Best macro ratio

nesk2425

I'm trying to figure out the best way to lose weight. So far I have been trying to get my macros 35% protein 35% carbs and 30% fat. But I'm beginning to see that I need to learn how to figure it all out but everyone seems to have different opinions. Can anyone help?

seska422

For weight loss, the most important part is that the macro balance works for you. You need to get at least enough protein and fat. Beyond that, I'd recommend that you keep the macros close to the balance that you normally eat.

The fewer changes you make, the easier it is to stick with a weight loss program.

The MFP default of 50%C-20%P-30%F has worked just fine for me.

livingleanlivingclean

percentages are not macros, and there is no best. You need sufficient protein and fat grams, then the rest can be carbs, or a combination of carbs, more protein and fat.

Losing weight ultimately comes down to calories. body composition, satiety/satisfaction and health will be more determined by macros within the calorie allowance. This is personal and depends upon the individual...

rebekahstrachan3

make your calories count by macro counting. set your calories to 1500 with 50% protein, 25% carbs and 25% fats, this really helped me out when I first started off and I lost 12lbs in 25 days. Remember carbohydrates turn to glycogen which is stored in the muscle and when the glycogen stores over flow it is converted into fat so you need to keep carbohydrates at a moderate level to ensure fat loss. The body uses fat and carbohydrates as energy sources and proteins for building blocks and cell regeneration. Hope this helps.

jacklifts

Your macro breakdown looks good.
If you want, you can use these ranges

AnvilHead

There's a pretty good guide to setting up your macros here, along with how to do the calculations: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets/p1

Erfw7471

jacklifts wrote: »

Your macro breakdown looks good.
If you want, you can use these ranges

Unless the OP is prepping for a bodybuilding contest, I'm not sure this is optimum for him/her - personal preferences & abilities need to be taken into account as well.

OP, what are your goals? Are you currently exercising (how much and what type)? What type of foods do you like to eat and what does your current diet consist of? How much weight are you wanting to lose? What are your stats?

The setting targets link above is a good one.

Vortex88

33%/33%/33% CALS (bearing in mind fat has more than twice the calories per gram than protein and carbs) from each is a good place to start for most people e.g. 2000 cals would be 166g protein / 166g carbs / 74g fat. Great place to start and adjust from there.

lemurcat12

It's unlikely to matter that much, but picking one and sticking with it for a while and seeing how you feel is a good way to start and those are fine macro percentages to start with.

Yi5hedr3

20/20/60

hazleyes81

^ This. Pick something. Stick with it for at least a couple of weeks. Measure your food and activity accurately. Gauge your energy levels, cravings, etc accurately.

Don't put anything off limits, unless it is a trigger food. For instance, I eat low carb, but this is not to restrict me but because I know that (for me) many carbs trigger cravings and binges, stomach upset, and lethargy. Luckily this means I eat a LOT of vegetables and high fiber/healthy fat carbs. Secondly, I LOVE chinese food, and making it off limits makes for an unsatisfying and unsustainable way of eating. So I have chinese food about once a week, sans rice.

It's all about finding what works for you, physically AND mentally. It takes time, being realistic and honest, and dedication.

LHWhite903

@nesk2425 , @hazleyes81 is correct. We have to work out what's best for us.

Mine are 45% carbs, 35% fat and 20% protein. On carbs, for me, this is neither high enough to hurt my head nor low enough to weaken my energy. On this, I can do well whether I rest all day or do a bit of exercise.

BeinLoved

I'm currently set at 39%P, 33%C, 28%F and am having awesome success with these ratios. I'm focusing on muscle gains and fat loss through weight training followed by low intensity cardio (HR in the 140s) 5 days a week. I agree with the above statements of setting your macros and sticking with it for a few weeks to determine what needs to be adjusted.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.

This actually would be a point to debate -- if you want to debate it, why not start a thread?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

StealthHealth

seska422 wrote: »

For weight loss, the most important part is that the macro balance works for you. You need to get at least enough protein and fat. Beyond that, I'd recommend that you keep the macros close to the balance that you normally eat.

^^agree

J72FIT

Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...

lemurcat12

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This actually would be a point to debate -- if you want to debate it, why not start a thread?

Dear @lemurcat12 why me? what about other participants who stated their ratios like 45% carbs, 35% fat and 20% protein, or 33%/33%/33% CALS or 50% protein, 25% carbs and 25% fats?? Why singling me out?

Because I don't think the first question was really a debate question and most people were saying things like "it's individual, whatever works for you, this is what I do." You seemed to be actually asserting that certain macros were best, and I think that is a debate topic likely to be lost in the advice thread.

For the record, as I said upthread, I don't think specific macros are particularly important beyond certain minimums, as traditional human diets with positive health outcomes are all over the place. For specific goals or health issues they may matter more, but one can have a horrible diet with 70% carbs and a great diet with 70% carbs and same with lower carb diets, higher fat diets, etc.

StealthHealth

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.

I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

goldthistime

I'm totally with the "whatever works for you" crowd. I started with the default setting, tried to switch to 40 30 30, found it uncomfortable when I achieved it (which I rarely did) and gave up and went back to default. If I go over on protein, no problem. Great even. But if I'm under come dinner time, I fix it, even if it means eating just meat and a salad, or a protein supplement. I'm cautious about it because when protein ratio is too low (carbs too high), I am far more likely to crave carbs and feel hungry.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lemurcat12

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This actually would be a point to debate -- if you want to debate it, why not start a thread?

Dear @lemurcat12 why me? what about other participants who stated their ratios like 45% carbs, 35% fat and 20% protein, or 33%/33%/33% CALS or 50% protein, 25% carbs and 25% fats?? Why singling me out?

Because I don't think the first question was really a debate question and most people were saying things like "it's individual, whatever works for you, this is what I do." You seemed to be actually asserting that certain macros were best, and I think that is a debate topic likely to be lost in the advice thread.

For the record, as I said upthread, I don't think specific macros are particularly important beyond certain minimums, as traditional human diets with positive health outcomes are all over the place. For specific goals or health issues they may matter more, but one can have a horrible diet with 70% carbs and a great diet with 70% carbs and same with lower carb diets, higher fat diets, etc.

I am not asserting, I am talking about personal experience based on scientific research. So the "asserting" bit is merely your perception.

"debate topic likely to be lost in the advice thread" that is by definition arrogance, if I were you I wouldn't be so confident. I would be more modest. with all due respect

What's arrogant about that? This section is for debate. I have seen you assert that a HCLF diet is best in other threads, believed you did that here, I thought you might want to debate it. I wasn't being critical. If you are just saying it's what worked for you and it depends on the individual, I misread you.

earlnabby

lemurcat12 wrote: »

It's unlikely to matter that much, but picking one and sticking with it for a while and seeing how you feel is a good way to start and those are fine macro percentages to start with.

Agreed. Your macro breakdown is the same as mine and this has worked out great for me so I haven't had any reason to change them. It is unusual to get it right the first time, but you have found a good starting point.

StealthHealth

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

StealthHealth wrote: »

I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?

Correct, it will happen through hunger signals and intuitive eating. I eat when I feel real hunger, I eat enough, and I eat whole-plants food. My body takes care of the weight.

Real hunger is the hunger that I feel when I am not thirsty, sleepy or bored/lonely/stressed.. etc.

The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ndj1979

nesk2425 wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out the best way to lose weight. So far I have been trying to get my macros 35% protein 35% carbs and 30% fat. But I'm beginning to see that I need to learn how to figure it all out but everyone seems to have different opinions. Can anyone help?

for weight loss you need a calorie deficit, period. Macros don't have anything to do with it.

however,if you want to maintain muscle mass I would suggest about .85 grams of protein per pound of body weight; .45 grams of fat, and fill in the rest with carbs....

I would also suggest that you follow a structured lifting program like strong lifts, all pro beginner, etc...

ndj1979

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.

if OP wants to preserve muscle mass than getting 12% protein is a horrible idea...

and avoiding animal foods has nothing to do with this topic...

StealthHealth

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

StealthHealth wrote: »

The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.

On the face of it, it seems problematic, but think of it, what is easier? to have behavioural healthy habits toward food that comes out without much thinking but needs a period of training for many people (you gain good habits after training). Or, keep thinking of the numbers of what is consumed and feel emotional pressure for what can be eaten and not be eaten and eventually fall or have cheat days?

I agree, IE is the holy grail. But for most, unachievable for many reasons not least that, from my limited experience of people who have achieved it, they always seem to have self imposed eating rules which limit choice and bad behaviours. You are an example of this (although I concede that you have not stated that you IE in maintenance, only that it is currently working as a loss tool) in that you have a set of food principles which preclude certain foods.

The emotional pressure leading to a fall or cheat days that you mention in your post can apply to restricting food groups just as much as it can from continual logging.

lemurcat12

StealthHealth wrote: »

PlantBasedKnight wrote: »

StealthHealth wrote: »

I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?

Correct, it will happen through hunger signals and intuitive eating. I eat when I feel real hunger, I eat enough, and I eat whole-plants food. My body takes care of the weight.

Real hunger is the hunger that I feel when I am not thirsty, sleepy or bored/lonely/stressed.. etc.

The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.

Yes, I agree with this. I don't think many humans are easily able to distinguish "real hunger" from other desires to eat or that "real hunger" necessarily is in line with how many calories one needs to lose or maintain weight. Historically humans didn't rely simply on hunger -- food was scarce and people ate when food was available (probably more than they needed) and suffered through periods when food was less available. Even in more abundant times there have been cultural restrictions on eating like ideas about what a good meal is and meal times. Having the current situation where food is cheap, always available, and there are few restrictions as to what to eat or how often presents something that we aren't necessarily evolved to deal with, so the obesity rate is not surprising.

What works for me is mindfulness -- thinking in terms of how much I ought to be eating (which does not require strict counting) eating only at regular times of the day (I prefer 3 meals, don't think this matters), and serving size, as well as getting a good bit of low calorie, filling food like vegetables, and overall balanced meals (which I believe includes a variety of carbs like vegetables and starch, fat, and protein). I find that my appetite is better controlled by mind and habit than thinking I can just follow hunger signals (and the reverse of this, which is helpful to me, is that I don't tend to struggle with hunger any more than I have an easy "no more eating" signal).