The right macro goals?
Options
azkabanned
Posts: 79 Member
So I was told to increase protein and fat for less hunger, I adjusted my macro goals and consciously adjusted what I ate but am still not eating enough protein..
All I want to do is lose weight without losing too much muscle. Am I okay to lower the protein goal a little? Because it’s a feeling a little infeasible. With 3 eggs and 2 servings of salmon, even adding Greek yogurt to my diet won’t help me reach my protein goal atm...
All I want to do is lose weight without losing too much muscle. Am I okay to lower the protein goal a little? Because it’s a feeling a little infeasible. With 3 eggs and 2 servings of salmon, even adding Greek yogurt to my diet won’t help me reach my protein goal atm...
0
Replies
-
Is there a reason you're only eating about 1000 calories?
2 -
You're not eating enough of anything by the looks of that.
What are your stats?1 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Is there a reason you're only eating about 1000 calories?
Today, I’m already over my carb limit and don’t have anything to eat that will just up my protein and fat intake other than eggs...but 4 a day seems a bit much in the cholesterol department. I ate 1300-1600 a couple days ago so I also wanted to balance those days out for my 1200cal goal.TavistockToad wrote: »You're not eating enough of anything by the looks of that.
What are your stats?
5’8” at 129.8lb today, sedentary, aiming to lose 2lb a week so I have a 1200 cal/day goal (which was quite easy to follow the last time I dieted but I didn’t pay attention to carbs/protein/fat)0 -
poetrywise wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Is there a reason you're only eating about 1000 calories?
Today, I’m already over my carb limit and don’t have anything to eat that will just up my protein and fat intake other than eggs...but 4 a day seems a bit much in the cholesterol department. I ate 1300-1600 a couple days ago so I also wanted to balance those days out for my 1200cal goal.TavistockToad wrote: »You're not eating enough of anything by the looks of that.
What are your stats?
5’8” at 129.8lb today, sedentary, aiming to lose 2lb a week so I have a 1200 cal/day goal (which was quite easy to follow the last time I dieted but I didn’t pay attention to carbs/protein/fat)
How much weight are you trying to lose? You seem to be at a healthy weight.
Another 10lb would be perfect, so I should be at goal weight in 5 weeks according to the app.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Is there a reason you're only eating about 1000 calories?
Today, I’m already over my carb limit and don’t have anything to eat that will just up my protein and fat intake other than eggs...but 4 a day seems a bit much in the cholesterol department. I ate 1300-1600 a couple days ago so I also wanted to balance those days out for my 1200cal goal.TavistockToad wrote: »You're not eating enough of anything by the looks of that.
What are your stats?
5’8” at 129.8lb today, sedentary, aiming to lose 2lb a week so I have a 1200 cal/day goal (which was quite easy to follow the last time I dieted but I didn’t pay attention to carbs/protein/fat)
you're at the low end of healthy weight for your height. look at recomp or losing 0.5lb per week maximum. losing 2lb a week is not going to happen in any healthy way.3 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Is there a reason you're only eating about 1000 calories?
Today, I’m already over my carb limit and don’t have anything to eat that will just up my protein and fat intake other than eggs...but 4 a day seems a bit much in the cholesterol department. I ate 1300-1600 a couple days ago so I also wanted to balance those days out for my 1200cal goal.TavistockToad wrote: »You're not eating enough of anything by the looks of that.
What are your stats?
5’8” at 129.8lb today, sedentary, aiming to lose 2lb a week so I have a 1200 cal/day goal (which was quite easy to follow the last time I dieted but I didn’t pay attention to carbs/protein/fat)
At your height and weight, 2lbs a week is not going to be possible. Expect much slower (and healthier) weight loss.3 -
With that deficit, you're going to lose muscle regardless of your macros. With being already at the low end of healthy, you shouldn't be aiming for more than 0.5 a week, if at all.3
-
Fix your calorie target and your macro goals (minimums) may well look after themselves.2
-
Fix your calorie target and your macro goals (minimums) may well look after themselves.
^^^ This, cos how else are you going to get enough of everything and lose fat at a decent rate (not too fast or too big of a deficit otherwise muscle gets broken down too)? The nearer to goal you are the slower the rate should be cos maintenance....
0 -
I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.3
-
kommodevaran wrote: »I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.
The first part I can accept, more calories is an easy adjustment... but I’m pretty sure a goal weight of 119 is still within healthy range. Being a healthy weight isn’t my only goal here, as shallow as that sounds.5 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.
The first part I can accept, more calories is an easy adjustment... but I’m pretty sure a goal weight of 119 is still within healthy range. Being a healthy weight isn’t my only goal here, as shallow as that sounds.
What are your goals exactly? What are you currently not satisfied with body-wise? Because with your current stats, if you go that low you will definitely lose muscle.. there is nowhere else to take it at that point.2 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.
The first part I can accept, more calories is an easy adjustment... but I’m pretty sure a goal weight of 119 is still within healthy range. Being a healthy weight isn’t my only goal here, as shallow as that sounds.
You are sure based on what? That would give you a BMI of 18.1. That is underweight for your height. I think you need to take a close look at your priorities and motives. You are exhibiting disordered thinking.
4 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.
The first part I can accept, more calories is an easy adjustment... but I’m pretty sure a goal weight of 119 is still within healthy range. Being a healthy weight isn’t my only goal here, as shallow as that sounds.
119 at 5'8" is an underweight BMI of 18.1. It is not healthy. Please take a good look at your motives and choices here. You are exhibiting disordered thinking.3 -
119 at 5'8" is an underweight BMI of 18.1. It is not healthy. Please take a good look at your motives and choices here. You are exhibiting disordered thinking.
BMI is a very Western construct to me... I would barely find clothes that fit in Hong Kong and Korea at my current state. In any case I’d need to be 123lb to wear my own jeans that I haven’t worn since I gained weight in Italy this summer from all the carbs, that’s only a couple pounds off from my goal weight of 119.
Honestly I thought lowering the calories in my diet but changing the composition with more protein and fats and less carbs, would suffice in the health department. I’m eating healthier less processed foods than I used to, going to yoga/barre 5 times a week since the new year. I’m also open to upping calories and slowing the rate of weight loss, just wanted to play with the macros first to see if I’d still be hungry (the whole point of this thread) ... But thanks for accusing me of having a disorder.1 -
[quote="mmapags;c-41223363"
119 at 5'8" is an underweight BMI of 18.1. It is not healthy. Please take a good look at your motives and choices here. You are exhibiting disordered thinking.
BMI is a very Western construct to me... I would barely find clothes that fit in Hong Kong and Korea at my current state. In any case I’d need to be 123lb to wear my own jeans that I haven’t worn since I gained weight in Italy this summer from all the carbs, that’s only a couple pounds off from my goal weight of 119.
Honestly I thought lowering the calories in my diet but changing the composition with more protein and fats and less carbs, would suffice in the health department. I’m eating healthier less processed foods than I used to, going to yoga/barre 5 times a week since the new year. I’m also open to upping calories and slowing the rate of weight loss, just wanted to play with the macros first to see if I’d still be hungry (the whole point of this thread) ... But thanks for accusing me of having a disorder. [/quote]
No accusation of a disorder, although that is entirely possible. Just an accusation of disordered thinking. Whether BMI is a "western construct" or not, underweight is underweight. Is your desire to have a certain "look" or to optimize health?2 -
No accusation of a disorder, although that is entirely possible. Just an accusation of disordered thinking. Whether BMI is a "western construct" or not, underweight is underweight. Is your desire to have a certain "look" or to optimize health?
Is wanting to look skinnier looked down upon on these forums?.... I’m striving for a healthier lifestyle yes, but I’m not ashamed to say I want to look better as well.
