# My macronutrients are all over 100%, so why am I still in calorie deficit?

I have 300 more calories to eat today but I'm way over 100% on all my macronutrient counts.

• This happens to me too, I think it is exercise or activity calories imported (in my case from Apple Health). The macros don't adjust to the elevated calorie requirements because they are (in my case) set in grams according to my dietary requirements.

Maria H
My story: jumpovertherattlesnake.com/

• Hi Solusmaximus,

If you have chosen Fixed macronutrient targets, your energy target can be set independently from your macronutrient targets. In other words, your energy target is not calculated from the macronutrients you have set or vice versa.

In this case, you can think of your macronutrient targets as minimum targets, so you want to get at least 100%. Then you have some discretionary calories that you can "spend" on any of the macronutrients.

Using Macro Ratios to set your macronutrient targets will dynamically calculated each macro target based on how many calories you have burned each day. This will keep your ratio of protein:carbs:fat the same no matter how many calories you burn each day. If this sounds like a better option for you, you can adjust your targets in the Settings tab, under Targets.

Best,

Karen Stark
cronometer.com
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer

• Hi.
Most probably i am missing something basic but i have set my macros to:
120gr of protein (x4 = 480)
280gr of carbs (x4 = 1120)
75gr of fat (x9 = 675).

From the above i also have have set my maximum calories to 2275 (their sum).
Fixed macronutrient targets option.

In the overall view i have
protein 120.7/120 (101%)
carbs 273.9/280 (98%)
fat 74.4/75 ( 99%)

but my calories are at
2376/2275 (104%)

No alcohol consumed so i am a bit confused where the extra calories are coming from.

I am just trying to count absolute number of calories. Is there a setting i have to turn off or should i just follow the data of cronometer?

Thanks

• The 4/4/9 are rounded numbers used widely for convenience in calculations; in another post by the RD I saw that Cronometer uses more precise values.
I found these more exact numbers on a paper in Nutrition Journal which studied kcals/gram of each macro and their bioavailability % (how much we actually can use). Try these and see if your numbers are closer
P 4.65 x 92% = 4.278 kcal/g
F 9.40 x 95% = 8.93 kcal/g
C 4.10 x 97% = 3.977 kcal/g

Maria H
My story: jumpovertherattlesnake.com/

• edited March 2019

Your answer makes a lot of sense.

My updated numbers are
(120 x 4,278 ) + (280 x 3,977) + (75 x 8,93) = 2296,67

Will just remove the minimum calories restriction and follow only my macros.

• @VegasTortoise you are right on track! We use more accurate energy values for protein, carbs and fat, when available.

The specific values used for each macronutrient depends on the food and what types of carbohydrates, protein and fat they are made of. Take carbohydrates for example: fibre (about 2 kcal/g) has a much lower energy value than starches (>4 kcal/g) and sugars (about 4 kcal/g). There are other types of carbohydrates as well, such as sugar alcohols; erythritol has 0.2 kcal/g and xylitol has 2.4 kcal/g, etc. You can see how just the carbohydrate make-up of a food can have an effect on the total calories.

Best,

Karen Stark
cronometer.com
As always, any and all postings here are covered by our T&Cs:
https://forums.cronometer.com/discussion/27/governing-terms-and-disclaimer