What's the point of macros?
summithawks
Posts: 9 Member
I know getting adequate protein helps preserve muscle when you are losing weight, and I thought I knew that cutting carbs facilitates weight loss (I know I know calorie deficit is what causes weight loss), but in another post I saw multiple people saying your macros dont matter as long as you are hitting your target calories for the day. Can someone enlighten me? (Also any advice on what macros I should be eating to gain muscle/lose fat would be helpful)
0
Replies
-
Calories are for weight, macros are for nutrition.10
-
Macros don't matter for weight loss for most people.
Macros do matter for how you feel, your hunger levels, energy levels, workout performance, any health concerns, etc. The important thing is that they're highly individual. What works well for me might not work at all for someone else. As long as you're hitting the minimum fat and protein levels you need for good health, then play around and see what feels best to you.9 -
Carbs provide energy, proteins preserve/build muscle, fats help the brain function, etc. All macros are important.
What are your goals?
Absent any hard-core goals outside of weight loss, eat what this site assigned to you.1 -
Macro splits are also personal preference.
Some people may enjoy higher fat as it keeps them satiated and helps keep their calorie deficit, but some people like higher carb for the same reason.
As long as you are getting enough protein for to help preserve muscle, the rest is entirely up to you. I mean, I would advise against extremely low fat as some vitamins are fat-soluble so you need dietary fat to absorb them, and fat is needed for healthy hormone production, but anything above the minimum is personal choice.
Your goal of gaining muscle/losing fat kind of conflict with each other though. I would say depending on how lean you are...lose fat first, retain what muscle you have now by consuming adequate protein and progressive resistance training, and then when you are lean enough, eat in a surplus and do progressive resistance training to gain muscle.1 -
Calories are what matter for losing weight.
Macros can influence body composition...they play a huge roll in satiety...they impact fitness performance...overall nutrition, etc.
I'm typically around 0.6 - 0.8 grams of protein per Lb of my body weight...around .3 grams of fat per Lb of body weight, and I round out the rest with carbs.2 -
Thank you all for your responses!0
-
It sounds like one benefits the other. Yes, calories are what matter to weight loss, but having energy and feeling satiated are what help you to stay within your daily caloric intake. So eating certain foods that give you energy and make you feel fuller longer makes macros just as important in losing weight. But everyone's needs are different.1
-
Macros can also influence weight loss. They are not all digested as efficiently as the others. You will lose at least as much as a deficit demands, but calories in the mouth don't equal calories available for fat storage and depending on the macros you eat, you can have even higher deficits which can cause more weight loss. Meal timing and frequency can have an effect too due to the energy pathways involved.
http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/calorie-quality-factor-4-efficiency/
https://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
http://blog.factor75.com/stop-counting-calories-be-healthy-without-math/
0 -
The Zone ratios work well for me: 40% carbs, 30% fat, 30% pro. I set these as my macros then plot out what I'll eat for the day, adjusting the ratios with portion sizes and snacks.0
-
Calories are indeed what matters for weight loss but the problem is that people don't understand the digestion and system the body uses to process the food we eat and how it creates energy from it.
People think 1 gram of protein equals 4 calorie after being processed but that's not the case. It might CONTAIN 4 calories initially but the body needs to work harder to break it down and that itself costs energy (Roughly between 20-30% of the total calories). Then some of the amino acids needs to be converted into glucose through a process called Gluconeogenesis in order to be used as energy, this also costs energy. So in the end it leaves you with a significantly lower amount than 4 calories worth of energy.
Someone that eats 2000 calories worth of food using the P=4 / C=4 / F=9 calories way to determine the macros with a split of 40P/40C/20F will lose weight faster than someone doing a 10P/50C/40F split etc.. Hope that makes sense.1 -
Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.3 -
Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.
Any reliable source to back up this claim?2 -
I think when I need to micromanage to the point of worrying about the specific dynamic action of the foods i consume it's time for a new hobby.
Whilst the thermic effect of the macronutrients contained in the foods we consume differ, surely it's really only a very slight variable that is by far and away eaten up by the inherent inaccuracy of weighing and logging.
In fact, I'm sure 100% of people can be successful in losing or gaining weight without even hearing the phrase dietary induced thermogenesis.
Tldr; Calm down.5 -
Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.
In a reasonably balanced diet, TEF is going to be rather negligible. Carbs with non-digestible fiber are also going to have a higher TEF...but again, in the context of a balanced diet it's pretty negligible.0 -
I would be interested in seeing photos of someones physique while eating different macros to see how much of a difference it really makes.1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.
In a reasonably balanced diet, TEF is going to be rather negligible. Carbs with non-digestible fiber are also going to have a higher TEF...but again, in the context of a balanced diet it's pretty negligible.
^ Exactly. Commonly referred to as "Majoring in the minors".1 -
all I know is that when I'm moving back to maintenance I won't be adding extra protein!
instead I will have even more delicious ferrero rocher and exotic restaurant desserts than what I'm already eating of them. maybe a little more beer.
But yeah, minimum level of protein and essential fats, higher carbs on workout days, but the rest I play around with as I like2 -
Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.
There is a slight thermogenic effect with protein, and to a lesser extent with fat. It's a small difference though. I doubt it is more than a couple hundred calories per day (for increased protein and fat).0 -
Ughhh I disagree, if your maintenance is at 2500 calories and you eat 2000 calories...regardless of the macros...you will lose at a rate of 1 pound per week. I have changed all kinds of different formulas and the end result was the same, i would still lose 1 pound per week...my bf % would drop similarly on every different diet type I have tried wether it's a high fat diet...or high carb diet, the result was the same.
It doesn't matter if it's high carb or high fat diet, they are both energy sources and are very accurate in terms of the calories they give the body even after digestion. I should have made myself more clear in my comparison split, what I am trying to say it's the protein that makes the difference and will not give you the same energy as carbs do per gram or 2.25g protein will not give you the same energy that 1g of fat would.
So for example if you would remove 100g of carbs from your diet in a deficit and replace it with 100g of protein you would lose fat faster I promise you that.
There is a slight thermogenic effect with protein, and to a lesser extent with fat. It's a small difference though. I doubt it is more than a couple hundred calories per day (for increased protein and fat).
The TEF is higher for both protein and carbohydrates than it is for fat.0 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »Any reliable source to back up this claim?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6476790 This is one of the studies, in lean subjects it was over 30% of the calorie content of the protein they ingested. In obese it was roughly around 20% IIRC.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full Shows that glucogenesis, the process that turns amino acids into useable energy(glucose) costs 33% of the produced energy.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions