Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Creatine has 4 calories (roughly) per gram. It is not required to be listed since they are not calories in the traditional sense. Since creatine shortens the step in the ATP process, instead of using what energy would next fall in line creatine steps in. Its not required to be listed because, excess pissed out, not all activities can even begin to use it.
Protein has 3.8xxxxxx~ calories.
Carbs have 4.32xxxxx~ calories
fat has 8.6xxxxxx~ calories
Obviously the numbers are rounded to their current ones for simplicity
(correct me if my numbers are off, remembering from a while back)
Interestingly protien has about .5 calories less per gram than carbs, this may also make sense why dieting on equal amounts of protien is more effective than its carb counter part. (for all of you that know about protein inneficiency at converting to glucose, I think this is already being taken into effect. starting both grams out as if they are 4 when reall they arn't accounts for a 12.5% energy difference between them, I know there are other things that degrade the amount of calories it provides as energy but I believe this is one of the reasons for the fairly larger difference)
Chock up another reason why 500 cals of protein or fat helps cutting better than carbs
protein 500 cals real value : ~475
Fat 500 cals real value : ~478
Carb 500 cals real value : ~538
Fiber conspiracy?
Taken from the side panal of Grape-Nuts (post)
Calories 210
Calories from fat 10
Total fat 1g
(txt omitted)
Total carbs 47g
Dietary fiber 5g
sugars 5g
other carbs 37g
Protein 6g
Ok it doesn't add up
(47*4) + (6*4) + (1*9) = 221 ok its off but,
They include the fiber in w/ the carbs (reason you subtract fiber from carb count)
So subtract the carb count from 221 - 20 = 201, It still doesn't ADD UP!
Now its also interesting to note that foods always average their cal count to the 10s, meaning you could be eating 54 calories a serving instead of 50 or 56 instead of 60, Unless the calorie count is 25 or below then increments of 5 are required. regardless it can't amount to any significant diffene except for extreme circumstances.
I realize they are allow a degree of error when evaluating values and then those values are rounded but you would think that the chart on the back would at least not contradict itself.
Protein has 3.8xxxxxx~ calories.
Carbs have 4.32xxxxx~ calories
fat has 8.6xxxxxx~ calories
Obviously the numbers are rounded to their current ones for simplicity
(correct me if my numbers are off, remembering from a while back)
Interestingly protien has about .5 calories less per gram than carbs, this may also make sense why dieting on equal amounts of protien is more effective than its carb counter part. (for all of you that know about protein inneficiency at converting to glucose, I think this is already being taken into effect. starting both grams out as if they are 4 when reall they arn't accounts for a 12.5% energy difference between them, I know there are other things that degrade the amount of calories it provides as energy but I believe this is one of the reasons for the fairly larger difference)
Chock up another reason why 500 cals of protein or fat helps cutting better than carbs
protein 500 cals real value : ~475
Fat 500 cals real value : ~478
Carb 500 cals real value : ~538
Fiber conspiracy?
Taken from the side panal of Grape-Nuts (post)
Calories 210
Calories from fat 10
Total fat 1g
(txt omitted)
Total carbs 47g
Dietary fiber 5g
sugars 5g
other carbs 37g
Protein 6g
Ok it doesn't add up
(47*4) + (6*4) + (1*9) = 221 ok its off but,
They include the fiber in w/ the carbs (reason you subtract fiber from carb count)
So subtract the carb count from 221 - 20 = 201, It still doesn't ADD UP!
Now its also interesting to note that foods always average their cal count to the 10s, meaning you could be eating 54 calories a serving instead of 50 or 56 instead of 60, Unless the calorie count is 25 or below then increments of 5 are required. regardless it can't amount to any significant diffene except for extreme circumstances.
I realize they are allow a degree of error when evaluating values and then those values are rounded but you would think that the chart on the back would at least not contradict itself.
