How much do macros REALLY matter?
Replies
-
some say the body doesn't care about percentages but I personally think macros are very important and for fat loss go for high protein, moderate good fat and low carb.
To use an exaggerated example , if person A ate 100% protein over a month and another person B ate 100% carbs or 100% fat, both on the same daily calories at a deficit, person A would lose more fat.
I would have assumed that high protein diets would be provide to most effective fat loss results, however, interestingly I found research to state otherwise - check it out for yourself
"Next, Kekwick and Pawan [the researchers in a 1956 study] put obese subjects on one of four different diets. The diets all had the same calorie count—1,000 calories per day—but the composition of those calories varied: 1,000 calories of a mixed or balanced diet, 1,000 calories with 90% from carbohydrate, 1,000 calories with 90% from protein, or 1,000 calories with 90% from fat. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, then patients should have lost roughly the same amount of weight on all four diets. Did they? No. Indeed, on the high-carbohydrate diet the patients actually gained a little weight, overall—on just 1,000 calories per day. They lost some weight on 1,000 calories per day of a balanced diet, and even more on 1,000 calories per day with 90% from protein. But overwhelmingly, patients lost the most weight on 1,000 calories per day when 90% of those calories came from fat. Kekwick and Pawan concluded, So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories."
Read more at... http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/03/21/book-review-fat-fast-cookbook/
Really surprised me to hear, what do you make of it?0 -
some say the body doesn't care about percentages but I personally think macros are very important and for fat loss go for high protein, moderate good fat and low carb.
To use an exaggerated example , if person A ate 100% protein over a month and another person B ate 100% carbs or 100% fat, both on the same daily calories at a deficit, person A would lose more fat.
I would have assumed that high protein diets would be provide to most effective fat loss results, however, interestingly I found research to state otherwise - check it out for yourself
"Next, Kekwick and Pawan [the researchers in a 1956 study] put obese subjects on one of four different diets. The diets all had the same calorie count—1,000 calories per day—but the composition of those calories varied: 1,000 calories of a mixed or balanced diet, 1,000 calories with 90% from carbohydrate, 1,000 calories with 90% from protein, or 1,000 calories with 90% from fat. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, then patients should have lost roughly the same amount of weight on all four diets. Did they? No. Indeed, on the high-carbohydrate diet the patients actually gained a little weight, overall—on just 1,000 calories per day. They lost some weight on 1,000 calories per day of a balanced diet, and even more on 1,000 calories per day with 90% from protein. But overwhelmingly, patients lost the most weight on 1,000 calories per day when 90% of those calories came from fat. Kekwick and Pawan concluded, So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories."
Read more at... http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/03/21/book-review-fat-fast-cookbook/
Really surprised me to hear, what do you make of it?
Carbohydrates are associated with glycogen retention. average person can hold about 500g of carbs in their system. that's 3g for every carbs so lets just say its 4.5 lbs.
There are many weaknesses to this study that I can read from this summary alone
Weight loss =/= fat loss.
they could have lost muscle,
lost water retention
Only properly way to do it is a dexa scan to measure0 -
Fathead? 90% fat? Okayyyyy...0
-
So basically what I'm hearing is that there really isn't a proven "ideal" ratio for macro nutrients. Also, as long as I'm getting enough protein and fats, and making sure I'm not going overboard on the carbs, my macros shouldn't effect my weight loss. I'm planning on sticking to the percentages I feel comfortable with, and just listening to my body:) Thanks for the responses everyone!!0
-
some say the body doesn't care about percentages but I personally think macros are very important and for fat loss go for high protein, moderate good fat and low carb.
To use an exaggerated example , if person A ate 100% protein over a month and another person B ate 100% carbs or 100% fat, both on the same daily calories at a deficit, person A would lose more fat.
I would have assumed that high protein diets would be provide to most effective fat loss results, however, interestingly I found research to state otherwise - check it out for yourself
"Next, Kekwick and Pawan [the researchers in a 1956 study] put obese subjects on one of four different diets. The diets all had the same calorie count—1,000 calories per day—but the composition of those calories varied: 1,000 calories of a mixed or balanced diet, 1,000 calories with 90% from carbohydrate, 1,000 calories with 90% from protein, or 1,000 calories with 90% from fat. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, then patients should have lost roughly the same amount of weight on all four diets. Did they? No. Indeed, on the high-carbohydrate diet the patients actually gained a little weight, overall—on just 1,000 calories per day. They lost some weight on 1,000 calories per day of a balanced diet, and even more on 1,000 calories per day with 90% from protein. But overwhelmingly, patients lost the most weight on 1,000 calories per day when 90% of those calories came from fat. Kekwick and Pawan concluded, So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories."
Read more at... http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/03/21/book-review-fat-fast-cookbook/
Really surprised me to hear, what do you make of it?
Carbohydrates are associated with glycogen retention. average person can hold about 500g of carbs in their system. that's 3g for every carbs so lets just say its 4.5 lbs.
There are many weaknesses to this study that I can read from this summary alone
Weight loss =/= fat loss.
they could have lost muscle,
lost water retention
Only properly way to do it is a dexa scan to measure
Ya I just thought it was an interesting read, I can understand your point of view, apparently the atkins fat fast diet with <90% fat ratios was devised in order to be most effective for those with metabolic resistant disorders such as thyroid dysfunction and to only be used for a period of 5 days.
Personally, I believe that moderate-to-high fat, moderate protein and low carb is the best way to go. The only problem with having too much protein is that if there isn't sufficient fat, the body can apparently convert up to half of the protein into glucose.0 -
Fathead? 90% fat? Okayyyyy...
May I ask what or who fathead is in reference to there?0 -
Fathead? 90% fat? Okayyyyy...
May I ask what or who fathead is in reference to there?
Perhaps that person meant this movie: http://www.fathead-movie.com/
0 -
I'd agree with what everyone else seems to be saying, to an extent - unless you have a specific goal involving a macro, it won't matter a lot in terms of weight loss.
I do think that keeping an eye on them can be helpful, though - even if you don't have diabetes NOW, if you're constantly eating 70% of your daily intake in carbs, you may be setting yourself up for Type II in the future. Same goes for fats - even if you have no concerns about your heart health right now, if you're always eating very fattening animal products, you may have problems with heart disease later.
I also don't agree with the goals that are automatically set by MFP - I think 55% carbs is a bit too high. I do however, almost always go over my sugar allowance for the day even when I keep total carbs low. I tried a week where the only sugar I got was from fruit, and I still went over the MFP sugar goal for the day.
Honestly, I'd rather eat the fruit. It's still loaded with other good stuff.0 -
Now that I've been logging for 6 weeks I'm finally cracking down on Macros. It's hard. I could live on rice and beans and this hurts my carb percentage. Grrr.0
-
Basically just tightening up any softness and getting more muscle definition!what is toning?
How does one tone a muscle? Do you mean hypertrophy?0 -
Basically just tightening up any softness and getting more muscle definition!what is toning?
so you mean lifting heavy *kitten*?0 -
So basically what I'm hearing is that there really isn't a proven "ideal" ratio for macro nutrients. Also, as long as I'm getting enough protein and fats, and making sure I'm not going overboard on the carbs, my macros shouldn't effect my weight loss. I'm planning on sticking to the percentages I feel comfortable with, and just listening to my body:) Thanks for the responses everyone!!
Pretty much...0 -
yes, you should pay attention to them...
It is pretty tough to hit them exactly each day, so I try to make that I am in my percentages for the week ...
what is toning?
You know! Quit being silly.
Muscle tone is the state of muscle tension inside a muscle or muscle group when it is at rest. residual muscle tension or tonus ?
IDK ask the OP she brought up toning....0 -
If you are at your calorie goal and still feel healthy then I'd say you are right on track. I'm only half way to my goal and I too consider myself to be an average person who eats average to meet his calorie goal. From what I've read in the forums, you only need to pay attention to macros and further nit-pick your foods only if you wish to get super lean/ripped or have health issues. Just my two cents.
Thank you! I've been stressing about macros and feeling like I am failing, but this makes real sense to me.0 -
They are just markers to make sure you eat a range, some people just live on French fries without dying.0
-
It also depends on your health issues. As a Diabetic I have to keep my daily carb intake fairly low to avoid glucose spikes.0
-
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.0 -
They are important, however, treat your protein as a daily minimum, your fats as an average weekly minimum and your carbs are variable.
Simplistically:
Protein: muscle retention (combined with resistance training) while dieting
Fats: healthy body functions and hormonal balance
Carbs: energy
Yup0 -
Macros start to matter more as you get leaner.
When big n' fat, virtually all weight loss is fat loss, chances are you have low capacity for high intensity exercise, and your body doesn't fight against fat loss very hard.
As you get leaner, things change.
LBM loss will eventually become a significant factor as you get leaner (to the point where weight loss will cease to cause you to get leaner unless you take steps to prevent its loss). This is where protein come in, an elevated protein intake helps to spare the loss of muscle mass (especially when combined with strength training).
As you increase the intensity of exercise you end up doing exercise that burns carbs at a very high rate. Too low of a carb intake will cause very subpar workouts and will cause you to hit "the wall" early in your workouts. Less of a factor for slow endurance exercise, but for more intense exercise, it makes a difference.
Eventually as you get leaner your body will start fighting weight loss for real. Hunger will become far more intense and you'll see other side effects that didn't happen when you were more fat. Periodic short lived massive carb intakes (with low fat intake) will help to keep these effects to a minimum.
The most relevant macro though is protein. As you get to the overweight stage from obese, it starts to matter a lot. Too little protein and not enough strength training = skinnyfat. Nobody wants to end up skinnyfat, it is a very difficult (and time consuming) state to get out of.0 -
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
wow, thanks for classifying anyone who questioned the toning comment as a "meathead"...stereotype, much?
I did not know that one had had to be a meathead to want to continually improve on your strength and training goals. But if being a "meathead" means that I am progressively bettering my lifts, then I am Emperor Meathead from the planet Meatonia in the Meatopolex star system...0 -
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
lolwut? Who is rubbing anyone's face in anything when suggesting tracking macros?
Also, you say macros do not matter then immediately say that as long as you get enough of everything and are not deficient...how do those two statements align?0 -
If what you're doing now is working then don't worry about it. At some point in the future if your fitness/ weight loss goals come to a standstill, it might be good to take a look into the past and see what your overall diet looks like with regard to macros. I tend to naturally choose a more carb heavy diet so I will try to make a more conscious effort to get more protein in, and look at overall trends when I'm having issues.
ETA* Trying to meet calorie and all macros requirements every single day can be completely overwhelmingt, I like to go by calories first, and adjust macros to fit the MFP set goals if it works in my day. I find that most days I am pretty darn close except always over in sugar.0 -
How do I find out what my macros should be? I'm always over on sugar, under on fat and carbs and over in proteins0
-
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
wow, thanks for classifying anyone who questioned the toning comment as a "meathead"...stereotype, much?
I did not know that one had had to be a meathead to want to continually improve on your strength and training goals. But if being a "meathead" means that I am progressively bettering my lifts, then I am Emperor Meathead from the planet Meatonia in the Meatopolex star system...
Didn't mean any disrespect. But answering her honest question with a question of your own is not benefiting her at all is it? Why not be patient and explain the nuances of her goals to her?0 -
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
lolwut? Who is rubbing anyone's face in anything when suggesting tracking macros?
Also, you say macros do not matter then immediately say that as long as you get enough of everything and are not deficient...how do those two statements align?
They align perfectly in the sense that minimum essential values should be met, though strict ratio assignments don't have to be. Obviously markers for protein deficiency would indicate you need more protein, and the symptoms of not enough essential fats would indicate you should increase fats. But following a rigid 45/35/25? or a 40/30/30 or a 20/50/30? No, not necessary for the average person looking to shed a few pounds.0 -
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
wow, thanks for classifying anyone who questioned the toning comment as a "meathead"...stereotype, much?
I did not know that one had had to be a meathead to want to continually improve on your strength and training goals. But if being a "meathead" means that I am progressively bettering my lifts, then I am Emperor Meathead from the planet Meatonia in the Meatopolex star system...
Didn't mean any disrespect. But answering her honest question with a question of your own is not benefiting her at all is it? Why not be patient and explain the nuances of her goals to her?
all I asked is what she defined toning as ...I don't see how that is impatient...0 -
Short answer is no. For the average dieter, as long as you get enough for everything and are not deficient, the proportion of macros in your diet will not affect how effectively you lose weight in the long term...when coupled with modest exercise of a progressive nature...and assuming you have no insulin sensitivity issues or are diabetic.
People rubbing your face in macro comp are people that are intrinsically active to a high degree...and they assume that everyone should be trying to achieve some pinnacle of fitness that they themselves are striving for, therefore it boggles their minds that you are not eating crazy amounts of carbs...to fuel grueling daily workouts, to add 5lbs to your 300 pound squat every three weeks. You'll have to forgive these individuals.
Got it, you meatheads. There is no such thing as toning, but you know what she means, and there's no point in just trolling her on the definition of toning. We all at one point tried to tone. Everyone relax.
To achieve the toned look you are looking for is basically just a process of building a respectable amount of muscle, then losing fat in a way that preserves the muscle that you've put on. In this case, attention to macros will come into play as an important tool to efficiently achieving this ideal in the shortest time possible.
wow, thanks for classifying anyone who questioned the toning comment as a "meathead"...stereotype, much?
I did not know that one had had to be a meathead to want to continually improve on your strength and training goals. But if being a "meathead" means that I am progressively bettering my lifts, then I am Emperor Meathead from the planet Meatonia in the Meatopolex star system...
Didn't mean any disrespect. But answering her honest question with a question of your own is not benefiting her at all is it? Why not be patient and explain the nuances of her goals to her?
all I asked is what she defined toning as ...I don't see how that is impatient...
She probably defines it as being toned (correct me if im wrong). Like looking tighter..with some definition. the meaning of the word is not at all confusing when viewed in the context of a fitness forum.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions