MFP is driving me nuts

megbrewerr
megbrewerr Posts: 25 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Today I am over all my macros: protein, carb and fat. I am still 70 calories under. Obviously 70 cals is not a huge deal but the inaccuracy is driving me crazy. I work full time and workout 5x a week so I personally don’t feel like I have time to manually input everything. I do weigh pretty much everything. As often as possible I scan the items so I get the most accurate items from the barcode. Anyone have any suggestions or similar frustration?

Replies

  • sdolan91
    sdolan91 Posts: 250 Member
    I always plan my meals the day before or the morning of, so I know exactly what I'm gonna eat and I have less desire to eat something I didn't plan for.
    Calories is the only thing I worry about.
  • Nikion901
    Nikion901 Posts: 2,467 Member
    edited November 2017
    Macro's are not a meaningful measurement, for me ... because it doesn't matter if I over or under eat, the percentages will be pretty much the same. The only reason I look at them is to make certain I am getting the minimum I need of protein, and don't go over by much on the maximum for my carbs and sodium, it over at all.

    Suggestion ... If you feel you are too busy to log, then you are. Maybe this isn't the app for you? Perhaps something like the Plate method would be easier for you to track. ... You still need to know portion sizes, but there are good visuals to help with that as well so that you don't have to carry measuring implements and scales around with you.

    PS ... and you have to find your own form for tracking what you ate ... like writing it into a small notebook that you carry with you.
  • ladyhusker39
    ladyhusker39 Posts: 1,406 Member
    Unless there's a specific reason you're tracking macros, I wouldn't sweat it.

    But just to set your mind at ease, my guess is that you've chosen user created entries that have inaccurate macro data. I don't know about you, but I'm too lazy to create entries for every single thing I eat, so I just go with what someone else has set up as long as the calories are accurate.

    If you need more accuracy in a certain macro, then you'll need to manually create your own entries which can be a lot of work at least initially.
  • Athena98501
    Athena98501 Posts: 716 Member
    edited November 2017
    You've got inaccurate entries in there somewhere. Scrutinize them the first time you use them, then reuse them from your recent or frequent list. You don't know if it's the macros or calories that are likely to be more accurate in a case like this. Using entries that match your food is the only way to know what you're getting.

    ETA: You're not limited to the first entry that comes up. Search the name if the first one is wrong, and choose one that's correct.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    there is likely to be discrepancies between macros and calories due to rounding errors - pick one (macros or calories), make sure your entries are right for that, and go with it.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    edited November 2017
    There is rounding of macros on packaging and by MFP. A 70cals difference could be possible, but seams a bit high.

    If it were me, and I was concerned, I would double check my packaged items-

    Does the package match the MFP entry? There can be inconsistencies in these due to ingredient differences between countries, because some of the entries have been incorrectly entered, because the ingredients have changed since the entry was made.

    I would also revise my single ingredient food list- using only entries that are derived from the USDA and are available in single gram measurements.

    Once you have spent time to get the correct entries in your log, they will come up all the time and you will find it much quicker to log, and be more accurate.
    Cheers, h.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    Some of this comes from the rounding that happens on the manufacturer's label. They'll round the calories and the macros up or down a smidge both to get rid of decimal points and to make the food look better to consumers and that leads to little inaccuracies. Those inaccuracies get bigger through the course of the day as you log more foods.

    Also, be sure and double-check your scanned labels against the information they bring up. There's no guarantee that barcode scanning will pull up the most accurate info. It's more likely, but I've gone through streaks where everything I scan seems to be a little off.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    edited November 2017
    Using MFP is definitely a team effort. We all contribute to it, and we all should be prepared to correct the contributions of others to make it easier for the next person. Call it paying dues for access to this great program. If not, you just have to accept what's there. It's the nature of the beast.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    I check macros on things and compare to usda numbers when I'm cutting calories. In general, calories are understated by 50-150 per day when I do the calorie math.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,091 Member
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    There is rounding of macros on packaging and by MFP. A 70cals difference could be possible, but seams a bit high.

    If it were me, and I was concerned, I would double check my packaged items-

    Does the package match the MFP entry? There can be inconsistencies in these due to ingredient differences between countries, because some of the entries have been incorrectly entered, because the ingredients have changed since the entry was made.

    I would also revise my single ingredient food list- using only entries that are derived from the USDA and are available in single gram measurements.

    Once you have spent time to get the correct entries in your log, they will come up all the time and you will find it much quicker to log, and be more accurate.
    Cheers, h.


    I think it's much easier to use entries with 100 gram servings, which is what the USDA generally lists as the first option for serving size. You can easily compare the MFP and USDA entry for accuracy, and then just move your decimal point to places when you enter the number of grams in the portion you served yourself.

    How do you even check a 1 gram serving entry for accuracy? At one gram, the calories and macros will all show up rounded to zero in MFP (even though the real numbers are retained behind the scene). And I've learned the hard way that you can no longer assume that what look like MFP-created entries from USDA are correct for all serving options. I've found many entries that look like they were copied from USDA, with multiple mass and volume serving-size options, for which one serving size (e.g., 100 grams) i is absolutely correct, but many other options (e.g., 1 oz., 1 tbsp) which were among the USDA serving options for that food are wildly off. I'm talking about a tablespoon of something having 10,000+ calories in the MFP entry, even though the 100 g serving size in that same database entry is accurate.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »
    middlehaitch wrote: »
    There is rounding of macros on packaging and by MFP. A 70cals difference could be possible, but seams a bit high.

    If it were me, and I was concerned, I would double check my packaged items-

    Does the package match the MFP entry? There can be inconsistencies in these due to ingredient differences between countries, because some of the entries have been incorrectly entered, because the ingredients have changed since the entry was made.

    I would also revise my single ingredient food list- using only entries that are derived from the USDA and are available in single gram measurements.

    Once you have spent time to get the correct entries in your log, they will come up all the time and you will find it much quicker to log, and be more accurate.
    Cheers, h.


    I think it's much easier to use entries with 100 gram servings, which is what the USDA generally lists as the first option for serving size. You can easily compare the MFP and USDA entry for accuracy, and then just move your decimal point to places when you enter the number of grams in the portion you served yourself.

    How do you even check a 1 gram serving entry for accuracy? At one gram, the calories and macros will all show up rounded to zero in MFP (even though the real numbers are retained behind the scene). And I've learned the hard way that you can no longer assume that what look like MFP-created entries from USDA are correct for all serving options. I've found many entries that look like they were copied from USDA, with multiple mass and volume serving-size options, for which one serving size (e.g., 100 grams) i is absolutely correct, but many other options (e.g., 1 oz., 1 tbsp) which were among the USDA serving options for that food are wildly off. I'm talking about a tablespoon of something having 10,000+ calories in the MFP entry, even though the 100 g serving size in that same database entry is accurate.

    Yes, there's a bug in the system entries in the database that cause a lot of 1 g options to actually give the value for 100 grams. I've stopped using 1 g choices for system entries for this reason. I initially reported this to Support, but never got anywhere, so gave up.
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,486 Member
    Arrggh, a miss thought/speak.
    @lynn_glenmont & @kshama2001 rev the single gram thing.

    Yes, 100g when selecting, but I usually just drop back to 1g instead of using the decimal point. Never had a problem, but then I haven't logged for a while.

    Cheers, h.
  • megbrewerr
    megbrewerr Posts: 25 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    No carbs in your vanilla protein powder made me suspicious....

    Seems unlikely and if you add up the macros on the entry you have selected:
    15g of fat = 135 calories
    20g of protein = 80 calories
    0g of carbs

    That's 215 calories and your entry is only giving 100 calories. It's simply a very inaccurate user entry that you have selected.

    Thank you! I am reading off the container, but I'll check when I'm home about the carbs... youre probably right about that, I guess its too good to be true
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    megbrewerr wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    No carbs in your vanilla protein powder made me suspicious....

    Seems unlikely and if you add up the macros on the entry you have selected:
    15g of fat = 135 calories
    20g of protein = 80 calories
    0g of carbs

    That's 215 calories and your entry is only giving 100 calories. It's simply a very inaccurate user entry that you have selected.

    Thank you! I am reading off the container, but I'll check when I'm home about the carbs... youre probably right about that, I guess its too good to be true

    Wait on the container it is claiming that 15g of fat and 20g of protein is 100 calories per serving? That can't be right, there is no way an ingredients label on a product is that wrong.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    megbrewerr wrote: »
    Today I am over all my macros: protein, carb and fat. I am still 70 calories under. Obviously 70 cals is not a huge deal but the inaccuracy is driving me crazy. I work full time and workout 5x a week so I personally don’t feel like I have time to manually input everything. I do weigh pretty much everything. As often as possible I scan the items so I get the most accurate items from the barcode. Anyone have any suggestions or similar frustration?

    It's likely just rounding issues.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I also think it's probably mostly rounding issues. When I log, I focus on calories and use the macros as a ballpark, so the rounding discrepancy doesn't bother me.

    That said, you might want to scrutinize the entries more closely. I didn't look carefully, but I noticed you had some "homemade, roasted broccoli" and "oven-roasted brussels sprouts" type entries. Unless you created them, I would not use entries like that. Instead, log with the USDA entries (cooked or not depending on when you weighed the food) and add any other additional (like olive oil for cooking) separately.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Oh, if the MyProtein is the impact whey, looks like it should be 19 g of protein, 2 g each of carbs and fat, 100 calories -- again, not a perfect match because of rounding. Better to check your package when logging since the database contains many similar entries and many bad (inaccurate) entries that people put in.
  • fitmom4lifemfp
    fitmom4lifemfp Posts: 1,572 Member
    megbrewerr wrote: »
    Today I am over all my macros: protein, carb and fat. I am still 70 calories under. Obviously 70 cals is not a huge deal but the inaccuracy is driving me crazy. I work full time and workout 5x a week so I personally don’t feel like I have time to manually input everything. I do weigh pretty much everything. As often as possible I scan the items so I get the most accurate items from the barcode. Anyone have any suggestions or similar frustration?

    Why is this a problem for you?
  • Maxxitt
    Maxxitt Posts: 1,281 Member
    Don't sweat the small stuff. Focus on getting enough protein and fat, and let the carbs go where they will. In the final analysis, ALL the #'s (from the bar codes, from the manufacturer's rounding off of grams, and the amount of variance in weight) are guesstimates. In the long run, these variances aren't important.
  • JRSINAZ
    JRSINAZ Posts: 158 Member
    Ive noticed that the macros do not add up to the calories then realized that fiber grams need to be backed out of the carbs. Then the math starts to come together for me.
  • Machka9
    Machka9 Posts: 25,597 Member
    megbrewerr wrote: »
    . I work full time and workout 5x a week so I personally don’t feel like I have time to manually input everything. I do weigh pretty much everything. As often as possible I scan the items so I get the most accurate items from the barcode. Anyone have any suggestions or similar frustration?

    I just track my calories ... don't care about macros and things.

    I also work full time ... and attend university part-time ... and help out with my cycling club ... and train for my cycling events by exercising 7 days a week ... and ...

    Tracking calories doesn't take that much time.

Categories