Totals match goals but remaining is short - Help

Lynda, sugars are included in Carbs.

What is causing this problem is that the foods in the database are user-entered. Lots of them are just plain wrong in the database so the Fat/Carb/Protein numbers are often added incorrectly because the item has the nutrition info input incorrectly into the database.

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1

cmriverside wrote: »

Lynda, sugars are included in Carbs.

What is causing this problem is that the foods in the database are user-entered. Lots of them are just plain wrong in the database so the Fat/Carb/Protein numbers are often added incorrectly because the item has the nutrition info input incorrectly into the database.

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10621050/how-to-use-the-usda-food-database-mfp-food-database-for-accurate-logging/p1

And just to add to this, a bit of rounding is allowed on nutrition labels, so if your food item has 10.6g of protein, it will be listed as 11. This will sometimes cause a small difference in your daily total as well.

If your goal is to gain or lose weight, it's your calorie goal you want to prioritize, then use your macro goals as a general guide.

To begin with there are all the entries that are plain wrong!

Past that, I consider my caloric intake to be macros multiplied out less 50% fibre + alcohol g * 7 (which I tend to ignore due to lack of use)

Many labels optimistically calculate fiber at zero when it is partially or substantially absorbable.

Other labels optimistically round down the calories if you were to multiply out the macros. 279 becomes 270.

A very few no name labels seem to round up (279 becomes 290) compared to the name brand product which seems to round down making, I suspect, the name brand product more appealing (270 vs 290)...