Calories VS. Macros

TylerWhiite

When you diet, do you prefer to count calories or macros? Oddly enough when I count calories, I seem to be under them but over macros.

HellYeahItsKriss

you can be under macros and over on calories... so counting calories would make more sense since calories are what matters for weight loss

JaydedMiss

calories are all that matters for weight loss. Macros are for health/satiety

jemhh

I plan my eating based on my macros because I'm focused on hitting specific protein and fat targets. Plus I find that even when I check foods against labels and the usda database, the difference between the total stated calories and multiplied out macros is often 50-100 calories over the course of a day. Aiming to hit macro goals generally seems to keep my calories eaten closer to my goal calories when I look at them that way.

Lillymoo01

I focus on hitting at least 0.8 grams of protein and 0.4 grams of fat for every pound of weight minimum. Once those levels have been reached I am not concerned about how the rest are distributed, as long as my micro nutrients are looking healthy. For weight loss calories are king. For health macro and micro nutrients play a vital roll.

TylerWhiite

I always count calories, but it’s odd because the Ground Turkey I eat is listed as 600 calories, but when I add the macros it equals 672 calories.

HellYeahItsKriss

are you adding it from the nutritional information on the package?

TylerWhiite

HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »

are you adding it from the nutritional information on the package?

Yes I am. They have it listed as 600 calories, 96P 32F

HellYeahItsKriss

And youre correctly using the 4 4 9 rule?

As a side note tho. Nutrition info as is allowed to have a slight margins of error. Which is why you can see a gram weight of individually wrapped products weigh them and have them weigh more.

Maybe the company just can't do math right.

jemhh

TylerWhiite wrote: »

I always count calories, but it’s odd because the Ground Turkey I eat is listed as 600 calories, but when I add the macros it equals 672 calories.

That's why I keep an eye on my macros more than calories, as I mentioned above. I've been tracking for nearly four years now and that kind of thing happens a lot.

TylerWhiite

jemhh wrote: »

TylerWhiite wrote: »

I always count calories, but it’s odd because the Ground Turkey I eat is listed as 600 calories, but when I add the macros it equals 672 calories.

That's why I keep an eye on my macros more than calories, as I mentioned above. I've been tracking for nearly four years now and that kind of thing happens a lot.

Always heard from many successful dieters to follow macros for that reason. I’ve lost 130 LB counting calories, but I’m definitely switching to macros now. I just can’t believe the almost 100 calorie error. Crazy! Thank you for your help!

lemurcat12

Rounding means that macros and calories sometimes don't add up. Something could be 24.5 g carbs and listed as 25 g, and when you multiply by 4 for calories it looks off (you get 100, but it's really 98). I think for USDA MFP has the decimals (even if we don't see them), but not always for packaged stuff.

The bigger issue is that although the US includes fiber on labels as part of carbs, the entire amount does not need to be included in calories. You can see this if you look at USDA information for fruits and veg.

Biggest issue can be user error in inputting information, so you have to be careful.

Personally I look at macros but care more about calories. My macros aren't something I think it's important to hit exactly, but a guideline (mainly currently to make sure I'm getting enough protein and because I find it interesting).

ladyhusker39

TylerWhiite wrote: »

When you diet, do you prefer to count calories or macros? Oddly enough when I count calories, I seem to be under them but over macros.

If this is the case and you try to hit macros, you'll risk being too low on your calories. You want to hit your calorie goal. As far as macros, the common wisdom is to get as close as you can on fat and protein and let carbs fall where the will. Or you can just do like me and eat a balanced diet and don't sweat macros too much at all.

jjpptt2

Calories are important for weight loss.
Macros are important for body composition, performance/energy levels, satiety, and personal preference.

Which you track/focus on is up to you, but ultimately both matter.

For me, I watch both. I watch cals because I have weight-based goals. I watch macros because I find it easier to stay on track when my macros are where they should be - my workouts are more consistent, I feel better, I sleep better, etc.

jemhh

TylerWhiite wrote: »

jemhh wrote: »

TylerWhiite wrote: »

I always count calories, but it’s odd because the Ground Turkey I eat is listed as 600 calories, but when I add the macros it equals 672 calories.

That's why I keep an eye on my macros more than calories, as I mentioned above. I've been tracking for nearly four years now and that kind of thing happens a lot.

Always heard from many successful dieters to follow macros for that reason. I’ve lost 130 LB counting calories, but I’m definitely switching to macros now. I just can’t believe the almost 100 calorie error. Crazy! Thank you for your help!

Yeah, I had success with calorie counting but now that I am at a point where I use a much smaller deficit, I find that macros are better for me to watch.

taylorro

I personally focus on Calories but I pay attention to my macros, I like watching them and getting in the habit of knowing whats in all the food I eat. I try to stay under my current macro goals but if I go over and i'm still good on calories its not that big of a deal. Right now my carbs are at about 30%, Fats about 30% and Protein is at about 40%. I am currently limiting my carb intake so I like to keep an eye on it.

dredremeg

BUMP