Nutrition class vs. MFP

HWIN_16
HWIN_16 Posts: 6 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

Replies

  • peleroja
    peleroja Posts: 3,979 Member
    HWIN_16 wrote: »
    Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

    It should end up the same if you're logging accurately, so it's not really important. MFP just has the work done for you already (as long as you're choosing correct entries etc.)
  • fidangul
    fidangul Posts: 673 Member
    edited February 2016
    As far as I know not all carbs, protein and fat are equal in numbers. And if by that method "the scale has been moving in the opposite direction" that would be the conclusion of the project. But I would take the best of both worlds. Take the good and what works for you and integrate it in to your lifestyle.

    Edit: I've been using mfp 100% I love it!
  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,643 Member
    Is that different than the MFP method? I'm not really sure how if it is? Perhaps I'm not understanding the difference.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    In your class are you accounting for carbs that aren't fully digested such as fiber? That's the only way I could see that it would differ more than rounding issues. MFP entries mostly come from labels and not all fiber carbs are counted on labels.
  • Pearsquared
    Pearsquared Posts: 1,656 Member
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    Is that different than the MFP method? I'm not really sure how if it is? Perhaps I'm not understanding the difference.

    I think it can be confusing for her because she started with MFP and then moved to the fundamentals of nutrition. Since MFP (and your basic nutrition label) does this calorie calculation for you, some may not realize that this is HOW calories are calculated.
  • DaddieCat
    DaddieCat Posts: 3,643 Member
    Pearsquared wrote: »
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    Is that different than the MFP method? I'm not really sure how if it is? Perhaps I'm not understanding the difference.

    I think it can be confusing for her because she started with MFP and then moved to the fundamentals of nutrition. Since MFP (and your basic nutrition label) does this calorie calculation for you, some may not realize that this is HOW calories are calculated.

    That makes more sense. Personally, I pay less attention to the total calories than I do macro counts because one takes care of the other, I just wasn't seeing the disconnect in the OP which is most likely a failure to see from the same perspective.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited February 2016
    HWIN_16 wrote: »
    Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

    It's the same...your macros make up your calories...it is how calories are calculated here, in you nutrition class, and everywhere else. If you're having issues and things aren't adding up, it's likely you are selecting erroneous entries from the database. There are also rounding errors, but these should be fairly small...if you're well off, you're using *kitten* entries.
  • ScoobaChick
    ScoobaChick Posts: 186 Member
    HWIN_16 wrote: »
    Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

    Those numbers are called Atwater values and have been around since the early late 1890s (Atwater WO, Bryant AP, The availability and fuel value of food materials in the Twelfth Annual report of the Storrs Agricultural experiment station). They do account for losses in digestion. Despite numerous attempts at getting more precise values by various people over the last century (e.g., Maynard, Livesey) they are generally accepted to be close enough and easy enough to purpose to use other values.

    I am pretty sure MFP uses them or very close approximates of them. Did you get vastly differing numbers?
  • Mischievous_Rascal
    Mischievous_Rascal Posts: 1,791 Member
    edited February 2016
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    HWIN_16 wrote: »
    Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

    It's the same...your macros make up your calories...it is how calories are calculated here, in you nutrition class, and everywhere else. If you're having issues and things aren't adding up, it's likely you are selecting erroneous entries from the database. There are also rounding errors, but these should be fairly small...if you're well off, you're using *kitten* entries.

    Exactly this. My calorie goal is 2100. Macros are 130P, 210C @ 4 cals/g is 1360 and 82F @ 9 cals/g is 738. Factor in rounding and you have 2100. Yesterday my calorie intake vs my macro "total" was off by only 20 calories, but I'm really careful to pick entries that aren't too far off the mark.

    Are you weighing your food on a scale or using generic "cup", etc. entries? That makes a big difference.

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • peleroja
    peleroja Posts: 3,979 Member
    vinegar_husbands wrote: »
    peleroja wrote: »
    HWIN_16 wrote: »
    Currently taking a health and fitness class at school. Did a project where we monitored our eating, multipled carb grams intake by 4, protein grams by 4, and fat grams by 9, then added those numbers to get total calories consumed in a day. Is this method better/more accurate for weight loss than MFP? I just want to make sure I'm doing the best method, because the scale has been moving in the opposite direction lately. :/

    It should end up the same if you're logging accurately, so it's not really important. MFP just has the work done for you already (as long as you're choosing correct entries etc.)

    Almost the same. Macros don't always add up.

    If you make a small allowance for rounding errors, like has been mentioned by pretty much everyone, you'll come very close.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    The numbers should come out pretty close to the same. As others have said, there are rounding errors in nutrition labeling which should explain the variances. And as some noted, there are a lot of bogus entries in the MFP database. I use the barcode scanner on the mobile app a lot when logging, and I always take a quick glance at the result to make sure it matches with the package labeling.

Categories