When your calories and macros don't match

Options
courtmarrow
courtmarrow Posts: 19 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Do you guys go with the macro totals or the calories MFP says?

To explain further...tomorrow's goals are the following:
160P 80C 71F = 1600 calories
After planning out tomorrow's meals I'm sitting at 162P 75C 63F but it's saying I'm at 1587 calories which is totally off.

I know there's numerous reasons why this happens, and I've double checked all my entries for errors. Just wondering if I should go ahead and hit my fat even though it's going to put me way over calories according to MFP.

Might seem like a ridiculous question, I just like to eat the same foods on my low carb days so I don't want to mess up my deficit eating over my cals 3x a week

Replies

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Calories are king when it comes to weight loss.
  • foiensoi
    foiensoi Posts: 49 Member
    Options
    Your macro goals are similar to mine. If your goal is weight loss (I guess it is because you don't want to go over your deficit), I suggest going with the calories and not increasing fat tomorrow. I guess it just comes down to the kind of foods you're eating, but I really would go with the calories, 60ish grams of fat is still ok and hopefully will help keep hunger away.. This is just my opinion but yes, calories over macros for me, and you're doing really well with meeting the goals generally at 160 protein with low carb, so just don't worry about the fat today. Good luck!
  • Yi5hedr3
    Yi5hedr3 Posts: 2,696 Member
    Options
    Reduce your protein, that's easily twice what you need. Increase healthy fats. 80 grams carbs is fine.
  • vvento
    vvento Posts: 28 Member
    Options
    I tend to go with macros, just because I'll end up calculating the Calories based off that. 1gProtein/Carbohydrates = 4 kcal (Calories), 1g Fat = 9kcal (Calories). so by multiplying your Targets I'd end up with 1515kcal for the day. 162 * 4 = 648, 75 * 4 = 300, 63 * 9 = 567, 648 + 300 + 567 = 1515.

    I would say stay at the same protein/fat but you can consume like 20g more of carbs to total 96 g for about 385kcal to reach the 1600 total.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    the food entries are wrong a lot of the time

    go for calories and double check
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Options
    Probably rounding errors.
    This food has 6.6 grams of protein but logs as 7, this one has 11.5 but logs as 12, etc.
    Add those rounded grams up and multiply by 4 and you won't be exactly on the money for the actual calories consumed.

    Fretting over macros to the very gram is majoring in the minors. Get them in the right ballpark, keep your calories within/around goal and you'll be fine.
  • dogman8374
    dogman8374 Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    I put my focus on calories and protiens. Everything else will average out over time.
  • abatonfan
    abatonfan Posts: 1,120 Member
    Options
    Calories are most important. I've noticed that my macros can be off if my dietary fiber intake is high (a 100kcal food might have 30g of carbs, 0g fat, 0g protein, and 10g fiber, but the total kcals from net carbs -20g- is 20kcal fewer than the kcals listed), so I don't pay too much attention in making sure all my macros add up to the total kcals. As long as I eat at least 95-100g of protein, at least 35-40g of fat, less than 150g of net carbs (unless I'm treating lows or have a ton of exercise calories), and am meeting my kcal goals, then I'm happy.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    the food entries are wrong a lot of the time

    go for calories and double check

    This -- because of rounding things and entry errors, the macros are more likely to be wrong, so I'd use them as general guidelines and focus on calories. No need to hit macros on the button.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Options
    Also, the difference between 1600 and 1587 is less than 1%. This is well within the noise of your measurements and the reported calorie content and macro distribution. It's not worth bothering about.
  • juggernaut1974
    juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212 Member
    Options
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Also, the difference between 1600 and 1587 is less than 1%. This is well within the noise of your measurements and the reported calorie content and macro distribution. It's not worth bothering about.

    This...

    You'll go nuts if you try to hit each and every number exactly every day.

    +/- 10% is generally going to be close enough.
  • courtmarrow
    courtmarrow Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the help guys! Sometimes my type A brain goes nuts and wants to analyze things to death
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,996 Member
    Options
    dogman8374 wrote: »
    I put my focus on calories and proteins. Everything else will average out over time.

    This ^.

    For micros, I have found increasing fiber to be very useful to stay fuller longer.

Categories