Doesn't Add Up!

[Brazensol]

I've been noticing when I add the macros for food items (protein/carbs/fat) and multiply by their respective caloric values (protein/carbs=4 cal., fat=9 cal) I am not getting the same total calories as listed on the packaging or even on calorie counting websites. What gives? What should I use for my actually daily calorie count - macros or total listed calories? Some things do add up correctly but many do not.

[GEEZII]

Yeah i would like to know that too, the apps show more calories than what i add up.

could it be that they add more than the P,C,F into the calorie total?

[Brazensol]

As far as I know the only the left with calories is alcohol. Pretty sure there is none of that in my oatmeal. lol.

[Back In Black]

You may get a difference based on the fibre content, I'm not sure how all manufacturers go about calculating the difference but that may be part of the reason. Also 4/4/9 are not exact figures, they are rounded off to these numbers to make it easier to calculate, although the actual numbers are minor fractions away.

In all honesty, the difference should be fairly negligible, is that what you are finding?

[tarmyg]

I put it all in a Spreadsheet and input the values EXACTLY the way they appear to make sure I know what is actually going on. Maybe overdoing it but works for me.

Thanks
~T

[krugerr]

I understand what the OP is implying, I have noticed it on some products, and none that I can recall now, which is typical!

For instance a product containing 30g protein, 20carbs and 10g fat should be (30x4)+(20x4)+(10x9) = 290 calories, but it will be displayed as maybe 305cal on the packaging.
It could be as BiB says and they have calculated Fibre content differently, I have noticed some do it as "Carbs: of which sugar/Fibre" and others simply list fibre seperately.

[Brazensol]

Usually (or often anyway) carbs and fat are listed as 'total carbs' or 'total fat' so I don't think they are adding/subtracting the fiber, sugars and saturated fats seperately. I have tried working the numbers from that angle too and it still doesn't add up. I realizie it's not a huge difference (though some have been off as much as 6 or 7 %) but I was just curious as much as anything.

I recently noticed on my cans of Starkist tuna (same size and weight) that the calories are listed on some cans as 45 cal/serving and on others at 50 cal./serving with the same serving size... lol.

[Times Roman]

the actual calorie count on the can should be more accurate than the way you have formulated it. alot of what we do is estimating.

[Brazensol]

the actual calorie count on the can should be more accurate than the way you have formulated it. alot of what we do is estimating.

The only problem being is if the calorie count is correct then their macro's would have to be off. If that is the case I bet there are more fats (first), carbs (second) and they probably list protein content higher than it actually is. I've always been somewhat skeptical of these labels. Just the paranoid side of me I guess. I realize this isn't really an issue since we all have a scale, calipers, tape measures and mirrors but it just seems the math should add up. Or at least be closer than it sometimes is.