Calories and Macros not adding up? Here's probably why.

The_Enginerd
The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
edited April 2022 in Food and Nutrition
I see this question come up often enough on the forums it seems a sticky is in order. The question often goes something like this:
I calculated my calories from my macros using 4,9,4 for protein, fats, and carbs, and it's not adding up. The calories are off from my calories for the day

There are a few reason why this happens. The most common ones are:
  1. Errors in the database. There are many entries with incomplete (e.g. the entry only has calories and no macros) or incorrect information. Be sure use you are using a complete, correct entry.
  2. Rounding errors in MFP. Each food entry is rounded to the nearest gram, then all of those entries are added up. Each adds a little bit of error, and this can add up.
  3. Rounding errors on the nutrition label. Nutrition labels are rounded to the nearest 5 calories (less than or equal to 50 calories per serving) or 10 calories (>50 calories per serving).
  4. Fiber. Nutrition labeling laws in the United States allow for insoluble fiber to be deducted from total carbohydrates to calculate total calories, but that fiber will still show in the total carbohydrates. E.g. if an item had 15 grams of fiber, with 5 of that being insoluble fiber, only 10 grams (40 calories) would count towards the total calories for the nutrition label. Note that this is optional, and a manufacturer can still use the full 15 grams of carbohydrates (60 calories) for the calorie total. Manufacturers tend to exercise this option though, ESPECIALLY for "diet" foods.
  5. Alcohol, the forgotten macro. Alcohol has 7 calories per gram, but it is, tragically, not counted as one of the macros.
9pwu19os7uvn.jpg

In general, if you are using the correct entries, you should expect the values to be within about 5% (subtracting for alcohol). If they are not, you probably want to double check the entries.

There are also another reason they may not add, but this one is more uncommon. Manufacturers by and large use the general factors of 4,9,4 for calculating calories from the macro-nutrients. However, there are other methods allowed. More specific Atwater factors for different types of food groups may be used. Most are pretty close to 4,9,4, but some are quite a bit different. For instance, for cocoa, the specific Atwater factors are 1.83, 8.37, and 1.33. If you look at the USDA nutrient database entry (which MFP uses as it's generic entry) for "cocoa, dry powder, unsweetened" it shows 19.60, 13.70, 57.90 as the protein/fat/carb breakdown for 100 grams. If you calculated the calories from the macros, you would get 433 calories. It actually has 233 calories per the USDA entry (I calculated 250 calories using the specific Atwater factors).

Note: This information is based on laws and guidelines within the United States. The generic MFP entries are based off of the USDA (United Stated Department of Agriculture) nutrient database and these rules will apply. For user entered database entries for foods outside the United States, other laws and guidelines may apply.

Sources:

Replies

  • DeWoSa
    DeWoSa Posts: 496 Member
    Excellent and timely post! Thank you very much.
  • girlviernes
    girlviernes Posts: 2,402 Member
    Very interesting!
  • Liftng4Lis
    Liftng4Lis Posts: 15,151 Member
    Awesome post.
  • reemslaw
    reemslaw Posts: 33 Member
    So those of us who have specific macros to hit, we should:

    1. Check the macros of everything that we are entering
    2. If we have done number 1, we can safely ignore the calorie total?

    Is this right?
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    reemslaw wrote: »
    So those of us who have specific macros to hit, we should:

    1. Check the macros of everything that we are entering
    2. If we have done number 1, we can safely ignore the calorie total?

    Is this right?
    It's still important to eat to the calorie goal. That's ultimately what determines your weight loss. If you are have done 1, and the entries are accurate, the calorie total should be pretty much on. If they aren't adding up pretty closely and there isn't a good reason they don't (e.g. alcohol calories), it should be a sanity check that there is an error somewhere.

    I have my macros set up so protein and fats are the minimums I try to hit, so I am always over those macros and under on my carb "goal".
  • shantagyanchand
    shantagyanchand Posts: 2 Member
    I find that, almost consistently, the my fitness pal calorie total for my day comes in around 100 cals less then the sum of my macros. I eat mostly whole foods made from scratch, but this happens even if I measure out each ingredients and use only verified myfitnesspal options. Very occasionally the myfitnesspal calories are higher then my macros sum calories, but that is usually.

    This is exceedingly frustrating. I really wish that myfitness pal did not allow entries to be put in unless the macros added up, it would make life so much easier, especially during any sports training periods.

    I usually go with my macro count and the calories worked out from that, rather than calorie count [rovided by myfitnesspal. But I am reading here the opposite may be wiser. Why?
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    shantagyanchand wrote: »
    I find that, almost consistently, the my fitness pal calorie total for my day comes in around 100 cals less then the sum of my macros. I eat mostly whole foods made from scratch, but this happens even if I measure out each ingredients and use only verified myfitnesspal options. Very occasionally the myfitnesspal calories are higher then my macros sum calories, but that is usually.

    This is exceedingly frustrating. I really wish that myfitness pal did not allow entries to be put in unless the macros added up, it would make life so much easier, especially during any sports training periods.

    I usually go with my macro count and the calories worked out from that, rather than calorie count [rovided by myfitnesspal. But I am reading here the opposite may be wiser. Why?
    In your case, it sounds like fiber is the primary reason (point 4 in the original post). You should expect this and it sounds like everything is correct.

    Fiber counts as a carb, but doesn't contribute a full 4 calories/gram. It would actually be WRONG to force the macros and calories to add up because of this.
  • scjgreenan
    scjgreenan Posts: 2 Member
    Ok just to confirm (STRAIGHT UP DUMMY THIS DOWN FOR ME) My macros are dead on, but my calories are usually 150-200 for the day, everyday. Do I up my calories to my caloric goal (which in return now takes me over my macros)? Or do I stick with my macros and assume my calories are hit if my macros are hit and the only reason it is showing 150 less is because of inaccuracy? Example:

    Carb Fat Protein
    Totals 1,675 319 28 85
    Your Daily Goal 1,800 315 30 68

    As you can see it says I still need 125 more calories for the day but..... I'm pretty dead on for my macros (Even a little over)

    So do I up my calories knowing this will increase my macros over my daily goal or stick to where I'm at and assume the calories in real life do add up to 1800 they were just input wrong etc?

    Thank you in advance for any help

  • slaite1
    slaite1 Posts: 1,307 Member
    Use accurate entries and this won't be a problem. If you're using genetic entries-you can't really answer this question. Generally you want to eat all of your calories. But you don't know what you're eating if you're using genetic entries
  • weird_me2
    weird_me2 Posts: 716 Member
    scjgreenan wrote: »
    Ok just to confirm (STRAIGHT UP DUMMY THIS DOWN FOR ME) My macros are dead on, but my calories are usually 150-200 for the day, everyday. Do I up my calories to my caloric goal (which in return now takes me over my macros)? Or do I stick with my macros and assume my calories are hit if my macros are hit and the only reason it is showing 150 less is because of inaccuracy? Example:

    Carb Fat Protein
    Totals 1,675 319 28 85
    Your Daily Goal 1,800 315 30 68

    As you can see it says I still need 125 more calories for the day but..... I'm pretty dead on for my macros (Even a little over)

    So do I up my calories knowing this will increase my macros over my daily goal or stick to where I'm at and assume the calories in real life do add up to 1800 they were just input wrong etc?

    Thank you in advance for any help

    In your case, you would not want to eat more calories. The best way to determine if you need to eat more or not is to add up the calories eaten based on macros provided - 319*4 + 28*9 + 85*4 = 1868 - you are actually over your calories for the day. You will want to pay attention to the food entries you are using and make sure the math based on macros seems to match with the calories listed.

