Macronutrients consumed do not match calories consumed
DeliciousBacon
Posts: 5 Member
Hello, everyone!
I have problems with the MFP missing the calories and macronutrients match. Some days it misses the calories consumed by small percentage when I do the math and compare it with the macronutrients (protein and carbs x4 and fat x9), but there are plenty of days the mismatch reaches up to 500 calories. For example, all my macronutrients are red, above the "limit", but I still end up with extra calories remaining.
I only use USDA and nutritiondata.self when logging foods, both are verified nutrition sources with the green check marks next to them.
Can anyone explain to me what is going on and which one should I base my diet on more? The calories or macronutrients?
Cheers!
I have problems with the MFP missing the calories and macronutrients match. Some days it misses the calories consumed by small percentage when I do the math and compare it with the macronutrients (protein and carbs x4 and fat x9), but there are plenty of days the mismatch reaches up to 500 calories. For example, all my macronutrients are red, above the "limit", but I still end up with extra calories remaining.
I only use USDA and nutritiondata.self when logging foods, both are verified nutrition sources with the green check marks next to them.
Can anyone explain to me what is going on and which one should I base my diet on more? The calories or macronutrients?
Cheers!
0
Replies
-
If all of your macros are red and you still have remaining calories, then there is a wrong entry somewhere. However, if all your macros are green and you are over your calories it could be alcohol or micronutrients (vitamins/minerals) consumption or also a wrong entry.0
-
If all of your macros are red and you still have remaining calories, then there is a wrong entry somewhere. However, if all your macros are green and you are over your calories it could be alcohol or micronutrients (vitamins/minerals) consumption or also a wrong entry.
What do you mean by wrong entry? I use USDA and nutritiondata.self sites only for food logging. Both are green verified sources.
My macros are in the red. I do not consume alcohol.1 -
Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?1
-
Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?
What is interesting, USDA data seems to be off as well, and nutritiondata.self as well.
Just take the example of Broccoli, raw and compare the calories information to the macronutrients. If I calculate macros, they overreach calories on both sources.
Moreover, total carbohydrates do not equal fiber, starch and sugars added together as well.0 -
Rounding and/or labeling laws.DeliciousBacon wrote: »Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?
What is interesting, USDA data seems to be off as well, and nutritiondata.self as well.
Just take the example of Broccoli, raw and compare the calories information to the macronutrients. If I calculate macros, they overreach calories on both sources.
Moreover, total carbohydrates do not equal fiber, starch and sugars added together as well.
Macronutrients don't occur in exact whole numbers at every portion amount. Multiplying everything by 4 for carbs and protein and 9 for fats may inflate the calories from macros. The calorie column shows calories arrived at from testing rather than the macro math.
US labeling laws have rules that introduce issues such as that something with fewer than 5 calories per serving can be labeled as zero calories and choices about how fiber is included in total carbs.0 -
Rounding and/or labeling laws.DeliciousBacon wrote: »Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?
What is interesting, USDA data seems to be off as well, and nutritiondata.self as well.
Just take the example of Broccoli, raw and compare the calories information to the macronutrients. If I calculate macros, they overreach calories on both sources.
Moreover, total carbohydrates do not equal fiber, starch and sugars added together as well.
Macronutrients don't occur in exact whole numbers at every portion amount. Multiplying everything by 4 for carbs and protein and 9 for fats may inflate the calories from macros. The calorie column shows calories arrived at from testing rather than the macro math.
US labeling laws have rules that introduce issues such as that something with fewer than 5 calories per serving can be labeled as zero calories and choices about how fiber is included in total carbs.
So what's ideal, track by calories or by macros?
Also, something interests me here, did those scientists actually burn the food to check the heat (calories) energy released? Such as, every food item they set certain calories on?
0 -
Count whichever you prefer or keep an eye on all of them. Calorie counting isn't an exact science. It's all estimates. Luckily, close enough will get you there.DeliciousBacon wrote: »
Rounding and/or labeling laws.DeliciousBacon wrote: »Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?
What is interesting, USDA data seems to be off as well, and nutritiondata.self as well.
Just take the example of Broccoli, raw and compare the calories information to the macronutrients. If I calculate macros, they overreach calories on both sources.
Moreover, total carbohydrates do not equal fiber, starch and sugars added together as well.
Macronutrients don't occur in exact whole numbers at every portion amount. Multiplying everything by 4 for carbs and protein and 9 for fats may inflate the calories from macros. The calorie column shows calories arrived at from testing rather than the macro math.
US labeling laws have rules that introduce issues such as that something with fewer than 5 calories per serving can be labeled as zero calories and choices about how fiber is included.
So what's ideal, track by calories or by macros?
Also, something interests me here, did those scientists actually burn the food to check the heat (calories) energy released? Such as, every food item they set certain calories on?
Yes, foods are burned to determine calories. It's my understanding that manufacturers can either do the tests themselves or use a list of standard tested amounts for their ingredients. Of course, what you actually consume may have some minor differences to what they tested and the ratio/amount of ingredients won't necessarily be exact every time. There's a margin for error.0 -
It's just an annoying fact of calorie counting. Sometimes it's rounding, sometimes you'll check and see an entry is off, or sometimes the label is wrong. I've been eating the same tofu for months and I only JUST realised that the macros ON THE PACKET equal about a quarter more calories than what's listed. Just check everything as best you can and accept that consistency is more important than perfection.0
-
DeliciousBacon wrote: »
Rounding and/or labeling laws.DeliciousBacon wrote: »Just because an item is verified doesn’t mean it’s correct. Did you actually compare the entries to what it says on USDA’s database?
What is interesting, USDA data seems to be off as well, and nutritiondata.self as well.
Just take the example of Broccoli, raw and compare the calories information to the macronutrients. If I calculate macros, they overreach calories on both sources.
Moreover, total carbohydrates do not equal fiber, starch and sugars added together as well.
Macronutrients don't occur in exact whole numbers at every portion amount. Multiplying everything by 4 for carbs and protein and 9 for fats may inflate the calories from macros. The calorie column shows calories arrived at from testing rather than the macro math.
US labeling laws have rules that introduce issues such as that something with fewer than 5 calories per serving can be labeled as zero calories and choices about how fiber is included in total carbs.
So what's ideal, track by calories or by macros?
Also, something interests me here, did those scientists actually burn the food to check the heat (calories) energy released? Such as, every food item they set certain calories on?
Which is better in some ways depends on your goals. Weight loss, calories are king, but having an idea of your protein level can be helpful. Putting on muscle, macros become more important, but so are calories as you need to be in a surplus.
As for calorie data, just the food is burned in a bomb calorometer. This is done for various samples and an average is determined as a specific type of food with vary due to various factors.0 -
-
May not be relevant to you, but can be for some I've seen report here: Alcohol will throw the calorie/macro arithmetic off. Has calories, but not from carbs, fats, or protein.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions