go with it.
  • Melo1966
    Melo1966 Posts: 881 Member
    Options
    Alcohol:drinker:
  • alevett
    alevett Posts: 79 Member
    Options
    I was told last week by my nephew who is really into nutrition, that the calories on packages don't include fibre calories. When asked why, he said 2 things:
    1. Not digestible
    2. You burn the same number calories eating fiber as it has, therefore they zero each other out.
    Never heard of this before, not sure is he's right.
    Oh well, I try to log as much info from the packages of food as possible so I have the right calories, protein, fat and carbs.
  • Athena98501
    Athena98501 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    Holy crap. There isn't even a mathematical check on the user-created entries?! That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard - and really unfortunate. What is the point of a database, when the numbers for a given entry don't internally add up?

    I asked MFP about that here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/868987-disallowing-mathematically-impossible-database-entries?page=1#posts-13093871

    They never answered. I emailed them about it too, to no avail. Feel free to go and echo the concern in that thread. :wink:
  • annwyatt69
    annwyatt69 Posts: 727 Member
    Options
    I understand that they are estimates, I'm just surprised that MFP would allow the entry of C, F, P and Calories in a way that doesn't immediately throw up an error if the numbers don't cross-check. It's simple to do.

    But I do like the database too! Just shocked that I didn't realize until now about these errors, or that items without asterisks are official. Thanks for the advice!

    MFP IS a free site. Beggars can't be choosy. I don't expect it to be 100% accurate. Just stay within a range and it all works out anyway. I have tried some of the other weight loss/exercise web sites and MFP is by far the best.
  • tarablyawsum
    tarablyawsum Posts: 34 Member
    Options
    obama_zpsa1424a97.gif

    lmfao
  • savithny
    savithny Posts: 1,200 Member
    Options
    I read this article awihle back:
    http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/labels1.html

    Apparently, mono and di glycerides don't have to be listed in the calorie counts either. The food labelling regs only require certain nutrients be included in the calculation. So in the example in the above link, the fat-free margarine claims only 5 calories per serving, but the uncounted trans fats mean it actually has >50 calories per serving.

    Stuff like that are probably a major reason that "clean eating" often results in weight loss. When you're using the USDA database to pull the stats on single ingredients that you combine into real food dishes, your calorie counts are probably a lot more accurate.




    The macros will also not add up to the full calories in any case because they're allowed to round the macros by quite a bit on labels as well.
  • Athena98501
    Athena98501 Posts: 716 Member
    Options
    i think you're over analysing it personally. Just go with it.

    Actually, most people would be shocked by the difference it can make. I've seen it add up to a 600 calorie difference in more than one friend's food diary. For those who are eating for a 1#/week loss or less, that could put them at a calorie surplus.
  • MrDelts
    MrDelts Posts: 209 Member
    Options
    I was told last week by my nephew who is really into nutrition, that the calories on packages don't include fibre calories. When asked why, he said 2 things:
    1. Not digestible
    2. You burn the same number calories eating fiber as it has, therefore they zero each other out.
    Never heard of this before, not sure is he's right.
    Oh well, I try to log as much info from the packages of food as possible so I have the right calories, protein, fat and carbs.

    This is wrong.. Fiber is a carbohydrate and is included in the grams of carbohydrates on the nutrition label. It is the reason you can subtract the amount of fiber from the total grams of carbs and get "net carbs".. Fiber has no impact on blood sugar but it is detinitely accounted for on labels.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    i think you're over analysing it personally. Just go with it.

    This times 100
  • Ploogy
    Ploogy Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    You are exactly right. I was off by 300+ calories on certain days, which exceeds the deficit needed for a 1 pound loss for me. Its a bit surprising to see such dismissive reactions from a community site which has no aversion to using multi-step equations to calculate BMR and TDEE. Why measure out the wood carefully if you are going to just blindly cut it?

    Actually, most people would be shocked by the difference it can make. I've seen it add up to a 600 calorie difference in more than one friend's food diary. For those who are eating for a 1#/week loss or less, that could put them at a calorie surplus.

Categories