Adding a strict filter keeps only meals that satisfy the new condition as well as the existing ones. It does not add a second pool of options. One meal must meet all the explicit limits together.
A three-order example
Imagine A has 450 calories and 20 g protein; B has 600 and 35 g; C has 520 and 28 g. A maximum of 550 calories keeps A and C. A minimum of 25 g protein keeps B and C. Applying both conditions together keeps only C.
Why a no-match state is legitimate
If you reduce the calorie maximum to 500 while retaining that protein minimum, none of these examples matches. Silently ignoring one condition would make the page seem helpful while violating the search you asked for.
Change one condition deliberately
Review the active filter summary. Clear or edit a limit explicitly, then compare the new count. A useful interface should show which controls are active and offer a clear reset without modifying them on your behalf.
FDA’s menu and serving guidance supports the nutrition inputs, while the filtering logic is original product arithmetic. The fictional thresholds are not recommendations for your lunch. GetMacros should preserve explicit preferences through a quiz, direct browsing and shared link, with unknown required values kept out of strict-limit certification rather than treated as zero.
Sources and example boundaries
- FDA: menu labeling
Written nutrition information and menu-labeling scope.
- FDA: serving information
Serving sizes and household/metric units on U.S. labels.
All food figures and prices in the worked example are invented to explain the method. They are not restaurant nutrition, tested recipes, shopping prices or personal dietary advice. Use the current label for the product you actually have.