Also, my point with BMI being a very Western construct is, under/overweight can slightly differ for different groups of people. The national average weight of women in South Korea is 124lb, in a fully developed country with amazing food. If the averages can differ so much ethnicity to ethnicity, so can the standards of under/overweight, no?
———————
Back on the topic of macro goals.... adjusted to 30% protein and hopefully that’s more doable/ less stressful for me to aim at.
1 -
No accusation of a disorder, although that is entirely possible. Just an accusation of disordered thinking. Whether BMI is a "western construct" or not, underweight is underweight. Is your desire to have a certain "look" or to optimize health?
Is wanting to look skinnier looked down upon on these forums?.... I’m striving for a healthier lifestyle yes, but I’m not ashamed to say I want to look better as well.
Also, believe it or not, underweight and overweight are different for different groups of people. The national average weight of women in South Korea is 124lb, in a fully developed country with amazing food. If the averages can differ so much ethnicity to ethnicity, so can the standards of under/overweight, no?
Weight only tells you part of the story. If I was on the lower end of the healthy BMI range and still not at the look I wanted, I would consider doing a recomp (assuming no disordered thinking was in play). You may not need to lose more weight, you may just want more muscle on your body and less fat. I suspect this will give you the "look" you're aiming for. When I read about differences in BMI online, I see that although the healthy weight range is narrower for Asian-Americans than it is for others, the *underweight* cut off is still the same.
That is, anything below 18.5 is still considered unhealthy. It's just that Asian-Americans are considered *overweight* at a lower BMI than other races. (I apologize for using an American framing here, it's just the resource that I was able to find online). Being underweight still carries risks, even if you're Asian.
https://aadi.joslin.org/en/am-i-at-risk/asian-bmi-calculator3 -
Under-weight is underweight.
The WHO standards taking into account 9 Asian countries maintain 18.5 as the lowest end of normal weight and modify the upper end of normal weight to 23 for Asian populations. http://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/bmi_asia_strategies.pdf
At 5ft 8" you are significantly taller than the "average" 5ft 4" tall South Korean lady whose weight you just quoted. And taller than the average 5ft 2.6" Japanese lady. http://www.wecare4eyes.com/averageemployeeheights.htm (5ft 3.5" and 5ft 2.25" http://www.averageheight.co/average-female-height-by-country)
You may want a flat stomach... that is fine and more the power to you.
Forgive us for pointing out that the "correct" way to achieve your goal is while seeking to increase your health, not decrease it.
Yes, strength training and maintaining or increasing your weight while decreasing the volume you occupy (i.e. by reducing fat) is going to be harder than just starving yourself to a position of being under-weight.6 -
kommodevaran wrote: »I don't think anybody meant to suggest that you should aim for 40% protein. If you're hungry, then not eating enough overall, not getting in enough variety, and having a low weight, is a more likely explanation. You can't lose 2 pounds per week at your current weight, and it's not even a good idea to lose more weight, period. If you can't accept this, maybe you should try talking to your doctor about it.
The first part I can accept, more calories is an easy adjustment... but I’m pretty sure a goal weight of 119 is still within healthy range. Being a healthy weight isn’t my only goal here, as shallow as that sounds.
I'm not going to tackle whether 119lbs is healthy or achievable for you, but I AM going to point out something about your rate of loss, because with your stats, 1200 calories isn't going to produce a 2 pound rate of weekly loss.
MFP won't ever spit out a target that is lower than 1200, because 1200 calories is generally accepted to be the minimum healthy calorie intake for adult women. There's a point at which you can keep telling MFP that you want to lose more weight per week, and it will continue to spit out 1200, because it has hit the floor.
For example, I'm 5'4" and 115 pounds. Whether I tell MFP I want to lose 2 pounds, 1.5 pounds or 1 pound per week, it gives me the same calorie target, because I can't lose more than about 0.5 pounds per week. The rate at which I can lose weight AND get adequate nutrition is based on my current weight, not on what I wish I could do.
You're also at a weight where you're not going to be able to lose more than about 0.5-1 pound per week.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions