Does anyone ignore the calorie counter?
Replies
-
No1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
This is what i was trying to say, why track three macros when you can just track one, calories?? Plus trying to hit Protein, fat, carbs and fibre day in day out would drive me nuts. My macros are all over the place, never the same two days in a row.
Depending on one's goals there are certain minimums that should be hit for fat and protein. That's why. One can certainly lose weight just counting calories, but some of us have additional goals. I also track my fiber and micros. You should see my lifting spreadsheet! Yes, I'm a tad data driven . . . But, I know a few who are even more so.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
This is what i was trying to say, why track three macros when you can just track one, calories?? Plus trying to hit Protein, fat, carbs and fibre day in day out would drive me nuts. My macros are all over the place, never the same two days in a row.
Depending on one's goals there are certain minimums that should be hit for fat and protein. That's why. One can certainly lose weight just counting calories, but some of us have additional goals. I also track my fiber and micros. You should see my lifting spreadsheet! Yes, I'm a tad data driven . . . But, I know a few who are even more so.
I get what you're saying. I definitely watch my protein and fat intake, but i pay more attention to my calories and make sure they're right before stressing about anything else, I'm not an athlete or body builder though.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
This is what i was trying to say, why track three macros when you can just track one, calories?? Plus trying to hit Protein, fat, carbs and fibre day in day out would drive me nuts. My macros are all over the place, never the same two days in a row.
Depending on one's goals there are certain minimums that should be hit for fat and protein. That's why. One can certainly lose weight just counting calories, but some of us have additional goals. I also track my fiber and micros. You should see my lifting spreadsheet! Yes, I'm a tad data driven . . . But, I know a few who are even more so.
I get what you're saying. I definitely watch my protein and fat intake, but i pay more attention to my calories and make sure they're right before stressing about anything else, I'm not an athlete or body builder though.
I think your last point is important. I think we all have to assess what we do in light of our goals. Lifting has become a hobby of mine so I put more effort into it than I otherwise would, but less than someone competing. Consistency is my biggest challenge. Just being on here helps me though.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »But, I know a few who are even more so.
That would be me. I started off just caring about calories, but after much learning on MFP, I started paying attention to my macros, then my micros, and now, every single day, I track all of the ones that MFP has for their standard settings. I like data, and I have nothing better to do, so I actually find it fun. But I count calories first, followed by protein, then make sure my sodium stays at or around 1500, and the rest I try to meet, exceed or limit depending on what they are. I might possibly be a little OCD.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
Just times protein and carbs by 4 and your fats by 9, it takes 30 seconds. I was undercalculating what I was eating by 150-200 cals some days which rather than putting me at maintenance actually put me cutting!!
I know how to work out calories from macros I'm just questioning why you think, if using the MFP database that is any more accurate
i put in the info for the macros on all my foods from the packaging itself, so I know the macros are fairly accurate, but still the calories come out different to the sum of the macros
Mine do too, i just went back and added up my macros from yesterday, and they were a few hundred more than my calories..
I don't understand how they were more, ill check your diary0 -
AChristine_72 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
Just times protein and carbs by 4 and your fats by 9, it takes 30 seconds. I was undercalculating what I was eating by 150-200 cals some days which rather than putting me at maintenance actually put me cutting!!
I know how to work out calories from macros I'm just questioning why you think, if using the MFP database that is any more accurate
i put in the info for the macros on all my foods from the packaging itself, so I know the macros are fairly accurate, but still the calories come out different to the sum of the macros
Mine do too, i just went back and added up my macros from yesterday, and they were a few hundred more than my calories..
Actually adding up your macros from yesterday your calories come to 1590 which is 40 short of your goal0 -
Did you look at Friday or Saturday Callum? it's Sunday here, my yesterday is Saturday 30th July.
ETA: Never mind lol I just went back and checked, and there was only a 5 calorie difference. It was too early in the morning when i checked before, I should know better than to do calculations first thing in the morning :blushing:2 -
Calories first and foremost. I keep an eye on the macros but not paying as much attention to them as to calories. Also track fiber.
I know the database is wobly but I double check, as needed, with the Dutch official database and try to use theri entries as much as I can0 -
callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »callumwalker1995 wrote: »Macros...don't pay attention to your calories...MFP does not calculate all the nutritional info, for example look at my diary, it says I have gone over my calories today by 100+ yet my macros are still behind for the daily total
Macros are whack because user entered
Calories can be whack too but easier to double check on other databases
With that in mind, advising to focus on macros seems nonsensical to me as it just makes the double checking three times as hard
I do calories and protein (should do fat but can't be bothered)
Just times protein and carbs by 4 and your fats by 9, it takes 30 seconds. I was undercalculating what I was eating by 150-200 cals some days which rather than putting me at maintenance actually put me cutting!!
I know how to work out calories from macros I'm just questioning why you think, if using the MFP database that is any more accurate
i put in the info for the macros on all my foods from the packaging itself, so I know the macros are fairly accurate, but still the calories come out different to the sum of the macros
You're going to have a 20% margin of error on all packaging anyway so "accuracy" will always be rather a misnomer...good enough is good enough0 -
I feel like calories are there as a guideline, not a restriction. I try to keep everything HCLF. Listen to your body☮0
-
I look at sodium, calories, protein in that order.0
-
I trust the usda database and the package labels. I weigh everything including packaged foods.0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Did you look at Friday or Saturday Callum? it's Sunday here, my yesterday is Saturday 30th July.
ETA: Never mind lol I just went back and checked, and there was only a 5 calorie difference. It was too early in the morning when i checked before, I should know better than to do calculations first thing in the morning :blushing:
Oh god let's not confuse this with time difference too
0 -
I look first at the protein which I must cover. Secondly, I pay attention at the moment to remain under my calories. Then I plan the carbohydrates and fat concerning my expected activity.0
-
I pay less attention to macros, watch calories for sure0
-
Calories are the most important0
-
I dont see a point in logging if i'm going to miss the most important aspect of logging.5
-
No, counting calories is the most important, then sugar, fat, carbs and protein. I'm always under on sodium so don't need to bother with that.0
-
Calories, protein, and sodium in that order.0
-
callumwalker1995 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Did you look at Friday or Saturday Callum? it's Sunday here, my yesterday is Saturday 30th July.
ETA: Never mind lol I just went back and checked, and there was only a 5 calorie difference. It was too early in the morning when i checked before, I should know better than to do calculations first thing in the morning :blushing:
Oh god let's not confuse this with time difference too
:laugh: ah you made me laugh! Whenever one of my American friends completes their diary and i click on it, the page is always blank, because their today is my yesterday, and from my end it links me to their tomorrow which is my today
0 -
Calories are king. I also pay attention to fiber, protein and fat.
I swapped out my sugar tracking for fiber tracking, and instead of sodium, I track iron.No, counting calories is the most important, then sugar, fat, carbs and protein. I'm always under on sodium so don't need to bother with that.
0 -
I pay attention to macros and stay pretty focused on meeting the fat goal and carb limit, because fat keeps me satisfied and carbs make me want to eat more. Which is why I do LCHF. To me macros are about satiety more than anything else. I really need to recalculate my protein, though, because the way my percentages are set up MFP wants me to eat way more than I feel like I can.
I still track calories and exercise, though, because calorie deficit is how you lose weight, and while the food I eat has a pretty high satiety factor (for me, YMMV), it's calorie dense. Can't be sitting on my butt eating butter and drinking bacon grease and expect to lose weight!1 -
I mostly pay attention to calories, fat, sugar amount and carbs right now.0
-
Anyone else find that MFP doesn't give you enough differing serving size choices when you enter your food? For instance, I had a little syrup on a waffle this morning (maybe about a tsp) and when I went to scan the label and choose the serving it only gives me the 1/4 cup serving size on the bottle and a bunch of other random sizes like the whole bottle or milliliters. Why wouldn't a tsp or tblspn be an option? I found this problem with other foods as well and it's aggravating. I shouldn't have to be a mathematician or something to enter in my calories on an app that's supposed to make it easy.0
-
Anyone else find that MFP doesn't give you enough differing serving size choices when you enter your food? For instance, I had a little syrup on a waffle this morning (maybe about a tsp) and when I went to scan the label and choose the serving it only gives me the 1/4 cup serving size on the bottle and a bunch of other random sizes like the whole bottle or milliliters. Why wouldn't a tsp or tblspn be an option? I found this problem with other foods as well and it's aggravating. I shouldn't have to be a mathematician or something to enter in my calories on an app that's supposed to make it easy.
https://www.reference.com/food/many-teaspoons-1-4-cup-ba2d02dc82ddba360 -
Calories first...then protein, and if I care enough, Iron...Lost over 80 pounds this way!1
-
queenliz99 wrote: »Anyone else find that MFP doesn't give you enough differing serving size choices when you enter your food? For instance, I had a little syrup on a waffle this morning (maybe about a tsp) and when I went to scan the label and choose the serving it only gives me the 1/4 cup serving size on the bottle and a bunch of other random sizes like the whole bottle or milliliters. Why wouldn't a tsp or tblspn be an option? I found this problem with other foods as well and it's aggravating. I shouldn't have to be a mathematician or something to enter in my calories on an app that's supposed to make it easy.
https://www.reference.com/food/many-teaspoons-1-4-cup-ba2d02dc82ddba36
Thanks, but I know I can google it and get the answer. I guess my point is that I shouldn't have to leave the app, google the answer and then come back to the app to enter. This app is supposed to make it easy and it makes no sense that it wouldn't offer a tsp or tblspn option for a liquid product. Also it sometimes will give you a totally different calorie than the one on the box when you scan the bar code.
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Anyone else find that MFP doesn't give you enough differing serving size choices when you enter your food? For instance, I had a little syrup on a waffle this morning (maybe about a tsp) and when I went to scan the label and choose the serving it only gives me the 1/4 cup serving size on the bottle and a bunch of other random sizes like the whole bottle or milliliters. Why wouldn't a tsp or tblspn be an option? I found this problem with other foods as well and it's aggravating. I shouldn't have to be a mathematician or something to enter in my calories on an app that's supposed to make it easy.
https://www.reference.com/food/many-teaspoons-1-4-cup-ba2d02dc82ddba36
Thanks, but I know I can google it and get the answer. I guess my point is that I shouldn't have to leave the app, google the answer and then come back to the app to enter. This app is supposed to make it easy and it makes no sense that it wouldn't offer a tsp or tblspn option for a liquid product. Also it sometimes will give you a totally different calorie than the one on the box when you scan the bar code.
sorry hun, this is what happens when a database is created by users and is largely unmoderated.2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Anyone else find that MFP doesn't give you enough differing serving size choices when you enter your food? For instance, I had a little syrup on a waffle this morning (maybe about a tsp) and when I went to scan the label and choose the serving it only gives me the 1/4 cup serving size on the bottle and a bunch of other random sizes like the whole bottle or milliliters. Why wouldn't a tsp or tblspn be an option? I found this problem with other foods as well and it's aggravating. I shouldn't have to be a mathematician or something to enter in my calories on an app that's supposed to make it easy.
https://www.reference.com/food/many-teaspoons-1-4-cup-ba2d02dc82ddba36
Thanks, but I know I can google it and get the answer. I guess my point is that I shouldn't have to leave the app, google the answer and then come back to the app to enter. This app is supposed to make it easy and it makes no sense that it wouldn't offer a tsp or tblspn option for a liquid product. Also it sometimes will give you a totally different calorie than the one on the box when you scan the bar code.
I think you're making this much more complicated than it has to be. Are you trying to lose weight? Focus on staying within the calories that MFP gives you. Use the database or labels, but try to be as accurate as possible...same with your burns. If you feel comfy enough, and are staying in your numbers, you might then start worrying about macros...I'd start with one, protein. Why drive yourself crazy making it harder than it has to be?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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