    I've been having the issue lately that my macro goals are NOT in line with my calorie goal, so at the end of the day, I'm usually over on all of my macros but under on calories and when I do the math, I am still under on calories. That just seems to be a glitch with the app. For example, my calorie goal for today, if I base it off my macros goal, would only be 1183 calories (59 fat, 95 carbs, 68 protein goal listed on app). My current calorie goal for the day is 2330, so all my macro goals should be about double what they are.
  • samahyassin795
    samahyassin795 Posts: 1 Member
    awesome i like your topics
  • Star108
    Star108 Posts: 3 Member
    So I signed up for the Premium and I can't even get my calories add up right according to my macros? What is the point to have the app if I can just calculate my calories from my macros...since mfp calories do not match at all. I have 100-200 cal difference everyday. This is frustrating.
  • The_Enginerd
    The_Enginerd Posts: 3,982 Member
    edited April 2016
    Star108 wrote: »
    So I signed up for the Premium and I can't even get my calories add up right according to my macros? What is the point to have the app if I can just calculate my calories from my macros...since mfp calories do not match at all. I have 100-200 cal difference everyday. This is frustrating.
    1. Premium just removes ads and gives you some extra tools. You still use the same, error ridden, duplicate ridden, mostly crowd sourced database. And the rounding errors still apply.
    2. If you read the entire thread, you'll notice that fiber is counted towards your carb total, but not all fiber counts towards your calorie total. You should expect a slight difference. Calculating your calories from your macros will overestimate your calories because of this; even if you have no errors and use accurate entries. (Note this applies to US labeling laws, other countries may be different).
  • diamndinasamir55
    diamndinasamir55 Posts: 1 Member
    الرياضه تمحى هالفروق ✌
  • popbubblewrap
    popbubblewrap Posts: 2 Member
    Tips for selecting correct entries in the database?
  • DeliciousBacon
    DeliciousBacon Posts: 5 Member
    The_Enginerd wrote: »

    There are also another reason they may not add, but this one is more uncommon. Manufacturers by and large use the general factors of 4,9,4 for calculating calories from the macro-nutrients. However, there are other methods allowed. More specific Atwater factors for different types of food groups may be used. Most are pretty close to 4,9,4, but some are quite a bit different. For instance, for cocoa, the specific Atwater factors are 1.83, 8.37, and 1.33. If you look at the USDA nutrient database entry (which MFP uses as it's generic entry) for "cocoa, dry powder, unsweetened" it shows 19.60, 13.70, 57.90 as the protein/fat/carb breakdown for 100 grams. If you calculated the calories from the macros, you would get 433 calories. It actually has 233 calories per the USDA entry (I calculated 250 calories using the specific Atwater factors).

    So what would happen if I ate cocoa powder and cocoa powder only to reach my calories each and every day to MAINTAIN my weight? Would I lose weight or gain weight in the end?

    Same question for the other way around, if I were reaching my total macro goals for maintaining with cocoa powder?

    It might sound like a silly question, but there has to be one correct way to measure.

    My guesses:
    If calories were correct, cocoa powder would provide more nutrients through the macros, without creating excess calorie energy. Which wouldn't make sense because those macros would not gives us the energy they were supposed to - so what is their role? Those macros might have some other role then haha. :smiley:

    It might just be that not all macros are digestible in it then, and we end up passing part of the cocoa undigested (results in less calories gained through it). This would make counting macros in grams useless since they don't get used up anyway and don't provide calorific (heat) energy. Again, maybe there's some hidden role in them then.

    It would be easier if foods were given percentages of macronutrients related to their total calories - the real heat energy they provide to the body. For example, X food with 100 calories that is 25% protein, 75% carbohydrate and 5% fat. Percentages could be then used to give you 'points' for each percent and we would just calculate how many 'points' of protein, carb or fat we need in a day. Just an idea. :blush:

    Note: let us not go into what side effects I would get from eating too much cocoa, how it is good/bad for a diet choice, how it is toxic and whatnot. Just a simple calorie and macronutrient observation. :wink:
  • bobs6938
    bobs6938 Posts: 2 Member
    Does anyone for MFP verify entries to weed out the inaccurate ones?
  • Blueberries59
    Blueberries59 Posts: 139 Member
    These are some old posts but still VERY interesting! I, too, have wondered why the macros didn't add up and about the sequestered alcohol calories. Thank you @The_Enginerd and @tolkienlady.

Categories