Master cleanse info
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Did low carb/keto Lost weight and put it allllllll back on plus some. It was completely unsustainable for me and my lifestyle. I never worried about my macros when i statred mfp because my main goal at the time was weight loss, learning what foods satisfied me within my calorie limit and i didnt want to feel guilty about eating foods i loved anymore. I stuck to a calorie deficit and didnt deprive myself of anything and that worked. 14.5kg so far. Good luck
0 -
Tis the Season for Cleanse & Detox systems
Got this a few years back from a Harvard Study
The body's own detox system
We tend to forget that the body is equipped with a detoxification system of its own, which includes the following:
The skin. The main function of the body's largest organ is to provide a barrier against harmful substances, from bacteria and viruses to heavy metals and chemical toxins. The skin is a one-way defense system; toxins are not eliminated in perspiration.
The respiratory system. Fine hairs inside the nose trap dirt and other large particles that may be inhaled. Smaller particles that make it to the lungs are expelled from the airways in mucus.
The immune system. This exquisitely orchestrated network of cells and molecules is designed to recognize foreign substances and eliminate them from the body. Components of the immune system are at work in blood plasma, in lymph, and even in the small spaces between cells.
The intestines. Peyer's patches — lymph nodes in the small intestine — screen out parasites and other foreign substances before nutrients are absorbed into the blood from the colon.
The liver. Acting as the body's principal filter, the liver produces a family of proteins called metallothioneins, which are also found in the kidneys. Metallothioneins not only metabolize dietary nutrients like copper and zinc but also neutralize harmful metals like lead, cadmium, and mercury to prepare for their elimination from the body. Liver cells also produce groups of enzymes that regulate the metabolism of drugs and are an important part of the body's defense against harmful chemicals and other toxins.
The kidneys. The fact that urine tests are used to screen for drugs and toxins is a testament to the kidneys' remarkable efficiency in filtering out waste substances and moving them out of the body.
6 -
cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
This macro breakdown is fine as long as this is how you prefer to eat. For those not weight training, macros are just not that critical. Calories are the key to weight loss. Beyond that, minimum adequate protein, and fat, then whatever you want that you can comply with consistently and stay on your calorie target. Don't spend too much time and energy focusing on macros.0 -
cjgirlie2005 wrote: »I usually shoot for a meal setup of about 40 carbs, 30 and 30 protein and fat for macros. But I often fall short of the protein or fats.
That shouldn't be hard. Look back at your diary and increase portions of foods higher in protein/fat and reduce portions of foods higher in carbs. I wouldn't worry about hitting it at every meal, but just minor changes in portions should allow you to get to 40-30-30 most days (or around there, no need to be exact).
I don't think macros matter much if protein is sufficient (I think a bit higher protein, like 25-30% depending on your calories, is good when losing to maintain muscle and because many find it more satiating). However, I do think 40-30-30 works well for many, and it's what I did when losing.1 -
cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Yes, start there. Track for a month, and then look back and see if you're comfortable with eating that way and you're having success with it. Then feel free to tweak it a bit, if necessary. There are no hard-and-fast rules that work for everyone (okay maybe breathing), and we all take time to figure what works best for ourselves.0 -
cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Why not focus on the amount of calories.1 -
cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Why not focus on the amount of calories.
She is.
ButMacros help people with satiety so they can stick to their calories easier if need be2 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Why not focus on the amount of calories.
She is.
ButMacros help people with satiety so they can stick to their calories easier if need be
Not necessarily.
A 800 calorie MacDonald's hamburger and fries meal may have a good balance of protein, carbs and fat.
But a 400 calorie salad of grilled chicken, fresh lettuce and tomatoes and oil & vinegar dressing may have a similar macro balance and be much more filling than the MacDonald's. Plus contain a lot more micronutrients and fiber.
Macros are more important for those who want to focus on certain ones for health/fitness reasons. An athlete may want a 60% Protein macro, while a sedentary person may be fine with 30% Protein. Someone eating low-carb to control their seizures may want to eat 60% Fat. An average person with a standard diet may be happy splitting their macros quite evenly.0 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Why not focus on the amount of calories.
She is.
ButMacros help people with satiety so they can stick to their calories easier if need be
Not necessarily.
A 800 calorie MacDonald's hamburger and fries meal may have a good balance of protein, carbs and fat.
But a 400 calorie salad of grilled chicken, fresh lettuce and tomatoes and oil & vinegar dressing may have a similar macro balance and be much more filling than the MacDonald's. Plus contain a lot more micronutrients and fiber.
Macros are more important for those who want to focus on certain ones for health/fitness reasons. An athlete may want a 60% Protein macro, while a sedentary person may be fine with 30% Protein. Someone eating low-carb to control their seizures may want to eat 60% Fat. An average person with a standard diet may be happy splitting their macros quite evenly.
So, which part is the "not necessarily" from what Kris said? Looks like you said the same thing just in a more expanded fashion and included a component about fiber and micronuntrients.3 -
I am confused about what your point is for me... I never once said that if she ate mcdonalds or ate a salad she would feel equally satiated on both? Nor did i say that both meals or similar meals would be exactly the same?
And no, Macros are not just important for people with health and fitness reasons there are tons of people here using macros to help with satiety while in a calorie deficit.
I also never at any point told her to eat more of one macro over another one.3 -
HellYeahItsKriss wrote: »cjgirlie2005 wrote: »Do u think the 40, 30 and 30 macros are a good place to start
Why not focus on the amount of calories.
She is.
ButMacros help people with satiety so they can stick to their calories easier if need be
Not necessarily.
A 800 calorie MacDonald's hamburger and fries meal may have a good balance of protein, carbs and fat.
But a 400 calorie salad of grilled chicken, fresh lettuce and tomatoes and oil & vinegar dressing may have a similar macro balance and be much more filling than the MacDonald's. Plus contain a lot more micronutrients and fiber.
Macros are more important for those who want to focus on certain ones for health/fitness reasons. An athlete may want a 60% Protein macro, while a sedentary person may be fine with 30% Protein. Someone eating low-carb to control their seizures may want to eat 60% Fat. An average person with a standard diet may be happy splitting their macros quite evenly.
Not necessarily, but possibly. OP said she has been struggling, and sometimes people struggle because their macros are out of whack. I used to struggle to stick to my deficit, until I started tracking my macros, noticed I was eating fairly low protein, and worked to fix it. OP has shown an interest in exploring different macro percentages, and she only has 20 lbs to go, so playing around with her macros, while focusing on sticking to her calorie goal, could be useful.2 -
I'm just saying that macros are so broad in what they contain that it's hard to simply claim that "Macros help people with satiety".
You could reach your chosen carb percent with only candy, for example. Or steamed vegetables. Which one is going to be more satiating?5 -
I'm just saying that macros are so broad in what they contain that it's hard to claim that "Macros help people with satiety".
You could reach your chosen carb percent with only candy, for example. Or steamed vegetables. Which one is going to be more satiating?
Wow, talk about twisting something out of proportion! Because people hit their carb macro with just candy all the time. (now where did that eye roll emoticon go.....)
4 -
I think there's truth in what both of you are saying.
I do think watching protein often helps, and some do better with more fat or sometimes more carbs -- trying something and paying attention can help. I also think one of the benefits of macros for someone starting out and not having a sense of how to organize meals is that it provides some structure and kind of precludes you from overdoing junk food (which is often higher in fat and carbs and lower in protein than would fit easily in most macro mixes). Sure, you can sub candy for all carbs, but most won't think to do that, since it's normal to eat potatoes or rice or pasta and veg with dinner, not candy.
