why is the default macro suggestion so carb and fat heavy

MLBinVA

So I'm using this site to help me keep track or more accurately pay attention to what I'm eating while I try to get back in shape. I want to make sure though that the majority of the weight I lose is fat not muscle mass.

What I don't understand is when I put in my weight and tell it my goals the default is 50% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein. Why on earth wouldn't it be almost the exact opposite? I've changed it to 35, 20, and 45 respectively which makes WAY more sense to me and it seems to be working very well. I just can't get over the idea that you'd want to base your diet around lots of carbs and even more fat than protein.

Am I missing something or is the formula just meant to be easier for people to meet but not necessarily be effective? I mean if you look at the macros of the suggested formula it almost suggests to eat mac and cheese instead of chicken breast. Seems like this formula would cause you to lose muscle over fat which may be quicker since it's denser so you see the numbers you want (why else would you want to eat more fat than protein) but is the exact opposite of a long term healthy lifestyle.

I'm not a nutritionist but something just doesn't seem right.

TavistockToad

By percentage I eat more fat than protein, it isn't affecting my muscle mass though as adequate protein for me is around 25% if my cals whereas I am mire satiated eating higher fat so it usually lands around 35%.

The overall calorie deficit determines my weight loss.

kommodevaran

Because eating healthily isn't supposed to feel like punishment.

cmriverside

I've always eaten pretty close to those defaults. I lost 70+ pounds and have kept it off eating that way. It's all about calories and *sufficient* protein and fat...which the defaults are sufficient according to health guidelines.

Protein is hard on my kidneys and liver, and I don't need that much of it. Carbs give me a sense of well-being. Fat for me is satiating.

To each their own, my friend.

jgnatca

The defaults work well for my eating habits. It’s pretty impressive that you manage to avoid the fats. The fats are in everything I love.

erickirb

because there is no benefit from eating 45% protein (or more) unless your diet is 1000 cals or less. Be aware that you can change the % to suit your diet, but the default is not a bad starting point for someone eating maintenance.

I do agree, in a deficit, 20% protein is a bit low, I set mine at 25%

lemurcat12

Macros don't really matter for weight loss, so long as you have enough protein to maximize muscle retention (which isn't a huge amount, about .65-.85 g per lb of a healthy goal weight). The energy providers in our diet are carbs and fat, and most of the healthiest human diets (and human diets generally) tend to be higher in carbs as a percentage than the other two -- follows from "eat mostly plants." But human diets are variable in macros and a wide variety are fine. (I also think there's some evidence that eating very high protein, which 50% is, at most calorie levels, for a long period of time might not be good for longevity, but I don't think it's a big deal for shorter periods of time and so many other things make a difference that if you otherwise love eating that way at maintenance, eh, probably fine.)

Percentage is a bad way to determine needs, so MFP's formula is going to work better or worse depending on how high a deficit you are keeping. A woman aiming for 110 will have a range of goal for protein under the formula above of about 70-95 g, which is 23%-32% of 1200, so I'd bump protein a bit if eating at 1200, but then most probably should be eating at a higher cal level.

For someone at 1500-1800 cal, 20% = 75-90 g, which would be great for someone aiming to be 110-120 or so, and again I'd bump it a bit if goal weight is higher. I tend to think 40 (carbs)-30-30 makes a lot of sense when dieting unless you prefer lower fat or lower carb. 20% is probably sufficient for most (if they are at least a little bit active) at maintenance.

The idea that one should aim for 50% protein as healthier or that carbs and fat are somehow inherently less healthy than protein is wrong, however. Carbs and fat sources can be extremely healthy, protein is important, but not all that or the most healthy (or only not bad) food source, that's what comes of demonizing various macros for so long.

For some a higher protein diet might be beneficial if they find it more satiating, but it has no benefits if you are struggle to meet it or find your diet is less satisfying.

I also wouldn't take the default macros too seriously, however.

CyberTone

MFP actually decreased the default carbohydrate goal by 5% and increased the protein goal by 5% over three years ago. The defaults are within the guideline ranges for the *average* person. MFP allows users to customize their daily goals.

https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/1375583-a-message-about-myfitnesspal-s-updated-nutrition-goals

jjpptt2

I've always assumed that it's to make the diet more sustainable/manageable for people who aren't accustomed to managing what they eat. Since sustainability is 90% of long term success, it makes sense to me.

CarvedTones

I don't eat mammal meat; my protein sources are poultry and fish, so I often blow through the protein number and rarely meet the fat number. In maintenance, they are all too high as far as comparing them to what I really need, so it doesn't bother me that I am not consistently hitting all of them as long as I am getting above reasonable minimum on everything.