Calories don't tally with macronutrients.

Unknown

I bought some provolone cheese that claims to be 60 calories per serving, 5g fat, 5g protein. Is it me, or does that not add up? 5g fat is 45 calories; 5g protein is 20 calories; that alone should be 65 calories per serving, not counting any carbs from lactose.

What am I missing? It's not a database error; this is the information directly from the package.

Unknown

The macros could have been rounded up. 4g of fat is 36 calories, 4g of protein is 16, that is 52 calories. So 60 calories per serve sounds about right, if rounding off the macros has occurred.

Unknown

It's a rounding error. The calorie count per gram is an estimate. There might be 3.9 calories per gram of protein or 4.1 calories per gram. Also, the distribution of fat and protein may not be exact (slightly drier batch may yield a different protein/fat distribution). It's just an average. I wouldn't worry too much about it. If it makes you feel better, leave 50-100 calories remaining at the end of the day. Besides, the exact numbers will only get you so far. Pay more attention to whether or not you're losing weight (if that's your goal; some people maintain, some are trying to gain). The exact numbers aren't important. It's all an estimation.

Unknown

Thanks guys. I wondered if it could be a rounding error but didn't know enough about that process to be sure.

Unknown

The US FDA Nutrition Facts labeling guidelines allow for manufacturers to round most macronutrients' grams to the nearest one-gram increment, and total Calories to either one or five-Calorie increments, depending on serving size.
Reference:
fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064932.htm

Unknown

Oh, I get it! They rounded their protein up the allowable one gram -- it's probably actually something like 4.2g protein/serve, allowing them to hop to 5 without raising the calorie count. SNEAKY. Thanks, that was really helpful!

Unknown

avskk wrote: »

Oh, I get it! They rounded their protein up the allowable one gram -- it's probably actually something like 4.2g protein/serve, allowing them to hop to 5 without raising the calorie count. SNEAKY. Thanks, that was really helpful!

Yes, you got that right! The operative word is increment. Contrary to general rounding rules, the guidelines require rounding to the nearest 1 g increment, so 4.2g would be rounded up (incremented) to 5g instead of rounded down (decremented).
I have to chuckle at all of the MFP users who insist that they absolutely must have the ability to set their macronutrient goals in 1 gram or 1 percent increments, instead of 5 percent increments. Over the course of a 2000 Calorie day, the general MFP user logging food items based on US FDA Nutrition Facts labels will most likely never get within 5 percent of their expected goals. It would be like trying to thread a sewing needle with a shoe lace.

Unknown

I have never really understood the macros vs calorie thing. Can't you just weight your found and count calories? What is the actual purpose if counting macros?

Unknown

MelissaAnn1983 wrote: »

I have never really understood the macros vs calorie thing. Can't you just weight your found and count calories? What is the actual purpose if counting macros?

Some of us choose to eat specific proportions of (for example) protein vs fat or X vs Y. Or adjust our macro intake based on physical activity (ie, more intense activity -> more carbs).

Unknown

MelissaAnn1983 wrote: »

I have never really understood the macros vs calorie thing. Can't you just weight your found and count calories? What is the actual purpose if counting macros?

So you know you have a certain amount of each - macro breakdown can be important for body composition

Unknown

Seems like that is too much of a chore and a waste of time to me. Like you have to go out of the way to get to the same calorie number. Or is this totally different from actually counting calories per weight of food?

Unknown

Is it a bulking up vs just loosing weight equation?

Unknown

MelissaAnn1983 wrote: »

Seems like that is too much of a chore and a waste of time to me. Like you have to go out of the way to get to the same calorie number. Or is this totally different from actually counting calories per weight of food?

Macros are a matter of health and well being. It's important to at least give them a thought. Personally, I have certain physique/fitness goals that require me to watch them.

Unknown

I don't really see how it's "too much trouble" to keep an eye on your macros; MFP does it automatically. It's really not so complex or bizarre to look at those numbers and go, "Oh, whoops, I'm low on protein, I'll make sure to have some at dinner." It's no different from noticing you're too far under your calorie goal and having a snack, or noticing you went over your calorie goal and eating a little lighter the next day.

And yes, macros are important for body recomposition, but they're also important for pretty much any living human. Why is that a big weird deal in your eyes? Do you also think people who make sure to get enough fiber or vitamin D are weird? I don't get it.