However, I also find that for me macros are less significant for satiety than having an overall healthful diet, and that some carbs are satiating and some are not (and in my mind some sources of fat are healthier than others, of course). But having a basic macro goal to help with structure doesn't prevent you from noticing those things either.1 -
I'm just saying that macros are so broad in what they contain that it's hard to claim that "Macros help people with satiety".
You could reach your chosen carb percent with only candy, for example. Or steamed vegetables. Which one is going to be more satiating?
Wow, talk about twisting something out of proportion! Because people hit their carb macro with just candy all the time. (now where did that eye roll emoticon go.....)
I'm honestly not trying to twist anything, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around the concept of macros alone mattering for satiety, and not suggesting that OP focus on finding particular foods that they find filling (and fit within their calorie goal, obviously).0 -
I'm just saying that macros are so broad in what they contain that it's hard to claim that "Macros help people with satiety".
You could reach your chosen carb percent with only candy, for example. Or steamed vegetables. Which one is going to be more satiating?
Neither. By the time I ate enough steamed veggies to feel full, I would be depressed by the sadness of eating a lot of steamed veggies
. And would probably then eat the candy. The fact that some individual foods are more satiating than others within the same macro doesn't negate the fact that for some people, macro distribution is an important component of satiety.
I think why some people don't have to track macros may reflect the fact that some people are already eating their best macro percentage without trying. The same way some people can eat at a deficit without calorie counting, not because calories don't matter, but because they just happen to eat the right amount of food. That's just me thinking out loud though 4 -
I'm just saying that macros are so broad in what they contain that it's hard to claim that "Macros help people with satiety".
You could reach your chosen carb percent with only candy, for example. Or steamed vegetables. Which one is going to be more satiating?
Neither. By the time I ate enough steamed veggies to feel full, I would be depressed by the sadness of eating a lot of steamed veggies. And would probably then eat the candy. The fact that some individual foods are more satiating than others within the same macro doesn't negate the fact that for some people, macro distribution is an important component of satiety.
I think why some people don't have to track macros may reflect the fact that some people are already eating their best macro percentage without trying. The same way some people can eat at a deficit without calorie counting, not because calories don't matter, but because they just happen to eat the right amount of food. That's just me thinking out loud though
I agree, my example was an extreme one, just trying to illustrate the point that saying "Macros help people with satiety so they can stick to their calories easier" doesn't automatically ring true. Individual food choices will produce very different levels of satiety.
I'd basically just suggest to the OP that they try to hit their minimum protein goal - since that's a biggie for healthy muscles, skin, hair and organs - and not worry about the other 2 macros too much and focus on foods they find filling and enjoy and provide them with a nice variety of micronutrients.0 -
Ahem... well.. considering that the OP hasn't given me any impression she struggles with not eating an all candy or all mcdonalds diet.. and she's shown some interest in eating a balanced diet and wanting to work out her macro percentages, i think its safe to say my comment about macros helping with satiety still stands.
If people find a macro helps more then another then yes, they will find it easier to stick to their calorie goal.
There are some people out there who don't find protein to help them and feel ravenous all day.. no matter how important protein is for various reasons, if they are hungry and over eating as a result, all the healthy skin, muscles hair and organs in the world aren't going to matter if they can't get the weight off or gain weight still.2 -
I get what you're saying and I promise I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just trying to expand on the idea since a person new to weight loss might make certain assumptions based on how we present things.
I've seen plenty of posts of newbies saying "Help! I'm eating at my calorie goal and reaching my macros every day but I'm so hungry that I keep bingeing!"
Someone could easily respond and tell them that their macro distribution isn't working, so they should change it. That doesn't really tell them much though.
It might be better to explain that everyone has different foods they find satiating, and finding those food items can help a lot. For example, that might be cutting down on white bread and sugar, and replacing those carbs with fiber-rich, lower-calorie fruit and vegetables.
Anyhoo. Hopefully I've made my point... sorry for ruffling feathers!1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions