Food Calorie & Nutrition Lookup
Calories, protein, carbohydrate and fat for common foods, searchable with portion scaling — and what the numbers do not capture.
94 common foods with USDA-typical values, macro-checked for internal consistency (calories ≈ 4×protein + 4×carbs + 9×fat; alcohol adds calories macros don't show). Real products vary by brand and preparation — a restaurant portion is rarely one serving.
Multiply out the macros and you should get the calories back
The Atwater system gives 4 calories to a gram of protein, 4 to a gram of carbohydrate and 9 to a gram of fat. Running that over all 94 foods here and comparing with the stated calorie figure gives a mean signed error of 1.0% — close enough to nothing that the table is plainly built on the same arithmetic.
| Within | Foods | Share |
|---|---|---|
| 5% | 58 of 94 | 62% |
| 10% | 72 of 94 | 77% |
| 15% | 81 of 94 | 86% |
| 20% | 87 of 94 | 93% |
The interesting part is where it fails, because it fails in exactly two places and both have a physical reason. Sorted by mean error, the eight categories run from -24.9% for drinks to +15.1% for vegetables, with everything else clustered near zero.
| Category | Foods | Mean error |
|---|---|---|
| Drinks | 10 | -24.9% |
| Proteins | 18 | -0.1% |
| Dairy & eggs | 10 | -0.1% |
| Grains & bread | 12 | +0.0% |
| Fast food | 10 | +0.5% |
| Snacks & sweets | 10 | +2.9% |
| Fruits | 12 | +11.2% |
| Vegetables | 12 | +15.1% |
The drinks come up short because alcohol is not one of the three
The 10 drinks average 24.9% below their stated calories, and the alcoholic ones are far worse than that. A glass of red wine is listed at 125 calories and its protein, carbohydrate and fat account for 15.6 — a shortfall of 109. Nothing is wrong with the numbers. Ethanol carries about 7 calories a gram and is neither a protein, a carbohydrate nor a fat, so it lands in the calorie column and in none of the three that are supposed to explain it. A 147 ml glass at 12% holds 13.9 grams of it, worth roughly 97 calories — most of the gap.
| Drink | Stated | Macros account for | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beer | 153 | 56.8 | -62.9% |
| Light beer | 103 | 26.8 | -74.0% |
| Red wine | 125 | 15.6 | -87.5% |
This is the single most common way a nutrition label confuses people: the numbers do not add up because a fourth energy source exists and is not listed.
And every one of the 24 fruits and vegetables comes out too high
Not most of them. All 24 of 24, without exception. Vegetables average 15.1% above their stated calories and fruit 11.2%, against -3.1% for everything else. Fibre is counted in the carbohydrate column but the body does not extract 4 calories a gram from it — closer to nothing for the insoluble kind. So the carbohydrate figure on a stalk of broccoli is real and its energy value is not, and the arithmetic overstates by roughly the fibre.
The remaining 5 categories behave almost exactly — proteins -0.1%, dairy & eggs -0.1%, grains & bread +0.0%, fast food +0.5%, snacks & sweets +2.9% — and split evenly above and below, 35 of 70 on each side. Where the three macros are the whole story the arithmetic is essentially exact; where they are not, it is off by the size of what is missing.
How to use
- Search for the food.
- Scale the portion to what you actually ate.
- Weigh rather than estimate where it matters.
- Treat the figures as approximate.
Frequently asked questions
How accurate are calorie figures?
Approximate. Food labels are permitted a margin of error in most jurisdictions, natural products vary between individual items, and the standard system for assigning calories to macronutrients is a nineteenth-century approximation. Errors of ten per cent or more are entirely ordinary.
Does cooking change the calorie count?
It can, and the effect is real. Cooking makes some foods more digestible, so more of their energy is actually absorbed — cooked starch and cooked meat both yield more usable energy than raw. The label figure does not distinguish, which is one of several reasons calories are not as exact as they appear.
Do all calories affect the body the same way?
For energy balance, broadly, but not for satiety or for what happens next. Protein has a substantially higher thermic effect, meaning more of its energy is spent digesting it, and it is far more filling per calorie. Two identical-calorie meals can leave you in quite different states.
Should I weigh food or estimate portions?
Weigh, if the number matters to you — estimation errors are large and consistently in one direction, since people underestimate portions of energy-dense food. If tracking is causing more stress than it is worth, that is a good reason to stop rather than to estimate.
Are the numbers here specific to my brand?
No. These are typical values for generic foods, and packaged products vary considerably between manufacturers. For anything packaged, the label on the item in front of you is the better source.
Is tracking calories a good idea?
For some people it is genuinely useful, and for others it is not. It can help build an understanding of energy density, and it can also become preoccupying in ways that are unhelpful. Anyone with a history of disordered eating should approach it with a professional rather than an app, and nothing here is dietary advice.
🔒 This tool runs entirely in your browser. Nothing you enter is uploaded, logged, or stored.