UGGH Information OVERLOAD!! Simple Macros vs 21 Day Fix (?!??!)

southrnchic479

Alright y'all, I have fallen off the wagon and lo and behold my hubby has ordered (as a favor to a Beach Body friend, so he says) a box with some of the shakeology stuff, the Core De Force DVD and *fanfare* dun da da daaa *end fanfare* the 21 day fix containers -__-

Ugh. [enter my frustration]

I'm sorry but the multiple containers seem overkill to me. I know nothing worth having is easy but this just seems...well...impractical(!!!) for everyday life! I tried planning out some meals and just felt really overwhelmed. Back when I was on track I was doing 40 / 30 / 30 ( Carbs / Fat / Protein ) on 1200 calories a day and while it was somewhat challenging to make sure I met my protein goals and stay under or at my calorie goal, it still felt very doable. Now I know nutrition and fitness goals work together so here's some info on where I was and plan to be, fitness-wise: I was doing like 20-30 min of light cardio (300 cal) and some strength training (mostly body weight). This time around I am going to check out the Core De Force DVD (might as well..I've got it) and finally break out my Ultimate Body Works machine and start using it for the leg press, arms and back (it works on resistance bands). I think I am going to focus more on increasing my strength this time around, and maybe not so much on jogging/cardio. My goal has always been more of a pin-up style body - not too cut (I don't want to look like a bikini competitor, that's just not my preference), just firm and healthy with a tiny waist. I am 144 lbs, 5'5", and 26 years old. And currently, very flabby (ugh) lol

All that being said, is a simple 40/30/30 macro tracking (with an emphasis on lean meats, veggies, whole foods, etc, being my choices) going to do just as well as this crazy tupperware system? I am praying YES lol. I want to make sure I get results so I want to meal plan the right way. Thanks guys!

janejellyroll

The 21 Day Fix system is going to be less accurate -- in terms of macros and calories -- than accurate logging.

If you don't think it will work for you, you don't have to use it.

If you have specific goals, it's okay for you to use the tools that you think will best meet your goals.

deannalfisher

let him use the containers and you stick to your plan that is working for you

JeromeBarry1

Would you let hubby pick your clothes?

rileysowner

Usually information overload is a huge hindrance for weight loss, largely because there is so much non-scientific garbage out there that really has nothing to do with the causes of weight loss. Weigh loss at its core is achieved by establishing a calorie deficit. That is all that is needed to lose weight. Not clean eating, not cutting out certain food groups, not even certain macros. That means the main focus for anyone is figuring out the amount of food that is a moderate calorie deficit. For the vast majority of people that would mean using the calorie charts based on age, height, weight, and sex. Some people have confounding issues like insulin resistance, diabetes, PCOS, thyroid issues, or other metabolic problems that can make finding the number of calories a little more difficult, but the equation still holds true, eat less than your body burns in a day and you will lose weight.

Macros can be helpful for aiding in body composition, and in terms of what helps each individual stick to their calorie goals. That is, some people feel fuller, longer with high protein, others with higher fat, others with higher carbs or some combination of the three. That is a personal preference in many ways, and can take some time to figure out.

Getting back to your situation. If you find the multitude of boxes confusing, don't use it. It will be far less accurate than using and kitchen scale and weighing and logging food on MFP. Instead, concentrate on achieving a calorie deficit, find the foods that help you feel full longer, and incorporate more of them into your overall diet fitting all of it into your calorie goal.

southrnchic479

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

Would you let hubby pick your clothes?

I see what you're getting at - I guess I did not communicate clearly. The box was for him (or maybe not, I think he just ordered it to help out a friend with making sales?). I decided to open it up today because I thought I'd check out the program, but then quickly became overwhelmed when I realized that the containers were APART of the whole program.

ahoy_m8

Your macros sound fine. Actually, knowing your minimum fat and protein in grams is probably more helpful than the percentages. And I'm willing to bet you can sustain a steady consistent fat loss on substantially more calories than 1200. Your BMR is in the 1450 neighborhood?

Most here would advocate adopting something you can stick with for life. I always say the quickest way to fail is an inappropriate calorie goal. Or undereating. Same idea stated differently. Consistent undereating is a binge waiting to happen (or "falling off the wagon")for me. I would urge you to reassess the appropriate calorie target for your weight goal. Less than 25# to lose? Usually 0.5#/week (daily deficit of 250 calories) would be the appropriate rate of fat loss to spare muscle/bone. You will feel more energetic, it will be easier to hit your fat & protein minimums, and it will be easier to stick with it.

Best of luck!

southrnchic479

ahoy_m8 wrote: »

Your BMR is in the 1450 neighborhood?

I used a BMR calculator [BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (years) – 161] and it says my BMR is 1394.04748. I changed my MFP goal to .5 a pound per week and it upped me to 1450 calories. Maybe this will be the missing link. I found the results were sooooooo SLOW to come when I was in the gym 3x a week and maybe it's because I was not eating enough...?

Thank you so much for that info. But one question: what does knowing my BMR help? Like how do I implement that into what I'm doing? Thanks!!

deannalfisher

southrnchic479 wrote: »

ahoy_m8 wrote: »

Your BMR is in the 1450 neighborhood?

I used a BMR calculator [BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (years) – 161] and it says my BMR is 1394.04748. I changed my MFP goal to .5 a pound per week and it upped me to 1450 calories. Maybe this will be the missing link. I found the results were sooooooo SLOW to come when I was in the gym 3x a week and maybe it's because I was not eating enough...?

Thank you so much for that info. But one question: what does knowing my BMR help? Like how do I implement that into what I'm doing? Thanks!!

BMR is helpful to know because its the base number of calories your body needs to essential survive each day - the calculators are good - if you have it worked at in a lab, it might be slightly more accurate (I did both and the online calculator was within about 15cal of the lab one)

Personally, I ignore the MFP calorie recommendations and base mine off TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) - that takes working out etc into account - rather than eating back calories (which is the principle by which MFP gives you a recommendation)

rileysowner

southrnchic479 wrote: »

ahoy_m8 wrote: »

Your BMR is in the 1450 neighborhood?

I used a BMR calculator [BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (years) – 161] and it says my BMR is 1394.04748. I changed my MFP goal to .5 a pound per week and it upped me to 1450 calories. Maybe this will be the missing link. I found the results were sooooooo SLOW to come when I was in the gym 3x a week and maybe it's because I was not eating enough...?

Thank you so much for that info. But one question: what does knowing my BMR help? Like how do I implement that into what I'm doing? Thanks!!

How carefully and how are you measuring your food? Really at .5 pound/week is going to be slow. In fact, the loss for the first 3-5 weeks could easily be masked by normal weight fluctuation due to water, digesting food, and the like.

ahoy_m8

Sooo glad that helps. Yes, .5#/wk is slow. But it works. My observation about BMR was simply that yours is higher than 1200, suggesting 1200 is too low for you to sustain for any length of time. Most people who are successful over the long game find a sweet spot higher than BMR and lower than TDEE. Experiment with 1450 for a few weeks. I hope it works for you!

trigden1991

deannalfisher wrote: »

southrnchic479 wrote: »

ahoy_m8 wrote: »

Your BMR is in the 1450 neighborhood?

I used a BMR calculator [BMR = 10 x weight (kg) + 6.25 x height (cm) – 5 x age (years) – 161] and it says my BMR is 1394.04748. I changed my MFP goal to .5 a pound per week and it upped me to 1450 calories. Maybe this will be the missing link. I found the results were sooooooo SLOW to come when I was in the gym 3x a week and maybe it's because I was not eating enough...?

Thank you so much for that info. But one question: what does knowing my BMR help? Like how do I implement that into what I'm doing? Thanks!!

BMR is helpful to know because its the base number of calories your body needs to essential survive each day - the calculators are good - if you have it worked at in a lab, it might be slightly more accurate (I did both and the online calculator was within about 15cal of the lab one)

Personally, I ignore the MFP calorie recommendations and base mine off TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) - that takes working out etc into account - rather than eating back calories (which is the principle by which MFP gives you a recommendation)

BMR is an arbitrary number and not helpful for anything. TDEE is what you need to focus on.

JCo702

I do beach body workouts and drink shakeology...but i keep my food logging on myfitnesspal...I've just used this for so long and it has worked for me! Just kick *kitten* and meet those fitness goals!!

kimny72

I own 6 different BB programs and have never even looked at any of the eating plans that come with them. They are gimmicky plans designed to try to get everyone into a deficit without telling them it's about getting into a deficit . I use the 21 Day Fix containers to take my lunch sometimes because they're cute, but only after I've weighed out my portion.

If you're overwhelmed, first and foremost focus on calories. If you get those in line, then play around with your macros.

jvs125

The macros will work. If you use the containers and log what you eat, you'll end up with very similar numbers.

The containers are just another tool, another way of planning your food intake. Because logging and macros doesn't work for everyone. For ME, logging and macros are overwhelming. i prefer to just measure my food in a container and dump it on my plate. Less complicated for me.

But at the end of the day, it's about finding the approach that works for you and using the tools that work for you. They are just tools. You won't magically lose more weight because you're using containers over macros.

Just chech out the nutrition guide, calorie allowance for each week and balance your macros accordingly, continue logging if that's your jam!