Search a food, type how many grams, add another. Every number comes from a published table and says which one.
Estimates are for general guidance only and are not medical advice. For a personalised plan, book a free guided tour at RPM Gym.
The headline is the calories in what you actually entered, and underneath it are protein, carbohydrate, fat and fibre for the same list. Add a second food and everything moves; change a weight and it moves again. There is no daily target anywhere on this page, because the question it answers is what is in this food, not how much of it you should be eating.
Every food is stored per 100 g of edible portion, which is the form composition tables publish in, and the tool scales that to your weight. So 100 g of cooked chicken breast is exactly the 166 kcal the source lists, 150 g is 249, and 300 g is 498. That is the entire arithmetic — the work was in getting numbers worth scaling.
Each row shows where its figures came from, and with three tables in one catalogue that is not decoration. Raw chicken breast and cooked chicken breast are both real records with almost identical calories and wildly different protein, because cooking drives off water and concentrates what is left. The preparation beside each row is what tells them apart.
Where a row says a food publishes no fibre, that is the source being honest and the page passing it on. It does not mean zero fibre. Filling that gap with a nought would turn 'not measured' into 'measured as none', which is a different claim and a false one.
For each row: value = published per-100 g figure × grams ÷ 100 Meal total = the sum of the rows Displayed energy is the figure the SOURCE publishes. It is not recomputed from the macros beside it. A nutrient the source does not publish stays null. It is left out of the total and the page says how many rows it could not see, rather than counting it as zero.
A post-training plate: 180 g of boiled brown rice and 150 g of cooked chicken breast.
515 kcal across two rows from two different tables, and the fibre line reads 1.4 g with a note that one of the two items publishes none. That note is the page working properly: the USDA chicken record carries no fibre figure, so it is left out rather than added as a zero. The plate almost certainly contains no meaningful fibre from chicken — but 'almost certainly' is not what a published table says, and this page only prints what one does.
Three published composition tables: the Indian Food Composition Tables 2017, USDA FoodData Central Foundation Foods from the 2026-04-30 release, and the Food Composition Tables for the Kingdom of Bahrain, 2011. Every row keeps the release it came from and its record id inside that release, so any figure here can be looked up at the source rather than taken on trust.
Because its source publishes none for that food. That is different from publishing a zero, and the page keeps the difference: an unpublished value is left out of the fibre total and counted in the note that says how many rows were missing. Writing 0 there would be inventing a measurement nobody took.
Whichever the row says. The list carries both forms for several staples precisely because they are not interchangeable — boiled brown rice publishes 148 kcal per 100 g against 354 for raw — so the safe habit is to read the preparation on the row you picked and weigh to match it.
Because they are different milks in different tables. IFCT's whole cow milk is 73 kcal per 100 g at 4.5% fat; USDA's whole milk is 60 at 3.25%. Both are correctly published figures for the product each table sampled, and the source on the row is what tells you which one you are looking at. Picking the one that matches the carton in your fridge is the right move.
Because the page shows the energy the source published, not an energy we worked out from the macros. Composition tables derive energy in ways that vary — some use factors specific to that food — and quietly replacing their figure with our own arithmetic would misattribute the number to them. The recomputation still runs as an integrity check; it just never reaches the screen.
No, and that limit is deliberate. None of the three tables carries branded or restaurant items, and estimating one would mean typing a number no source published. What the catalogue can do is let you build the components — bread, labneh, rice, chicken, oil — which for home cooking is usually closer than a guess at a finished dish.
Ninety-seven, and yes. The search box matches the English name, the Arabic label and a set of everyday aliases, so searching in Arabic reaches the same records as searching in English — and so do transliterations like gahwa and khubz. An alias is only a way in: it names a record that already exists and can never carry a value of its own.
Most people find the same two surprises — the rice and the oil — and then never need the scales again. If you would rather set the eating up alongside the training than guess at both, the guided tour at Al Manhal is free.