when makming meal plans should the Macros always equal the amount of calories you are taking in?
After totaling up the calories I found that when I totaled up the macros the macros would yield about 200 more calories than I had added up. is this normal?
[quote]DION88 wrote:
when makming meal plans should the Macros always equal the amount of calories you are taking in?
After totaling up the calories I found that when I totaled up the macros the macros would yield about 200 more calories than I had added up. is this normal?[/quote]
Go CH heavy in the morning and PO if you have normal CH sensitivity…
Fewer to no starchy carbs in the evening unless you work out then…
Total them up, go with the number and see what happens…
It does not matter if you are off a little bit as long as you allways measure it the same way…
You are not interested so much in what total calories you use, but what a change of calories does and that means, it is irrelevant if you calculations are a little off as long as they are off the same way all the time…
In short yes the calorie will match the macros there are no magic calories coming from know where they are coming from some macro nutrient.
Phill
[quote]Phill wrote:
In short yes the calorie will match the macros there are no magic calories coming from know where they are coming from some macro nutrient.
Phill[/quote]
I there mistake in my calculations or food labeling?
example the beans I buy are 70 calories for 1/4 of a cup, but they have 23 g of carbs 9 g of protein should 1/4 not be 128 calories? I know this example is small but eating cups of beans can add up.
[quote]DION88 wrote:
Phill wrote:
In short yes the calorie will match the macros there are no magic calories coming from know where they are coming from some macro nutrient.
Phill
I there mistake in my calculations or food labeling?
example the beans I buy are 70 calories for 1/4 of a cup, but they have 23 g of carbs 9 g of protein should 1/4 not be 128 calories? I know this example is small but eating cups of beans can add up.
[/quote]
Is there two servings? Of course that’d be 140 calories but it’s closer.
[quote]derek wrote:
DION88 wrote:
Phill wrote:
In short yes the calorie will match the macros there are no magic calories coming from know where they are coming from some macro nutrient.
Phill
I there mistake in my calculations or food labeling?
example the beans I buy are 70 calories for 1/4 of a cup, but they have 23 g of carbs 9 g of protein should 1/4 not be 128 calories? I know this example is small but eating cups of beans can add up.
Is there two servings? Of course that’d be 140 calories but it’s closer.
[/quote]
no its 1/4 of a cup .
Food labels are quite the fuck ups. The best part is below the daily recommendations it lists
protein-4 carbs-4 fat-9
I guess most company’s figured that America is so overweight and so few people are reading labels that they said who gives a shit if the math is off a little.
It’s not unusual for the macros and and kcals to not match up. Labelling fraud abounds.
yea they must be real messed up because I checked one of those calorie sites and the info. i got was:
Black beans (cooked, boiled), 1 cup (172g)
Calories: 227
Protein: 15.2g
Carbohydrate: 40.8g
Total Fat: 0.9g
Fiber: 15g
The 1/4 of cup I was eating had over half the carbs,protein and 9 g of fiber.
weird thing is its only the beans also I have added up the macros for all the bags of different beans and they are all way off.
Most food manufacturers will delete the fiber from the carb content prior to calculating the calories. If I recall they are actually allowed to do that.
They also use numbers other than 4, 4, and 9 for calculating. Like 3.8 or 8.5 or some arbitrary number. I don’t know why that is, or if it’s allowed.
I’m basing this only on reports I’ve read and not any personal experience. It all could be fraud, but really why would they bother on a can of beans? What are they hoping to gain?
thast what I was thinking what are the gaining? Also rice products from the same company have the correct macros, damn those beans.