eating 'healthy; vs tracking calories, vs tracking macros

altairego21

can someone explain what each of these mean and who should be doing what?

say someone wants to lose their final 15 lbs of fat what would be best to look into?

AnvilHead

Speaking purely in terms of weight loss, calories are all that matter. Period. Your macros are going to match up if you have them set properly (more or less, depending upon how they're rounded on the nutritional label and how accurate the database entries are that you're using).

Eating "healthy" is a subjective term just like eating "clean". Just eat a reasonably balanced diet and take context and dosage into consideration. Ice cream or a candy bar or whatever once in a while isn't going to hurt anything, but a diet consisting mostly or entirely of ice cream or candy bars or whatever isn't a great idea (for several reasons).

kimny72

Calories for weight loss. You have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Counting calories ensures this, though some people can certainly eat at a deficit without actually counting.

Macros for satiety, and minimums for health and fitness goals. Different macros are satiating for different people. Minimum amounts of protein and fat are necessary for good health.

Eating healthy for, well, being healthy. Means different things to different people.

AnvilHead

kimny72 wrote: »

Eating healthy for, well, being healthy. Means different things to different people.

Ask a vegan/vegetarian what "eating healthy" means.
Ask a raw food vegan what "eating healthy" means.
Ask a pescetarian or ovo-lacto-vegetarian what "eating healthy" means.
Ask a paleo dieter what "eating healthy" means.
Ask a keto dieter what "eating healthy" means.
Ask a IIFYM'er what "eating healthy" means.

Then try to come up with a definition which will be compatible/mutually agreeable to all of them.

livingleanlivingclean

I eat to be healthy. Health is many different things though, and different things to different people. I think in an ideal world, everyone would be making an effort to eat for their health.

Calories are what determine whether you'll lose or gain. If you want to lose any amount you need to be in a deficit. If that requires tracking, do that.

Macros can be helpful to improve body composition. If you're tracking, perhaps consider monitoring your protein and fat intake to make sure you're getting enough.

jjpptt2

Eating healthy is subjective... but in an attempt to NOT bog down the conversation in terminology and semantics, most "healthy" eating protocols focus more on the types of foods and/or how nutritious the food/diet is. Think - Are you getting enough vitamins and nutrients?

Tracking calories, aka counting calories, is managing how many calories (how much energy) you are eating. Calories in compared to calories out is the most fundamental aspect of weight loss. Counting calories isn't necessary, but most people find it very helpful. The two ideas (cals in/cals out and counting calories) are NOT the same thing, but many people here use the 2 interchangeably. I only mention that so you/we all know what you/we are talking about.

Macros refers to carbs, fats, and protein - the 3 major "groups" of calories. Macros can be important for workout performance, overall satiety, body composition, and basic personal preference.


So the oversimplified version is this -

• Eat a healthy diet for overall health - eat a balanced diet (whatever that means to you) of whole foods, convenience foods, and goodies to ensure proper nutrition, vitamins and minerals, as well as a reasonable level of enjoyment of the foods you eat. One can not live on kitkats alone. One should not have to live on chicken breast and broccoli alone.
• Track calories to control weight.
• Track macros for performance, body composition, and satiety.

andreaen

jjpptt2 wrote: »

So the oversimplified version is this -

• Eat a healthy diet for overall health - eat a balanced diet (whatever that means to you) of whole foods, convenience foods, and goodies to ensure proper nutrition, vitamins and minerals, as well as a reasonable level of enjoyment of the foods you eat. One can not live on kitkats alone. One should not have to live on chicken breast and broccoli alone.
• Track calories to control weight.
• Track macros for performance, body composition, and satiety.

Good summary right here.

I personally don't like the word helathy, I rather think of it as eating sensible. Like what your grandma told you as a kid.

waynecali

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

malibu927

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

I pay zero attention to macros per meal. It’s ideal for those who have medical or training reasons to eat a certain number, but it isn’t necessary for the general population.

livingleanlivingclean

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

Optimal for what? I don't think it makes one bit of difference. I know some people sleep better after eating carbs so would eat more carbs later. I know others who don't sleep well on carbs so eat less later. Some people focus carbs around training, and minimise fats.

Do what suits you.

jjpptt2

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting macro ratio per meal is advantageous beyond the benefits of long term adherence and personal preference.

There is some evidence to suggest that nutrient timing is beneficial, but it's so far secondary to overall calorie and macro management that we don't typically talk about it here as a priority for people to worry about. But nutrient timing, I don't think, is what you're asking/talking about.

AnvilHead

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

I've never seen any research stating that maintaining macro ratios per meal is 'optimal'....or even 'advantageous'. There's certainly nothing wrong with doing it if it satisfies some compulsion in your mind, but it's majoring in the minors and unnecessarily complicating things for no good reason.

If we're going to split hairs, there is some research showing that timing protein and carb intake around workouts can be beneficial in certain contexts, so I suppose it could be inferred that maintaining macro ratios per meal would actually be less optimal than targeting macronutrient intake around workouts. But again, it's majoring in the minors and will be all but completely irrelevant for the vast majority of people.


An infographic from Eric Helms showing the relative levels of importance:






And one from Alan Aragon on nutrient timing:

heybales

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

Some people have issues with spiking insulin if they eat all carbs, or mainly carbs or carbs first in any meal or snack.

Then they'll get low blood sugar usually, and that leaves them feeling hungry, when really they ate enough.

So if you can fight through that feeling, doesn't matter.

If you don't like the effect or medical condition and almost passing out, then eat a balanced snack/meal with perhaps protein/fat first.

Main benefit is you dealing with the effect. Many describe this as time they have a snack when they can't deal with it, thereby eating over goal eventually.

mom22dogs

waynecali wrote: »

Hello

I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

You are way overthinking this. You have gotten your answer in the bolded, just not in the words you specifically want. By saying "just hit your numbers by the end of the day" is saying it doesn't matter what the ratio is per meal, as long as you basically hit it for the day. One meal I will have a ton of protien, the next might be higher in carbs, but at the end of the day, it should all balance out.

amusedmonkey

The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.

GottaBurnEmAll

amusedmonkey wrote: »

The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.

^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

janejellyroll

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.

^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Exactly -- I pay attention to all three areas because they drive three different types of success/wellbeing.

HoneyBadger302

janejellyroll wrote: »

^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Exactly -- I pay attention to all three areas because they drive three different types of success/wellbeing. [/quote]

Yup, same here. Some things I find more important than others at this point, with my goals, needs and my body's responses to things as factors to be considered.

My definition of healthy will vary dramatically from another person's, but I don't see myself as an unhealthy eater (most of the time LOL). Why I do the things I do are unique to me and what I want/need though and may very well not work for other people.

NovusDies

I am pretty easy. Healthy to me mostly equals variety and unhealthy mostly means a lack of moderation. There is a little more to it for me but the other healthy/unhealthy rules are specific to my general health like controlling acid reflux as an example.

waynecali

Excellent responses, thank you so much everyone! I just joined the community here and I am learning a lot about different areas/choices like Calories for weight management, flexible macro ratios p/meal based on my activity, and nutrition for health. This really helped me formulate that last sentence and begin seeing effective eating strategies.