Macros and Calories not matching up when they should?

AmandaGaulding
AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
I've been having issues lately with either reaching my macro nutrient goal but have calories leftover or reaching my calorie goal but not my macro nutrient goal. So, I'm fully aware that this should not be happening, but I double check my entries and everything is entered in right. I double check packages, I also compare fruit/vegetable entries to USDA values. I'm pretty convinced I'm not tracking inaccurately, but obviously something is awry. Any ideas?

Replies

  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    Oh, and it's been much worse lately since I've been eating more vegetables. This never used to happen when I ate more processed foods. But obviously that's not healthy, which is why I've been eating more fruits and veggies. But like in said, I've been checking and double checking my vegetable entries with USDA data.
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    Are you a premium member and entering in your own daily macros that do not match up percentage wise with your caloric goal?
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    No, I have a calorie goal and I divide it 40 C 30 P 30 F
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    I mainly track my macros to ensure that I eat enough protein and fat, because if I had it my way I would eat 75% of my calories in carbs lol :blush:
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    edited October 2015
    Then I'd have to say the other option is that the nutrition info is off somewhere along the lines, even if that means the USDA is incorrect, because that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. I looked back and saw a day where your macros were all at or over and you still had calories remaining. I've never had that happen, then again I've never had a day that was spot on across the board either. :P
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Most likely the nutrition info is off due to rounding errors or fiber.
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Most likely the nutrition info is off due to rounding errors or fiber.

    Does MFP automatically subtract fiber from carbs to give me a net carb count?
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    PrizePopple wrote: »
    Then I'd have to say the other option is that the nutrition info is off somewhere along the lines, even if that means the USDA is incorrect, because that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. I looked back and saw a day where your macros were all at or over and you still had calories remaining. I've never had that happen, then again I've never had a day that was spot on across the board either. :P

    Exactly! I'm sitting there like "wtf"at the end of the day wondering if I'm missing something
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    AmandaGaulding wrote: »
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Most likely the nutrition info is off due to rounding errors or fiber.

    Does MFP automatically subtract fiber from carbs to give me a net carb count?

    No. But if you notice it says you had 115g of protein for example, and then your goal says 116g, yet the "remaining" shows 0. That's the rounding he's speaking of.
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    Well then, in the meantime, should I prioritize my macros and possibly eat under or over my calories or vice versa?
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    I'd focus on getting enough protein and fat and hitting your calorie target then letting carbs fall where they may.
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    That would depend on what your goals are. Since you have 6 pounds to lose according to your profile your deficit should be pretty tight. Though since there seems to be an error in the nutrition information you are using you can't really be sure which is correct - the macros or the calorie count.
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    PrizePopple wrote: »
    That would depend on what your goals are. Since you have 6 pounds to lose according to your profile your deficit should be pretty tight. Though since there seems to be an error in the nutrition information you are using you can't really be sure which is correct - the macros or the calorie count.

    I think I'm having some sort of rounding error that's giving me inaccurate macros and therefore inaccurate calories, if it's not that, I really have no idea. The problem lies with the vegetable nutrient information. My macros and calories were pretty tight when I wasn't eating my veggies like I should be.
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    AmandaGaulding wrote: »
    PrizePopple wrote: »
    That would depend on what your goals are. Since you have 6 pounds to lose according to your profile your deficit should be pretty tight. Though since there seems to be an error in the nutrition information you are using you can't really be sure which is correct - the macros or the calorie count.

    I think I'm having some sort of rounding error that's giving me inaccurate macros and therefore inaccurate calories, if it's not that, I really have no idea. The problem lies with the vegetable nutrient information. My macros and calories were pretty tight when I wasn't eating my veggies like I should be.

    Looking back though there was a day when you were over on carbs (-8) and fat (-1), and right at for protein (0), and it still says you have 80 calories remaining. If you're at a 150 calorie deficit that difference is substantial and could just about be the difference between losing and not.

    If you're still losing at a safe rate then maybe I'd not stress it so much. If you notice you're not losing then finding the root of this issue would be your best bet. Also perhaps play around with the entries you use to see if that makes a difference.
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    I'm losing a little quicker than normal, but I did just lower my macros so I attributed it to that
  • PrizePopple
    PrizePopple Posts: 3,133 Member
    AmandaGaulding wrote: »
    I'm losing a little quicker than normal, but I did just lower my macros so I attributed it to that

    With 6 to go you should be set at losing .5 pound per week.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    edited October 2015
    One thing I noticed (and then read about on the internet) is that US companies are allowed to subtract insoluble fiber calories from the nutrition label calories but report them in the carbs. However, only some companies do this (and some subtract half of the fiber because they have a mix of soluble and insoluble fiber) so you have to look at the label carefully to see what's been done. The items I've found that do this tend to brag about how much fiber they have.

    As an example:
    Kellogg's All Bran Original
    31g serving
    80 calories
    1g fat
    23g total carbs
    10g dietary fiber
    4g protein

    From those macros, it has 117 calories, rather than the 80 stated. That's 37 calories that would still be left in your calorie goal.

    Basically, some companies are doing net carbs to determine calories but not specifying on their labeling that they are doing that. There's no current US net carb standard so there's no consistency.
  • AmandaGaulding
    AmandaGaulding Posts: 69 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    One thing I noticed (and then read about on the internet) is that US companies are allowed to subtract insoluble fiber calories from the nutrition label calories but report them in the carbs. However, only some companies do this (and some subtract half of the fiber because they have a mix of soluble and insoluble fiber) so you have to look at the label carefully to see what's been done. The items I've found that do this tend to brag about how much fiber they have.

    As an example:
    Kellogg's All Bran Original
    31g serving
    80 calories
    1g fat
    23g total carbs
    10g dietary fiber
    4g protein

    From those macros, it has 117 calories, rather than the 80 stated. That's 37 calories that would still be left in your calorie goal.

    Basically, some companies are doing net carbs to determine calories but not specifying on their labeling that they are doing that. There's no current US net carb standard so there's no consistency.

    Thanks! This makes a lot of sense
This discussion has been closed.

Categories