Calorie versus macro

[logarth]

I've always used myfitnesspal to track my calories and protein/fat macros since its easy to use, and i always use the usda food entries for tracking. Going by faith I've always accepted usda breakdowns to be a 100% accurate, but im finally taking a look at the calorie v macro count and lots of foods don't match. For example Oat Bran, raw has 17.3p/66.2c/7.03f per 100g which is 397.3 by macro but the calories listed are only 246. Still doesn't fit if you subtract fiber which is 15.4g. Any explanation for this? Maybe i need to switch entirely to macro counting lol

Link to oat bran breakdown: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/6338

[SideSteal]

Myfitnesspal uses both raw database entries and user-entries. Anything with a * by it in the database was entered by some random member, and these tend to be more prone to inaccuracy.

The ones that do not have a * by them are standard MFP entries (presumably by the people who run MFP) and in my experience these tend to be accurate.

[logarth]

The ones I usually enter i cross check with the USDA site, so its coming from usda i just don't see how they could be off by 100 kcals

[Adam8785]

Match the label on the food with the data in the MFP system. If it isn't accurate, then create your own food in the system with the right numbers. It's that simple

[logarth]

Its not a question about using mfp

[Adam8785]

how did you figure out the calorie count from the macros? Is there a formula you used?

[logarth]

Yea i just took the macro breakdown that usda gave me for my generic oat bran ( i buy bulk, so no nutrition label) and used the 4 kcal per g of pro/ch and 9 per g of fat. The numbers definitely don't match the kcal that the usda site gave me. I calculated 397 kcals but they said 246, im just questioning my calculations compared to a governement site that uses bomb calorimeters to determine everything :P