Why are macros important?

2»

Replies

  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    edited September 2015
    Anything where you use your muscles to move your body weight is considered a weight-bearing activity and is good for you. As a female, they are especially good to maintain bone mass and prevent osteoporosis. Many of them (walking, running, swimming, etc.) are also good for the cardiovascular system. Will you get the same look by rock climbing as you would by lifting? No. Do you WANT the same look? That is entirely up to you.

    The best exercises are the ones that you will do.
  • Achaila
    Achaila Posts: 264 Member
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!

    Whatever method you use to reach your target calorie deficit is the right way for you to do it.

  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
    Watching your macros is watching your calories, just in a roundabout way.

    You can watch calories while ignoring macros but you can't watch your macros without calories being controlled as well because calories are "baked in" to the macro values.

    Great job on the weight loss!
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
    Watching your macros is watching your calories, just in a roundabout way.

    You can watch calories while ignoring macros but you can't watch your macros without calories being controlled as well because calories are "baked in" to the macro values.

    Great job on the weight loss!

    While I agree with the sentiment of this post, and it certainly applies to the majority of MFPers...

    It does depend on how you treat/view your macro goals. Some people treat them as limits, as in get close to but don't go over, in which case your post is correct. However, some other people treat protein (and sometimes fat) as minimums, as in hit or go over, but don't stay under... in which case it is very possible to go over your calorie goal while still hitting your macro goals.
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
    Watching your macros is watching your calories, just in a roundabout way.

    You can watch calories while ignoring macros but you can't watch your macros without calories being controlled as well because calories are "baked in" to the macro values.

    Great job on the weight loss!

    While I agree with the sentiment of this post, and it certainly applies to the majority of MFPers...

    It does depend on how you treat/view your macro goals. Some people treat them as limits, as in get close to but don't go over, in which case your post is correct. However, some other people treat protein (and sometimes fat) as minimums, as in hit or go over, but don't stay under... in which case it is very possible to go over your calorie goal while still hitting your macro goals.

    and some do both. As a T2Dm, my carb macro is a maximum but my protein and fat are minimums.

  • sixxpoint
    sixxpoint Posts: 3,529 Member
    edited September 2015
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
    Watching your macros is watching your calories, just in a roundabout way.

    You can watch calories while ignoring macros but you can't watch your macros without calories being controlled as well because calories are "baked in" to the macro values.

    Great job on the weight loss!

    While I agree with the sentiment of this post, and it certainly applies to the majority of MFPers...

    It does depend on how you treat/view your macro goals. Some people treat them as limits, as in get close to but don't go over, in which case your post is correct. However, some other people treat protein (and sometimes fat) as minimums, as in hit or go over, but don't stay under... in which case it is very possible to go over your calorie goal while still hitting your macro goals.

    No, it's not.

    The average active person who hits their protein and dietary fat minimums will still have several hundred calories to consume before any concerns of overeating.

    Loose example:

    80-130 grams protein = 320-520 calories
    44-76 grams dietary fat = 396-684 calories

    Total calories just from hitting protein and dietary fat minimums = 716-1204 cals
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    edited September 2015
    sixxpoint wrote: »
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    Achaila wrote: »
    I watch my macros more than I watch my calories. And I've lost 63 pounds so..i dont know. Must be a stupid thing to do amiright?!
    Watching your macros is watching your calories, just in a roundabout way.

    You can watch calories while ignoring macros but you can't watch your macros without calories being controlled as well because calories are "baked in" to the macro values.

    Great job on the weight loss!

    While I agree with the sentiment of this post, and it certainly applies to the majority of MFPers...

    It does depend on how you treat/view your macro goals. Some people treat them as limits, as in get close to but don't go over, in which case your post is correct. However, some other people treat protein (and sometimes fat) as minimums, as in hit or go over, but don't stay under... in which case it is very possible to go over your calorie goal while still hitting your macro goals.

    No, it's not.

    The average active person who hits their protein and dietary fat minimums will still have several hundred calories to consume before any concerns of overeating.

    Loose example:

    80-130 grams protein = 320-520 calories
    44-76 grams dietary fat = 396-684 calories

    Total calories just from hitting protein and dietary fat minimums = 716-1204 cals


    You just can't stand it when I say that something might depend or be different based on the individual, can you?



    Yes you're right... for people who approach macros that way, you are correct (assuming we aren't talking abnormal carb intakes).

    However, take this example -

    macro goals:
    protein: 125g minimum
    fat: 50g minimum
    carbs: 200g maximum.

    Hitting those numbers exactly = 1750 cals, which is a reasonable intake for weight loss for many people.

    However, in treating protein and fat as minimums, what happens when they go over? Let's say 165g protein and 75g fat, with the same 200g carbs. Now you're up to 2135 total cals. Still probably ok for many, but certainly not all of MFP. And those numbers aren't even that high... fats could very easily be higher than that, and total cals could easily hit 2500 or more, which would be problematic for many MFPers.

    So...
    - if you have goals for each of the 3 macros
    - if you treat fat and protein as minimums

    ... it is VERY possible to hit your macro goals (over in fats, over in protein, close in carbs) AND be in a calorie surplus.

  • sixxpoint
    sixxpoint Posts: 3,529 Member
    edited September 2015
    jacksonpt wrote: »
    Yes you're right... for people who approach macros that way, you are correct (assuming we aren't talking abnormal carb intakes).

    However, take this example -

    macro goals:
    protein: 125g minimum
    fat: 50g minimum
    carbs: 200g maximum.

    Hitting those numbers exactly = 1750 cals, which is a reasonable intake for weight loss for many people.

    However, in treating protein and fat as minimums, what happens when they go over? Let's say 165g protein and 75g fat, with the same 200g carbs. Now you're up to 2135 total cals. Still probably ok for many, but certainly not all of MFP. And those numbers aren't even that high... fats could very easily be higher than that, and total cals could easily hit 2500 or more, which would be problematic for many MFPers.

    So...
    - if you have goals for each of the 3 macros
    - if you treat fat and protein as minimums

    ... it is VERY possible to go over total cals and be in a surplus.


    No... It's still not.

    You talked about macro minimums. Protein and dietary fat have minimums; carbs do not. Therefore, why are you including carbs in this mix?

    The truth still stands: Most active individuals will not exceed roughly 700-1200 calories after fulfilling their protein and fat minimums. That gives them a ton of leeway for carbs, more protein, or more dietary fat before they even begin to overeat.


    By the way, you'd have to be 275 lb. and not be obese to have 165 g protein as your minimum.
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    yes, dear.
  • sixxpoint
    sixxpoint Posts: 3,529 Member
    It's not that difficult to understand, Petunia.
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    Where's the ignore button?
This discussion has been closed.