Confused. Help!

meg_mindbody

So I'm a bit confused, as essentially the bulk of what I have been reading on MFP suggests that counting calories is the best way to see weight loss. However, I just had a somewhat disheartening fitness consultation with a trainer, and was told that for optimum results re: losing weight, I need to track macros. I'm not sure why, but my automatic thought was that this will be harder for me to do. Is it? and is this a better method to see weight loss results?

Chef_Barbell

meg_mindbody wrote: »

So I'm a bit confused, as essentially the bulk of what I have been reading on MFP suggests that counting calories is the best way to see weight loss. However, I just had a somewhat disheartening fitness consultation with a trainer, and was told that for optimum results re: losing weight, I need to track macros. I'm not sure why, but my automatic thought was that this would be harder to track. Is it? and is this essentially a better way to see weight loss results?

Calories are king.

meg_mindbody

Chef_Barbell wrote: »

meg_mindbody wrote: »

So I'm a bit confused, as essentially the bulk of what I have been reading on MFP suggests that counting calories is the best way to see weight loss. However, I just had a somewhat disheartening fitness consultation with a trainer, and was told that for optimum results re: losing weight, I need to track macros. I'm not sure why, but my automatic thought was that this would be harder to track. Is it? and is this essentially a better way to see weight loss results?

Calories are king.

I'm so confused now! Haha. She didn't say to completely disregard calories, but is what she's saying to track macros in order to keep track of where my calories are coming from??

shans34

I've lost 90lbs only tracking calories not macros. I wouldn't worry too much

Rebecca0224

Did you ask why the trainer wanted you to track macros? Did the trainer give you a goal? What training/qualifications does this person hold to make the advice credible?

vismal

meg_mindbody wrote: »

So I'm a bit confused, as essentially the bulk of what I have been reading on MFP suggests that counting calories is the best way to see weight loss. However, I just had a somewhat disheartening fitness consultation with a trainer, and was told that for optimum results re: losing weight, I need to track macros. I'm not sure why, but my automatic thought was that this will be harder for me to do. Is it? and is this a better method to see weight loss results?

The only way to lose weight is to eat less calories per day than you burn. Counting is IMO the best way to ensure this happens. If weight loss is all you are concerned about, calorie counting is all you need to do.

If you care about your body composition, counting macros helps a great deal. Making sure you get adequate protein and fat each day can help you have a better physique once you lose the desired amount of weight. It's not complicated at all and MFP already tracks macros for you. The key is to not make it super strict and try and hit each macros down to the gram. It's far easier to simply have your calorie goal, let's say 1800 just for the purposes of this discussion. Every day you need to eat 1800 or less calories. In doing so you should try and make sure you hit X grams of protein and Y grams of fat. That's it. Hit your protein goal, your fat goal, and stay under your calorie limit. Now what should X and Y be? Well, I usually tell people protein should be about 0.6-0.8 grams a day per lb you weigh and fat should be 0.35 grams per lb you weigh. Now remember, those are minimums, you can exceed them so long as you stay under your calorie goal. Eat at least X grams of protein, eat at least Y grams of fat, and eat whatever else you want to stay under 1800 calories. Does that make sense?

estherdragonbat

MFP tracks your macros for you, so you can see how you're doing on that score. Keep in mind that different people find that different macro splits work best for them in terms of satiety. I find that when I hit my protein (or come close) I feel fuller. I'm vegetarian and there are carbs in a lot of my protein sources. It's one macro I usually exceed target on. I tend to come in at around 50-60% of my fat target. It's something I keep an eye on, because fat helps the body absorb certain nutrients, but so far, I don't feel like anything is missing or lacking.

There are people who do well on low-carb, high-protein or low-carb, high fat. It depends on the person and the person's goals. (Mine are to hit a healthy BMI while holding onto as much muscle as I can in the process.) I've dropped almost 70 lbs so far, mostly focused on calories and protein. And iron; my hemoglobin is a little low.

You'll probably find, as you track calories and find the foods that give you energy and satiety, that you'll naturally hit a certain macro split that may or may not be what MFP gave you.

beatyfamily1

It's not harder to do. If you are using MFP to track macros, it will show you the calories as well. Either way, you are tracking both. I would ask your trainer his/her reason behind that. It's good to make sure you are getting enough macros, but calories are what you need to concentrate on to lose weight. Don't just take his/her word for it with no understanding of it. Have him/her educate you. That's what you are paying for. If you get some ambiguous answer, I would find another trainer.

siyana1985

MFP tracks your macros (carbs protein fats) using the food diary. it will make it a lot easier for you. you'll be able to see if your carbs are too high or if you are falling short on your protein goal.

still calorie tracking makes the biggest difference. i only really look at meeting protein and keeping fat/carbs under

My understanding of the macros are carbs are used easiest by the body for energy, so a high carb diet could greatly slow fat loss. and protein is good for maintaining your muscles and also for providing you a full feeling even when you may not have had much. i'm sure there's much more to it but those are the main points i have taken from so far

estherdragonbat

If carbs are used most easily, how does that slow fat loss? Dietary fat isn't the same as stored body fat.

Sunna_W

I can only share my experience with macros and calories. My macro (goals) were / are 15% sugar/carbs; 45% protein; 40% fat (healthy ones); my calorie goal is 1400. I am 59, 5'6" and weighed 190-ish last November. I now hover between 157 lbs and 155 lbs. This is also my "maintenance" regimen. I am still losing, just more slowly.

This combo of macros doesn't use "carbs" for fuel it uses your body fat instead; this is called ketosis. Even if you don't actually stay in ketosis it still works, at least it did for me.

This way of eating is called "keto" or sometimes paleo. They are similar - but not exactly the same.

