Macronutrient Split Calculator (Grams From Percentages)
Macronutrient Split Calculator: Percentages of Energy to Grams, Against the Published Ranges
Grams of protein, carbohydrate and fat from a total energy figure and a split you choose, at 4, 4 and 9 kcal per gram — with each percentage reported against the published acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges, and against the narrower protein range Australia and New Zealand set from the same evidence. No split is presented as the right one, because the published work does not name one.
These are measurements of body size. They are not a judgement about you and they are not a diagnosis. They cannot see muscle, bone, where fat sits, or how healthy you are — two people with the same figure can be in very different health. Treat anything here as one rough signal among many, and speak to a doctor or dietitian before making a substantial change to how you eat.
A total, a split, and what the published ranges allow
2,200 kcal/day for a 70 kg adult, split 20 per cent protein and 30 per cent fat
Three divisions, one subtraction, and the two energy factors for carbohydrate
- E
- the total energy figure in kcal/day. Every gram figure on this page is directly proportional to it, so its uncertainty passes through unchanged — a maintenance estimate from a predictive equation carries roughly ±10 per cent, and so therefore do all three gram figures
- P%, F%
- the two percentages you type. They must each be between 0 and 100 and must sum to 100 or less
- C%
- carbohydrate as the REMAINDER, not an input. Every published split works this way round in practice, and making it explicit avoids the alternative, which is asking for three figures and silently rescaling them when they do not add to 100
- 4, 4, 9
- the general Atwater factors, in kcal per gram, for protein, available carbohydrate by weight, and fat. They are the factors food labels are computed with
- 3.75
- the other carbohydrate factor, for available carbohydrate expressed as MONOSACCHARIDE EQUIVALENTS rather than by weight. It is printed as a comparison row and is not used in the main figures. It matters when the carbohydrate is a defined chemical rather than a food mixture: the health plugin’s parenteral nutrition page costs intravenous dextrose at 3.4 kcal/g because it is the monohydrate, and 3.75 is the anhydrous glucose figure that correction starts from
- round to 1 dp
- all three percentages are rounded to one decimal place before anything is done with them, and the published ranges are tested on the rounded figures, which are the figures the page prints. This is not cosmetic. Carbohydrate is a computed remainder, so it carries the floating-point defect: on a grid of protein and fat percentages in 0.1-point steps, the raw remainder and its one-decimal rounding disagree about the 45 per cent boundary 72 times, 30 of them at splits whose protein and fat are themselves inside their own ranges — protein 20.4 with fat 34.6 leaves a remainder that evaluates to 44.99999999999999 in binary, and a strict comparison would report an entirely ordinary split as being below the carbohydrate range when it is exactly on it. The effective bounds therefore become 9.95 / 34.95 for protein, 19.95 / 34.95 for fat and 44.95 / 64.95 for carbohydrate, and what you see decides what the page says
- 0.8 g/kg/day
- the National Academies’ recommended dietary allowance for protein in adults, from meta-analyses of nitrogen-balance studies. A floor for adequacy, not a target and not a ceiling. It is on this page because it is the only figure here that is a requirement rather than a range, and because a percentage split can sit inside the acceptable range and still fall below it
- 4.184
- the exact number of kilojoules in a thermochemical kilocalorie, by definition
Worked example
2,200 kcal/day for a 70 kg adult, split 20 per cent protein and 30 per cent fat
Carbohydrate first, because it is the remainder. 100 − 20 − 30 = 50 per cent. You did not type that and the page prints it, because it is the consequence of the two figures you did type and it needs to be visible.
Now the energy from each: protein 2,200 × 0.20 = 440 kcal, carbohydrate 2,200 × 0.50 = 1,100 kcal, fat 2,200 × 0.30 = 660 kcal. Those add back to 2,200 exactly, as they must.
Then the grams, at 4, 4 and 9 kcal/g: protein 440/4 = 110 g, carbohydrate 1,100/4 = 275 g, fat 660/9 = 73 g. The headline is the protein figure. Notice what the 4-against-9 does to the shape of the answer: fat is 30 per cent of the energy and 16 per cent of the grams, while carbohydrate is 50 per cent of the energy and 60 per cent of the grams. A split that looks tidy in percentages never looks tidy in grams, and conflating the two is the commonest confusion on this subject.
Against the published ranges. Protein at 20 per cent is inside the National Academies’ adult range of 10 to 35, and also inside the narrower 15 to 25 that Australia and New Zealand set from the same evidence — so both bodies agree on this one. Fat at 30 is inside 20 to 35, a range the two bodies state identically. Carbohydrate at 50 is inside 45 to 65. All three distances-outside rows therefore read zero. That is as much as the published work will say: inside the ranges, it does not name a best point.
The one row that is a requirement rather than a range. 110 g of protein for a 70 kg adult is 1.57 g/kg/day. The National Academies’ recommended dietary allowance is 0.8 g/kg/day, which for this person is 56 g — and 56 g at 4 kcal/g is 224 kcal, just 10.2 per cent of the 2,200 kcal total. So the allowance and the bottom of the acceptable range are almost the same figure here, which is a coincidence of this particular total: raise the total to 3,000 kcal and the allowance falls to 7.5 per cent of it while the range’s bottom stays at 10. That is exactly why a percentage is not a requirement and why this page prints grams per kilogram.
And the carbohydrate factor, for anyone cross-checking against the parenteral page. The same 1,100 kcal of carbohydrate at 3.75 kcal/g rather than 4 would be 293 g instead of 275 — 18 g more, a 6.7 per cent difference. Both factors are published and they answer different questions: 4 kcal/g is available carbohydrate by weight, which is what food labels use; 3.75 kcal/g is available carbohydrate expressed as monosaccharide equivalents. Neither is a correction to the other. The parenteral nutrition page needs the distinction because intravenous dextrose is a defined chemical — the monohydrate, costed at 3.4 kcal/g, derived from the anhydrous 3.75 by the molecular-weight ratio. On a plate, 4 is the factor.
The energy total comes from the BMR and TDEE page, and what happens when you subtract a deficit from it — including why that page refuses rather than answering below your own basal rate — is on the calorie deficit page. Protein by clinical condition in g/kg/day, which is a requirement and not a split, is the protein requirement page.
The published acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges, as percentages of energy
| Macronutrient | Children 1–3 | Children 4–18 | Adults | Australia and New Zealand, adults |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 5–20% | 10–30% | 10–35% | 15–25% |
| Total fat | 30–40% | 25–35% | 20–35% | 20–35% |
| Carbohydrate | 45–65% | 45–65% | 45–65% | 45–65% |
| n-6 polyunsaturated fat | 5–10% | 5–10% | 5–10% | not stated here |
| n-3 polyunsaturated fat | 0.6–1.2% | 0.6–1.2% | 0.6–1.2% | not stated here |
| Added sugars | no range set | no range set | no range set | no range set |
What a percentage buys in grams, at three totals, for a 70 kg adult
| Split (P/C/F) | At 1,600 kcal | At 2,200 kcal | At 3,000 kcal | Protein g/kg/day at 2,200 kcal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 / 65 / 25 | 40 / 260 / 44 g | 55 / 358 / 61 g | 75 / 488 / 83 g | 0.79 |
| 15 / 55 / 30 | 60 / 220 / 53 g | 83 / 303 / 73 g | 113 / 413 / 100 g | 1.18 |
| 20 / 50 / 30 | 80 / 200 / 53 g | 110 / 275 / 73 g | 150 / 375 / 100 g | 1.57 |
| 25 / 45 / 30 | 100 / 180 / 53 g | 138 / 248 / 73 g | 188 / 338 / 100 g | 1.96 |
| 30 / 45 / 25 | 120 / 180 / 44 g | 165 / 248 / 61 g | 225 / 338 / 83 g | 2.36 |
| 35 / 45 / 20 | 140 / 180 / 36 g | 193 / 248 / 49 g | 263 / 338 / 67 g | 2.75 |
Where each figure on this page comes from
| Figure | Source | What it is and is not |
|---|---|---|
| 4 kcal/g protein, 4 kcal/g carbohydrate, 9 kcal/g fat | The general Atwater factors, as set out in the FAO’s work on food energy and conversion factors and used to compute food labels worldwide. | Average factors for mixed diets, derived from heats of combustion with corrections for digestibility and for urinary losses of nitrogen. They are not exact for any single food, and the arithmetic on this page is therefore exact arithmetic on approximate inputs. |
| 3.75 kcal/g carbohydrate | The same body of work, for available carbohydrate expressed as monosaccharide equivalents rather than by weight. | A different question, not a better answer. Printed here as a comparison row only. It is the figure that matters when carbohydrate is a defined chemical: the health plugin’s parenteral nutrition page uses 3.4 kcal/g for intravenous dextrose, which is the monohydrate, derived from the anhydrous glucose figure of about 3.75 by the molecular-weight ratio 180.16/198.17. |
| Protein 10–35%, fat 20–35%, carbohydrate 45–65% of energy | Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, National Academies, 2002/2005; reprinted in Rethinking the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range for the 21st Century: A Letter Report, National Academies, 2024. | Ranges associated with reduced risk of chronic disease while providing adequate intakes of essential nutrients. They are not optimal values, they do not name a best point inside themselves, and the 2024 report was convened precisely because the basis for them is now considered worth revisiting. |
| Protein 15–25% of energy | Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand (NHMRC and the New Zealand Ministry of Health), macronutrient balance. | A deliberately narrower alternative to the US and Canadian range, not a restatement of it. The published reasoning: intakes at or above 15 per cent of energy appear to be required to ensure average micronutrient requirements are met, so a prudent upper level is 25 per cent. The same source states the US and Canadian figures as 10–35 for protein, 20–35 for fat and 45–65 for carbohydrate, which is how this page knows the two are different readings rather than a transcription error. |
| Protein RDA 0.8 g/kg/day for adults | The same National Academies report, from meta-analyses of nitrogen-balance studies. | A population reference intake meant to meet the needs of nearly all healthy adults: a floor for adequacy. Not a target, not a ceiling, and not the figure anybody training or unwell should be working from — the clinical g/kg/day question by condition is a separate page. |
| A split that is right for you | Nowhere. No published source names one. | This page will not produce one and has no band, no colour and no verdict on the headline for that reason. It reports where three percentages fall against two published range sets and leaves the choice where the published work leaves it. |
Exact arithmetic on approximate inputs, against ranges that name no best point
The arithmetic on this page is trivial and it is worth being clear about that, because the trivial part is where the false precision comes from. A percentage of a total, divided by 4, 4 or 9. Three divisions and a subtraction. Nothing here can be wrong in the way a drug calculation can be wrong. What can be wrong is everything feeding into it: the total energy figure, which if it came from a predictive equation carries roughly ±10 per cent and passes that width straight through to every gram figure in proportion; the energy factors, which are average values for mixed diets rather than exact values for any food; and the split, which is a choice nobody’s published work makes for you. So the page prints grams to the nearest gram because that is what the division gives, and then spends the rest of its space on what the grams do and do not mean.
Carbohydrate is the remainder, and that is deliberate. Asking for three percentages and then rescaling them when they do not add to 100 is the standard behaviour of calculators in this area, and it is the plausible-but-wrong failure in miniature: the page silently changes your inputs, answers a question you did not ask, and gives no sign it has done so. Asking for three and refusing unless they add to exactly 100 is honest but unusable, since nobody types three figures that sum exactly on the first attempt. So this page asks for two and prints the third. Every published split is built this way round in practice anyway — protein is set from a requirement, fat from a range, and carbohydrate fills what is left — and the carbohydrate range of 45 to 65 per cent of energy is the widest of the three, which is the published work saying much the same thing.
The protein upper bound is contested, and this page shows both answers rather than picking one. This matters more than it sounds, because the wrong figure is widely quoted. The National Academies’ table gives adults 10 to 35 per cent of energy from protein. The same table gives children aged 4 to 18 a range of 10 to 30 per cent, and that paediatric figure turns up constantly as though it were the adult one — it is a row away in the source. Then, separately, the Australian and New Zealand nutrient reference values set 15 to 25 per cent for adults, and they are explicit that this is an alternative to the US and Canadian range rather than a restatement of it: their reasoning is that intakes at or above 15 per cent of energy appear to be required for average micronutrient requirements to be met, so a prudent upper level is 25. Fat at 20 to 35 and carbohydrate at 45 to 65 are identical between the two bodies. So on protein there are two defensible upper bounds in the literature, and a reader whose split sits between 25 and 35 per cent is inside one range and outside the other. The page says so in those terms and leaves it there, because switching somebody’s category according to which national body a page’s author happened to read is exactly the behaviour this site has ruled out elsewhere.
What a range is and what it is not. The acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges were set as intakes associated with reduced risk of chronic disease while providing adequate intakes of essential nutrients. Three consequences follow and all three are commonly ignored. They do not name a best point: inside the range, the published work is silent, so a page that recommends 40 per cent carbohydrate over 55 is not reporting evidence. The bounds are not thresholds where something happens: 36 per cent of energy from fat is not a different state from 35, and the page therefore reports the distance outside rather than passing or failing anybody. And the ranges are about proportions of energy, not about foods — there is no range for added sugars at all, which the National Academies handled with a separate maximal intake level, so nothing on this page can distinguish 275 g of carbohydrate from lentils and oats from 275 g from sugar. The National Academies themselves convened a committee in 2024 to revisit the basis of these ranges, which is a reasonable signal of how settled they are.
The grams-per-kilogram row is the only figure here that can be checked against a requirement. A percentage of a total is not a requirement, and the arithmetic makes that obvious once you look at it: ten per cent of 3,000 kcal is 75 g of protein while twenty per cent of 1,600 kcal is 80 g, so the smaller percentage of the larger total delivers more. The National Academies’ recommended dietary allowance for protein in adults is 0.8 g/kg/day, derived from meta-analyses of nitrogen-balance studies, and it is a floor for adequacy rather than a target. A split can sit comfortably inside the 10 to 35 per cent range and still land below it — 10 per cent of 1,600 kcal is 40 g, which is 0.57 g/kg/day for a 70 kg adult — and the page flags that when it happens. In the other direction, being at twice the allowance is unremarkable and the page says so rather than treating it as an achievement. The clinical question, which is how many grams per kilogram per day somebody needs given a condition rather than given a percentage, is a different one with a different literature and lives on the protein requirement page.
One boundary detail, because it bit this batch. The carbohydrate percentage is computed, not typed, and binary floating point does not represent most decimal fractions exactly. On a grid of protein and fat percentages in steps of a tenth of a point, the raw remainder and its one-decimal rounding disagree about the 45 per cent boundary seventy-two times, thirty of them at splits whose protein and fat are inside their own ranges: protein 20.4 per cent with fat 34.6 leaves a remainder of 44.99999999999999, which a strict comparison reports as below the range when it is exactly on it. The page therefore rounds all three percentages to one decimal place before testing them against any range, and those rounded figures are also the ones it prints, so what the reader sees is what decided what the page said. The effective bounds become 9.95 and 34.95 for protein, 19.95 and 34.95 for fat, and 44.95 and 64.95 for carbohydrate. That is a real shift of half a tenth of a point, it is stated here rather than buried, and it is a far better outcome than a page that reports two readers with identical splits as being in different categories.
And the two carbohydrate factors, which confuse people who use more than one page on this site. This page uses 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate: the general Atwater factor for available carbohydrate by weight, which is the factor food labels are computed with and the right one for food on a plate. There is a second published factor, 3.75 kcal/g, for available carbohydrate expressed as monosaccharide equivalents, and this page prints what it would give as a comparison row so the difference is visible rather than mysterious — about 18 g on a 1,100 kcal carbohydrate allocation, a 6.7 per cent difference. Neither is a correction to the other; they answer different questions. The distinction becomes load-bearing when the carbohydrate is a defined chemical rather than a mixture: the parenteral nutrition page costs intravenous dextrose at 3.4 kcal/g, because intravenous dextrose is the monohydrate and carries a water of crystallisation, and that 3.4 is reached from the anhydrous glucose figure of about 3.75 by the ratio of the molecular weights. On a plate none of that applies and 4 is the factor. For the energy total this page divides up, see the BMR and TDEE page; for what happens when a deficit is taken out of it, the calorie deficit page; for the clinical energy estimate, the energy requirement page.
Frequently asked questions
Is the protein upper limit 25, 30 or 35 per cent of energy?
All three figures are real and they are not interchangeable, which is why this page shows two of them side by side. 35 per cent is the upper bound of the acceptable macronutrient distribution range for ADULTS in the National Academies’ table, and their 2024 letter report revisiting these ranges still prints it as 10 to 35. 30 per cent is the upper bound in the same table for children aged 4 to 18; it is a row away from the adult figure and is quoted as the adult one surprisingly often. 25 per cent is the upper bound in the Australian and New Zealand nutrient reference values, which set 15 to 25 for adults as a deliberate alternative to the US and Canadian range, on the stated reasoning that intakes at or above 15 per cent appear to be needed to meet average micronutrient requirements and that a prudent upper level is therefore 25. So the honest answer is that two national bodies disagree about the adult upper bound, the page reports your figure against both, and anyone quoting 30 for an adult has read the wrong row.
Why does the page not ask me for the carbohydrate percentage?
Because three percentages that have to add to 100 is either a nuisance or a trap. The nuisance version refuses until you get three figures to sum exactly, which nobody manages first time. The trap version accepts whatever you type and quietly rescales it to 100, then answers — changing your inputs without telling you and giving a confident answer to a question you did not ask. Asking for two and printing the third avoids both. It also matches how splits are actually constructed: protein from a requirement, fat from a range, and carbohydrate filling what is left. If you want to set carbohydrate directly, set protein and fat so the remainder is what you wanted; the page prints the remainder on its own row so you can see immediately whether you did.
Why are carbohydrate and protein both 4 kcal per gram when they are such different things?
Because the Atwater factors are average net energy values for mixed diets, not molecular constants. Each one starts from the heat of combustion of the macronutrient and is then corrected for how much is actually absorbed and, for protein, for the energy lost in urea and other nitrogen compounds in urine — protein’s heat of combustion is higher than carbohydrate’s, and that urinary correction is most of why the two factors land in the same place. The factors are averages, which means the arithmetic on this page is exact arithmetic on approximate inputs, and that is the honest description of it. There is a second published carbohydrate factor of 3.75 kcal/g for carbohydrate expressed as monosaccharide equivalents; this page prints what it would give as a comparison row but uses 4, which is the by-weight factor food labels use.
What split should I use?
The page will not tell you and the published work does not either. Inside the acceptable ranges — protein 10 to 35, fat 20 to 35, carbohydrate 45 to 65 per cent of energy for adults — the National Academies deliberately do not name a best point, so a page recommending one would be presenting a preference as evidence. What the page can do is three things that are actually supported: tell you where your three percentages fall against those ranges and against the narrower protein range Australia and New Zealand set; convert the protein figure into grams per kilogram per day, which is the only row here that can be checked against a requirement rather than a range; and show you what the same percentages buy at a different total, which is usually the more surprising number. Beyond that, the split that works is the one you will actually eat, and that is not an arithmetic question.
The protein grams came out below 0.8 g/kg/day even though the percentage is inside the range. Is that a bug?
No, and it is the single most useful thing this page demonstrates. A percentage range and a per-kilogram requirement are different instruments measuring different things. Ten per cent of a 1,600 kcal total is 40 g of protein, which is inside the published 10 to 35 per cent range and is 0.57 g/kg/day for a 70 kg adult — below the recommended dietary allowance of 0.8. The range is about the proportion of energy and the allowance is about body size, so a low percentage of a low total can satisfy the first and miss the second. The page flags it when it happens, and this is exactly why the grams-per-kilogram row exists rather than being an extra. The fix, if you want one, is a higher protein percentage or a higher total, and the page will show you both.
Does this page account for fibre, alcohol, or the type of carbohydrate?
No, none of the three, and that is a real limit rather than an oversight. The arithmetic takes three macronutrients and three factors; fibre has its own partial energy contribution that the general factors handle only on average, alcohol is a fourth energy source at about 7 kcal/g that this page has no input for, and the published ranges distinguish nothing about the type of carbohydrate — there is no acceptable macronutrient distribution range for added sugars at all, which the National Academies dealt with by a separate maximal intake level. So 275 g of carbohydrate from lentils and 275 g from sugar are the same number here and are not the same thing anywhere else. If alcohol is a meaningful part of your intake, the total you type here should exclude its energy or the split will be wrong by that much.
Why does the page round the percentages to one decimal place?
Because carbohydrate is a computed remainder and binary floating point does not hold most decimal fractions exactly, so the raw remainder sometimes lands a hair below a boundary it is actually on. Sweeping protein and fat in steps of a tenth of a point, the raw remainder and its one-decimal rounding disagree about the 45 per cent carbohydrate boundary seventy-two times — 100 minus 0.4 minus 54.6 evaluates to 44.99999999999999 and would be reported as outside the range. Rounding first, and testing the ranges on the rounded figures that the page also prints, means two readers with the same split always get the same report. The cost is that the effective bounds move by half a tenth of a point, to 9.95 and 34.95 for protein, 19.95 and 34.95 for fat and 44.95 and 64.95 for carbohydrate, which the page states rather than hiding.
Related calculators
References
- Institute of Medicine (now the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids, 2002/2005. Source of the acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges used on this page and of the adult protein recommended dietary allowance of 0.8 g/kg/day. The AMDR as percentages of energy: carbohydrate 45–65 for all age groups; total fat 30–40 (ages 1–3), 25–35 (4–18), 20–35 (adults); protein 5–20 (1–3), 10–30 (4–18), 10–35 (adults); n-6 polyunsaturated fat 5–10; n-3 polyunsaturated fat 0.6–1.2. There is no AMDR for added sugars; the report set a separate maximal intake level instead. Figures and their labels are cited; no report text is reproduced.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rethinking the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range for the 21st Century: A Letter Report, 2024. Consulted specifically to settle the adult protein upper bound this project had left open, and it prints the same table: protein 5–20 per cent of energy for children 1–3, 10–30 for children 4–18 and 10–35 for adults, with fat 20–35 and carbohydrate 45–65 for adults. The report also states the protein AMDR as 10–35 per cent of calories in its discussion. Cited for confirmation of the figures and for the fact that the committee was convened to revisit the basis of these ranges at all, which is relevant to how firmly a page should present them.
