Reply
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Registered User 3030545's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 35
    Posts: 13
    Rep Power: 0
    3030545 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    3030545 is offline

    Macros don't add up

    Hi, can anyone explain to me why calculating calories from macros may not equal the stated calories on a food packaging.

    For example a 425 can of SPC baked beans (salt reduced):

    3g of fat = 27cals (3x9)
    48.5g of carbs = 194cals (48.5*4)
    20.4g of protein = 81.6cals (20.4*4)

    total = 302.6 cals

    However the can states there is 349 cals.

    So why such a large discrepancy?

    Cheers.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    Registered User Goody_Shop's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2009
    Age: 35
    Posts: 92
    Rep Power: 130
    Goody_Shop has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    Goody_Shop is offline
    fiber content maybe ???
    Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    kitten scars Suffering's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Posts: 50
    Rep Power: 125
    Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0) Suffering has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    Suffering is offline
    That's weird. Could be fiber as above poster mentioned.

    If I were you I'd follow the 349 cal value, just to be on the safe side of things.
    Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■) lee__d's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2006
    Location: Kings Park, New York, United States
    Posts: 17,929
    Rep Power: 92001
    lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) lee__d has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    lee__d is offline
    that is odd, post a pic of the label if u can.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    Registered User 3030545's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 35
    Posts: 13
    Rep Power: 0
    3030545 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    3030545 is offline
    I don't have a camera on me so I can't post a photo at this stage.

    I have a can of SPC baked beans cheesy cheddar and cross checked it with the nutritional info from the the calorieking database (calorieking dot com dot au). It is the same. And the same discrepancy appears.

    I also found the same problem in birds eye thai stir fry veggies (cross checked packet against calorieking database).

    The calorieking database shows % calorie breakdown, which is accurate for the calories derived from macro calculation, but not for the calories stated on the packaging.
    I also checked a competing brand of baked beans and found there to be no discrepancy, which I would claim rules out fibre as the culprit.
    Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    Registered User 3030545's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 35
    Posts: 13
    Rep Power: 0
    3030545 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    3030545 is offline
    I have found a similar thread to this in the archive, called "nutrition label mismatch".

    It discussed how manufacturers may deduct calories due to fibre from the total since we cannot digest it. This would lead to a lower calories stated than calculated from macros. But I have the opposite problem, the macro calculation value is lower than the stated calories
    Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    Registered User Goody_Shop's Avatar
    Join Date: Dec 2009
    Age: 35
    Posts: 92
    Rep Power: 130
    Goody_Shop has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    Goody_Shop is offline
    it is because the manufacturer takes into account the fiber calories. In my opinion there is approx. 10 gr of fiber per the listed serving amount. For the carbs, they don't list that in the label.

    hope this helps with your calculations

    cheers
    Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    Registered User Cinekydo's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 27
    Posts: 395
    Rep Power: 154
    Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10) Cinekydo is on a distinguished road. (+10)
    Cinekydo is offline
    I posted a thread about this very thing a few days ago. Forget fiber content, the real reason is food companies use every rounding up/down loophole to essentially lie about their nutrition facts. If there is 3.49g of fat they post it as 3. Don't trust food labels.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    Registered User 3030545's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 35
    Posts: 13
    Rep Power: 0
    3030545 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    3030545 is offline
    Originally Posted by Goody_Shop View Post
    it is because the manufacturer takes into account the fiber calories. In my opinion there is approx. 10 gr of fiber per the listed serving amount. For the carbs, they don't list that in the label.

    hope this helps with your calculations

    cheers
    Let me see if I understand...

    * Fibre is a carb, and they have excluded it from the total carb value ... but ...
    * The calories from fibre have been included in the total calorie value ... despite ...
    * Fibre being indigestible rendering its calories irrelevant


    Why oh why oh why oh why.
    Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    Registered User 3030545's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 35
    Posts: 13
    Rep Power: 0
    3030545 has no reputation, good or bad yet. (0)
    3030545 is offline
    Originally Posted by Cinekydo View Post
    I posted a thread about this very thing a few days ago. Forget fiber content, the real reason is food companies use every rounding up/down loophole to essentially lie about their nutrition facts. If there is 3.49g of fat they post it as 3. Don't trust food labels.

    I can't see how rounding can make this 45 cal difference. A 10 cal difference I could understand.

    45 cals = 11g protein = 11g carbs = 5g fat

    I rounded the values up for the baked beans (per 100g), then multiplied by 4.25 to get the 425g can total (compounding the rounding error), but still come up 20 calories short.
    Reply With Quote

  11. #11
    In it for the Long Haul! bbavender's Avatar
    Join Date: Nov 2010
    Age: 36
    Posts: 2,352
    Rep Power: 1365
    bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000) bbavender is just really nice. (+1000)
    bbavender is offline
    Originally Posted by 3030545 View Post
    I can't see how rounding can make this 45 cal difference. A 10 cal difference I could understand.

    45 cals = 11g protein = 11g carbs = 5g fat

    I rounded the values up for the baked beans (per 100g), then multiplied by 4.25 to get the 425g can total (compounding the rounding error), but still come up 20 calories short.
    I think your too worried about what the label says. Id just go with what they put as the cals because that is the number that is most important to the FDA. They could care less about the macro numbers, since everyone in this day and age is only worried about the total.
    ED got me, ill be darned if it gets anyone else.

    Only the strong survive...

    25-RAC-99

    Follow my RFL Journey: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141048001
    Reply With Quote

  12. #12
    Custom User MikeK46's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2009
    Location: New York, New York, United States
    Posts: 9,209
    Rep Power: 18034
    MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000) MikeK46 is a splendid one to behold. (+10000)
    MikeK46 is offline
    Originally Posted by bbavender View Post
    I think your too worried about what the label says. Id just go with what they put as the cals because that is the number that is most important to the FDA. They could care less about the macro numbers, since everyone in this day and age is only worried about the total.
    I disagree. They calories are BASED ON THE MACROS. They don't use a bomb calorimeter to measure the calories in the food.

    Originally Posted by Suffering View Post
    If I were you I'd follow the 349 cal value, just to be on the safe side of things.
    I would NOT follow that. If you're tracking macros, then track macros. Not to mention that "safe side" would not be all that safe if you're bulking. You may end up short on calories.
    Reply With Quote

Similar Threads

  1. My macros don't add up, HELP
    By ak1984 in forum Keto
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 08:34 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-02-2006, 03:54 PM
  3. Macros don't add up?
    By gunther44bd in forum Nutrition
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2005, 04:37 AM
  4. FYI, don't add green tea extract to soda
    By skinnyboy in forum Supplements
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-21-2004, 12:29 PM
  5. Galaxy Superior Protein, Numbers Don't Add Up!!!
    By RobRob in forum Supplements
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-02-2003, 09:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts