New Web Food Diary WITHOUT PIE GRAPH and WITHOUT PERCENTAGES???

It doesn't bother me. A pie chart is worthless to me. I just look at grams of protein and total calories. I see on the new format you can roughly estimate the macros by looking at the colors beside the macro totals.

I did notice the grams totals differ from the old format. When you add a meal to the diary in either format, each item in the meal has its grams amount rounded. Whether that's up or down or nearest rounding in the old and new format, I don't know. I see in the old format the meal total simply sums the rounded items, which is definitely inaccurate. In the new format, it probably sums the actual grams of each meal item.

e.g. if you have 3 meal items each 5.6g protein, the old format probably shows the total as 18g, while the new format probably shows 17g.

The formatting could be better. Indent the meals, and have the meal names in a different color or style to the meal entries. It all sort of blends together as is.

The pie chart is important to those of us who work our macros based on a % split, as is common in sports nutrition - I don't want logging to be an exercise in mental arithmetic or guesswork. The pie chart is hugely useful as a quick visual check to see if what I'm eating fits my target split.

The line graph tells you the same info as the pie graph, maybe a bit better. Remember when you were in school and learning about graphs? Basic graphs all work the same way, I don't use the pie graph but to me the bar graph is easier to read and easier to estimate percebtages if that is important to you. AND it takes up less space. If you don't like it respond to the link and say why. It is basically the same idea as the bar graphs in the weekly report

Percent is common in sports nutrition? That's not been my experience during coaching education or the practices of coaches I've worked with myself. Even now, as a recreational athlete - well, maybe especially now as a recreational athlete - it makes a lot more sense to estimate essential nutrient needs as absolute gram minimums, rather than percentage of calories. Some trainers maybe look at it as percents, dunno. It's simpler, sure.

IME, percentages are more of a general-audiences simplification. Actual sports differ greatly in their calorie expenditure and somewhat in their nutritional demands, besides. Planning macros in grams handles that better than planning macros in percents, though percents may be viable in a cohort of athletes all doing the same sport, training at similar intensity, duration, frequency and with similar modalities. In that case, any significant nutritional-needs variability between athletes who have differing calorie needs may tend to be proportional to their personal calorie expenditure.

Athletes of similar size in diverse sports will typically require somewhat similar absolute gram amounts of protein and fats - though that can differ somewhat between sports. But the calorie needs of a long-endurance athlete can differ wildly from those of (say) a strength athlete. The training load, in calorie terms, varies quite a lot.

I've known some collegiate athletes in my sport to need supplemental feeding of around 4000 calories daily on top of their regular meals/snacks. Even at 20% protein, which might be a low number in percentage splits terms for athletes, they certainly don't require 200g more protein on top of the protein they're already getting from regular meals. (These would be women 18-22, usually in the 5'10'-6'2" height range, maybe weighing 160-175 pounds +/-. 200g protein total should be very ample for most.) Even I don't need lots more protein than my standard gram minimum if I go off to a workshop/camp and burn hundreds more calories daily than my usual routine.

Grams estimates IMO and IME are more nuanced and effective in planning athlete nutrition . . . and more nutritionally ideal even in everyday people with varying calorie needs. It's more that a lot of people don't want to delve into that level of detail, being more interested in adequacy than optimality. Percentages aren't terrible, in that sense. It keeps things simple, works well enough.

I'm assuming you're primarily or exclusively using web browser MFP? If it would be viable for you to get the phone/tablet app (free for Apple or Android, AFAIK), IME that has more robust features for reporting on nutrition . . . even without premium MFP, though premium adds a lot of depth to it.

If I'm understanding what you want from the pie chart, that's available in the Nutrition section of the app, either on a daily basis, which looks like this:

. . . or as a weekly view average, which looks like this:

I think we're not communicating here, but I'm pretty sure we disagree about optimizing nutrition. That's OK: Different people like to look at it in different ways.

In my view, fat intake isn't the devil. The types of fat eaten matter, too. Even the food choices can matter - the foods the fats inherently occur in that may make up our overall diet.

If we're talking about atherosclerosis or visceral fat, both of which of course can be bad, more than percent fat intake is relevant. For sure, there are more relevant factors than simply fat intake when it comes to bloodwork more generally.

P.S. I don't eat a high fat diet. In reality, looking backward, I eat semi-close to the generic percentages most of the time, as you may've noticed in the screen grabs above . . . I just don't manage my eating based on those percentages.

I've not updated the app in ages on my phone, and it still functions as I'm used to. I do log my food on the phone, especially when I cook, but then sort out serving and the likes on the web. Here's a comparison between old and new. Note: currently on vacation and have not really logged anything since.

The bar itself is fine, considering I didn't have percentages in the pie-chart anyway. But

* the bar is set on a 1/3 split, which I guess most people don't use. It's just bad design.
* so much white space. It's designed like an app and i get a lot less information one one computer screen.
* The grams at the bottom being premium is just silly.

The biggest annoyance for me is how much space this all takes up. I have a small laptop and not a huge monitor. And that means a massive amount of scrolling will be involved.

Oh, and they still haven't fixed the decimal problem. If I have 40g of oats one day, and the next I adjust it to 46g then I have to delete the decimals of 40.00000000023423

I like the new Macro split. It works better for me to see what my totals are looking like. Percentages do nothing. I need to see how many grams I am getting of each. This little line graph makes it easier to see as a very visual person. It's now in your face instead of just listed at the bottom.

I do agree I hate how much white space there is on it though.