- National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and New Zealand Ministry of Health. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand, macronutrient balance. Source of the narrower adult protein range this page reports alongside the National Academies’ figure: 15 to 25 per cent of energy, with fat 20 to 35 and carbohydrate 45 to 65. The stated reasoning is quoted in substance rather than verbatim: intakes at or above 15 per cent protein appear to be required to ensure average micronutrient requirements are met, so a prudent upper level is 25 per cent. The same source states the US and Canadian figures as protein 10–35, fat 20–35 and carbohydrate 45–65, which is the direct evidence that the two range sets are different readings of the evidence rather than a transcription error — the question this project could not resolve in batch H02. PROVENANCE NOTE: the brief for this batch described the narrower figure as an NHMRC restatement of the National Academies’ work giving 35 per cent, and the paediatric 10–30 as a National Academies adult figure. Both are the wrong way round, and the correction is recorded here.
- Atwater energy conversion factors, as set out in the FAO’s work on food energy, methods of analysis and conversion factors: the general factors of 4 kcal/g for protein, 9 kcal/g for fat and 4 kcal/g for available carbohydrate, with 3.75 kcal/g for available carbohydrate expressed as monosaccharide equivalents. These are average net energy values for mixed diets, derived from heats of combustion with corrections for digestibility and, for protein, for urinary nitrogen losses. This page uses the by-weight carbohydrate factor of 4 and prints the monosaccharide-equivalent figure as a comparison row only.
- Cross-reference within this plugin, recorded because the two pages must not appear to contradict each other. The parenteral nutrition macronutrient page costs intravenous dextrose at 3.4 kcal/g, because intravenous dextrose is the monohydrate: anhydrous glucose is about 3.75 kcal/g and the molecular-weight ratio 180.16/198.17 = 0.9091 brings that to 3.41, which is also the figure printed on the dextrose injection label. Costing intravenous dextrose at 4.0 kcal/g overstates it by 17.6 per cent. None of that applies to carbohydrate in food, where 4 kcal/g is the correct general factor, and this page states the distinction rather than leaving a reader to discover that two pages on the same site use three different numbers for carbohydrate.
- Verification performed for this page rather than taken from a source. The carbohydrate percentage is a computed remainder and therefore carries the floating-point boundary defect this project has found elsewhere. Sweeping every protein and fat percentage pair in steps of 0.1 points that sums to 100 or less — just over half a million pairs — the raw remainder and its one-decimal rounding disagree about the 45 per cent AMDR boundary in 72 cases. Restricting the sweep to splits whose protein is inside 10 to 35 per cent and whose fat is inside 20 to 35 leaves 30 of them, the first being protein 20.4 with fat 34.6, where the remainder evaluates to 44.99999999999999 instead of 45 — an entirely ordinary split that a strict comparison would report as outside the carbohydrate range. No disagreement arises at the 65 per cent carbohydrate boundary or at either protein or fat boundary, because those two percentages are typed rather than computed. All range tests on this page are therefore made on the one-decimal rounded figures, which are also the figures printed, moving the effective bounds to 9.95/34.95, 19.95/34.95 and 44.95/64.95.
- Licensing position taken for this page, recorded deliberately. The AMDR table is from National Academies consensus reports and is cited as figures with their labels, not as reproduced report text. The Australian and New Zealand nutrient reference values are cited by figure and by the substance of their stated reasoning rather than quoted. The Atwater factors are long-established conversion factors and are nobody’s property. No WHO publication is used anywhere on this page — WHO material is licensed CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO and the NonCommercial term rules it out for an advertising-supported site — and no NICE text, criteria or table is used, the NICE UK Open Content Licence being UK-only and forbidding display beside advertising. No criteria list is reproduced.
CalcEngines health calculators are for education and for checking arithmetic that has already been decided elsewhere. They are not medical advice, they do not decide what to give, and they do not replace the judgement of a doctor, nurse, midwife or dietitian who knows the person in front of them. Every figure depends on the values you enter and on the assumptions stated on the page — check it against the prescription, the product label and your local policy before acting on it.