Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
DRAGONCHILDE SparkPoints: (57,401)
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
Posts: 9,661
7/10/13 2:56 P

Crowdsourced intelligence for the win!

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
7/10/13 12:19 P

I actually am down to 125 grams of fat, which lowers me down to 1801 vs 1792, a difference of 9 calories, which is trivial.

thanks again for the help.

**This is why SP is so great. problems are easier to solve with more minds involved.

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 7/10/2013 (12:21)
SONICB Posts: 4,262
7/10/13 12:18 P

It's possible that each of the macros in each individual food item were rounded per serving (rather than just the total at the end of the day) or calories rounded down.

For example, your tracker has listed "large eggs, 5 serving" at 350 calories, 3 g carbs, 25 g fat, 30 g protein.

When I use the Nutrition Database's entry for "Egg, fresh, whole, raw" and choose "5 large," it returns: 360 calories, 2 g carbs, 24 g fat, 31.5 g protein.

Errrrrr... although I just noticed that the main culprit is your entry for olive oil! 2 Tbsp does have around 240 calories, but it also should only have 27 g fat, not 54.


Edit: Ahh, too slow. Someone else beat me to it. :)

Edited by: SONICB at: 7/10/2013 (12:20)
RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
7/10/13 12:16 P

22 X 9 = 198. so the butter adds up right, but the oil is off on fat grams. Not sure if I manually entered it or not.Either way it is wrong, and I will fix it.

You actually helped a lot. 2 Tbsp. oil is only 28 grams, not 54, which is 26 grams of fat, and 234 calories. This was the problem. Thanks for taking a look at my tracker.

LOSINGFORBABY SparkPoints: (6,339)
Fitness Minutes: (3,309)
Posts: 616
7/10/13 12:09 P

Looking at the numbers in your tracker -- just comparing the butter and olive oil breaks the math. They both list zero carbs and proteins -- but while the fat is vastly different, the calories are fairly close. I'm obviously no real help, but curious to see what our resident nutritionist has to say!

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
7/10/13 12:02 P

As far as I know, yes. I expected them to be off by a bit, but not 243 calories. My range is 1500-1850, so I would be over the calorie limit, if there are 4 calories per carb/protein, and 9 per gram of fat.By quite a bit, actually.

LOSINGFORBABY SparkPoints: (6,339)
Fitness Minutes: (3,309)
Posts: 616
7/10/13 11:41 A

Are those calorie-to-nutrient numbers supposed to stay the same no matter the source (what kind of carb/fat/protein)?

RUSSELL_40 Posts: 16,826
7/10/13 11:17 A

I tracked today and it said 1,792 calories.

and:

55 g carbs
114 g protein
151 g fat.

169 g protein, and carbs X 4 = 676
151 grams of fat X 9 = 1359

That is 2035 calories, or 243 more than the 1,792 the trackers says I eat. Even if they rounded each of the macros up by 1, and they were actually 54,113, and 150, that would only explain 17 calories.

I am losing just fine, and not concerned with that, but I just noticed it, and the difference is quite a bit. I am just wondering why it is 243 calories different. I don't care if I am losing at 2,035, or 1,792. I just want to know what I am actually eating.

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Commuting Challenge 9/28/2013 10:51:24 AM
Diet Pills - Do they work? 12/10/2013 6:14:33 PM
graham crackers 9/6/2013 4:49:38 PM
Caloric Intake 9/17/2013 7:02:59 PM
DRINKING MORE NOW 11/6/2013 3:18:43 PM

Diet Resources: hcg diet plan | day by day diet plan | what is a healthy diet plan