Generally, I am not hungry. I seem to be able to stay within my nutrition / calorie goals and I FEEL better. No aches, pains and I have lost almost 40 lbs almost without trying. While I like it and how I feel, long term going under 100 carbs a day is not good for you according to some nutritionists.

To tell you the truth, I didn't really exercise, i was compliant only about 75% with both my macros and my calories (I went over, just not by a whole lot, and when I went way over it was maybe twice a month).

It works for some people and doesn't for others. People who are on it are passionate about it and people who are not are just as passionate as to why they think it's horrible. It's not easy to do at first and I did it with the first meal of the day the first week, then my second meal of the day the second week and then the third week, I worked to incorporate low carb / paleo recipes into the family dinners or just cut way down on eh carbs I put in food or ate myself.

I had no carb flu really... and I make up my meals for the work week on Sundays when i cook the main family dinner.

anubis609

If you're tracking macros, you're inadvertently tracking calories. ~4kcal/g of carbs and protein. ~9kcal/g of fat. Macro grams x appropriate macro calorie, add the total sum of each macro category = total calories. If it's less than what your body needs, you will be in an energy/calorie deficit and lose. If it's the same you'll be in an energy balance aka maintenance. If it's more, you're in an energy/calorie surplus and gain.

Chadxx

Weight loss is entirely about energy balance and calories are a measure of energy. If you eat fewer calories than you burn, your body will use up it's fat stores to make up the difference. It really is that simple. Getting adequate protein and fats are beneficial for other reasons but weight loss comes down to maintaining a calorie deficit.

meg_mindbody

vismal wrote: »

meg_mindbody wrote: »

So I'm a bit confused, as essentially the bulk of what I have been reading on MFP suggests that counting calories is the best way to see weight loss. However, I just had a somewhat disheartening fitness consultation with a trainer, and was told that for optimum results re: losing weight, I need to track macros. I'm not sure why, but my automatic thought was that this will be harder for me to do. Is it? and is this a better method to see weight loss results?

The only way to lose weight is to eat less calories per day than you burn. Counting is IMO the best way to ensure this happens. If weight loss is all you are concerned about, calorie counting is all you need to do.

If you care about your body composition, counting macros helps a great deal. Making sure you get adequate protein and fat each day can help you have a better physique once you lose the desired amount of weight. It's not complicated at all and MFP already tracks macros for you. The key is to not make it super strict and try and hit each macros down to the gram. It's far easier to simply have your calorie goal, let's say 1800 just for the purposes of this discussion. Every day you need to eat 1800 or less calories. In doing so you should try and make sure you hit X grams of protein and Y grams of fat. That's it. Hit your protein goal, your fat goal, and stay under your calorie limit. Now what should X and Y be? Well, I usually tell people protein should be about 0.6-0.8 grams a day per lb you weigh and fat should be 0.35 grams per lb you weigh. Now remember, those are minimums, you can exceed them so long as you stay under your calorie goal. Eat at least X grams of protein, eat at least Y grams of fat, and eat whatever else you want to stay under 1800 calories. Does that make sense?

Yes. Thank you so much!

ssbbg

If your trainer has recommended a particular macro split, you can override MFP's default and enter your trainer's values. It might be easier for you if you set that up. You do this in the goals tab.

rainbowbow

this shouldn't be any more difficult than just tracking calories. tracking macros... is tracking calories.

Set your macro goal to whatever split your trainer suggested (it's probably 40/30/30) with your calorie goal under settings and then you're good to go.

I would say as a general rule of thumb you want to reach your protein and fat goal as these are essential and then your carbs can be played with depending on your preference and energy needs.

mcdanieljj

This is crazy but do some searching on ketogenics.or the keto diet. Your body can either burn sugar (ie carbs) or it can burn fat. Ketosis is where your body changes and converts to burning fat. To get this you have to follow macros and not really worry about cal.s. if you do this diet you can experience the keto flu which is withdrawal of sugars. After you hit ketosis, you loose weight quickly. This is without even working out. Lots of ways to eat GOOD food without carbs or sugar. Check it out.

rainbowbow

mcdanieljj wrote: »

This is crazy but do some searching on ketogenics.or the keto diet. Your body can either burn sugar (ie carbs) or it can burn fat. Ketosis is where your body changes and converts to burning fat. To get this you have to follow macros and not really worry about cal.s. if you do this diet you can experience the keto flu which is withdrawal of sugars. After you hit ketosis, you loose weight quickly. This is without even working out. Lots of ways to eat GOOD food without carbs or sugar. Check it out.

You lose weight quickly because you deplete glycogen in your muscle tissue which is bound to water in a ratio of 3 to 1. This shouldn't be confused with fat loss.

Regardless of fuel source (from sugar or fat) your body will still follow energy balance. meaning, regardless of whether you're in ketosis or not you will still lose the same amount of (net) fat that you would based on the number of calories you're consuming.

Some individuals find keto to work best for them for hunger, dietary control, etc. but it is not superior in any way to a balanced diet and has it's own set of potential issues.

I know you're probably just trying to be helpful and are suggesting this based on your understanding of the keto diet, i just think it's important to note that it doesn't work that way.

Tapout112009

Calories are def the most important part to lose weight. Be in a deficit. Having your macros set up will be even better. It will help you portion out what ur body needs and still counting your calories. I am 60 pounds down in 9 months counting calories and tracking macros

nvmomketo

Adjusting your macros may make weight loss easier for you. It can help improve your health too.

MFPSK1977

It's sorta the same thing. Paying attention to macros and macro goals will help you avoid too many empty calories. While you could lose weight meeting your calorie goals with (exaggeration) ice cream all day, I doubt you went to a trainer to eat like that. She should set you some goals to reach each day.