Macros vs calories

Reichlmama

Hi all, I tried to do a search on this topic but didn't see anything after looking thru about 6 pages of old posts, so I apologize if this has been asked before.
Recently rejoined MFP after having back surgery and entered my numbers to find that I should be eating 1200 calories to lose about 2 pounds each week. When I did some research online I am seeing that tracking macros is much more accurate and going that route I end up with 2048 calories a day. That is a HUGE difference! Obviously the levels of protein, fat, and carbs is all different as well.
Any thoughts on what is the best way? On 1200 I am feeling okay at the end of the day, I do "earn" calories thru my exercise but haven't dove into those yet as I'd like to have some in reserve for a weekend night out with friends perhaps.
Thanks for all your advice, appreciate these forums!

janejellyroll

Tracking macros isn't more accurate than counting calories -- it's just another way to count calories.

1,200 is a very low goal and only appropriate for a few people. Depending on your lifestyle and goals, you probably should be eating more. You absolutely should be eating your exercise calories if your goal is 1,200.

Two pounds a week is too much for many people. Not sure what your stating weight is or where you got the goal of 2,048 calories from, which is also important information to help sort through this.

deannalfisher

how much do you want to lose? 2lbs might be too agressive for your weight loss goals

but macros should equal calories (protein/carbs are 4cal/g; fat is 9cal/g) - but different calculators do it different - MFP expects yo uto each back at least a portion of your purpseful exercise calories; other ones (sailrabbit) factor in workouts into your calorie goals

apullum

Tracking macros is not "much more accurate" for weight loss. Weight loss is 100% caused by a consistent calorie deficit, not by which macros those calories come from. Macros may be important for health and satiety, but are not directly relevant to weight loss.

How much weight are you trying to lose? Your rate of loss depends on that, not on how fast you want to lose weight. 2 pounds per week is only appropriate for someone who has about 75+ pounds to lose, and even then, you can choose to lose more slowly. 1200 is the bare minimum recommended for women, and is only appropriate for people who are very short, sedentary, older, and/or don't have much to lose. Most people who get this calorie goal have chosen a pace of loss that is not sustainable given their stats.

cwolfman13

Reichlmama wrote: »

Hi all, I tried to do a search on this topic but didn't see anything after looking thru about 6 pages of old posts, so I apologize if this has been asked before.
Recently rejoined MFP after having back surgery and entered my numbers to find that I should be eating 1200 calories to lose about 2 pounds each week. When I did some research online I am seeing that tracking macros is much more accurate and going that route I end up with 2048 calories a day. That is a HUGE difference! Obviously the levels of protein, fat, and carbs is all different as well.
Any thoughts on what is the best way? On 1200 I am feeling okay at the end of the day, I do "earn" calories thru my exercise but haven't dove into those yet as I'd like to have some in reserve for a weekend night out with friends perhaps.
Thanks for all your advice, appreciate these forums!

There is no Vs. Your calories are comprised of your macros...your macros are what make up your calories. 4 calories per gram of protein and carbohydrate and 9 calories per gram of dietary fat. Calories (energy) are what matter for weight management. Macros are individual...there isn't some kind of universally optimal macro ratio.

I would wager that you are comparing a TDEE calculator (includes exercise) to MFP (NEAT calculator) and also not comparing apples to apples rate of loss target. MFP gives you the option of 1 Lb or 2 Lb or whatever....most TDEE calculators go by % and it's not usually commensurate with X Lbs per week on MFP.

Reichlmama

Thanks all for your information. Guess I can't believe everything I read on the internet, haha. But yes, I would say my goal would be to lose about 30 pound max, definitely not 75+, and I am quite active already thru my job and have added in morning treadmill walks to that as well. I did use a calculator thru an article I read to come up with the macros recommendation which gave me the 2048 number for calories. I have looked around thru a few different "fad" diets, WW, Beachbody, and decided to give this website/app a whirl first. It's all about input/output and I get that, and making better (healthier) choices when choosing my meals and snacks. Hopefully this will help keep me more accountable.
Thanks again!

cmriverside

With 30 pounds to lose and an active job plus purposeful treadmill exercise, 2048 may indeed be the appropriate number.

Here, read this: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1080242/a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants/p1

cwolfman13

Reichlmama wrote: »

Thanks all for your information. Guess I can't believe everything I read on the internet, haha. But yes, I would say my goal would be to lose about 30 pound max, definitely not 75+, and I am quite active already thru my job and have added in morning treadmill walks to that as well. I did use a calculator thru an article I read to come up with the macros recommendation which gave me the 2048 number for calories. I have looked around thru a few different "fad" diets, WW, Beachbody, and decided to give this website/app a whirl first. It's all about input/output and I get that, and making better (healthier) choices when choosing my meals and snacks. Hopefully this will help keep me more accountable.
Thanks again!

What activity level did you select on MFP...if you have a active job, you aren't sedentary which is usually where a 1200 calorie target comes from combined with an aggressive rate of loss goal. Set your activity level appropriately and with 30 Lbs to lose I wouldn't do anymore than 1 Lb per week. 2 Lbs is very aggressive and will put you at the floor of 1200 calories.

Reichlmama

I am a behavior specialist at a middle school, so I spend a lot of my day on walks and doing other physical things with my students (yoga, basketball, catch, etc.) to keep them on the move and help with their behavior needs. I average about 17K-20K steps during my school day, with about 3 sessions of 20+ minutes that are higher in steps, if that makes sense. I chose the 2nd option for my activity level during the day, so not sedentary, but choice after that, as some days it may not be that much depending on student needs or non-school days, which is also why I'd like to get back in the habit of using my treadmill at home. I did go in and change it to 1 pound of weight loss per week, which gave me 1600 calories/day. Instant weight loss is not going to happen, definitely not if I want to maintain it once I get there, so I need to keep reminding myself of that.
Thanks again for all the advice and articles, appreciate it!

deannalfisher

i'd set your MFP goals to very active and a 1lb a week weight loss; then eat back a portion of purpseful activity

Go_Deskercise

Just going to leave this right here....

If you have 75+ lbs to lose 2 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 40-75 lbs to lose 1.5 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 25-40 lbs to lose 1 lbs/week is ideal,
If you have 15 -25 lbs to lose 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/week is ideal, and
If you have less than 15 lbs to lose 0.5 lbs/week is ideal.

oocdc2

Reichlmama wrote: »

Instant weight loss is not going to happen, definitely not if I want to maintain it once I get there, so I need to keep reminding myself of that.

You've got that right: it's a journey, not a race. Good luck!

lemurcat2

The macros and MFP goals are likely not different when the inputs are the same. They use the same basic calculator.

To compare, take a hypothetical person who burns 2200 cals if lightly active but NO other exercise, but in reality does about 5 hours of cardio per week.

Ask MFP for a goal based on losing 2 lb/week, and you get 2200-1000=1200. (But the real goal will be more once you log back exercise.)

If the same person goes to a macro calculator and puts in their activity INCLUDING exercise, they might get a maintenance amount more like 2500. Even more significantly, TDEE calculators usually ask you to pick a weight loss goal not based on lbs, but on percentage: 10% for slower or more moderate loss, or 20% for what they often call more aggressive loss. 20% of 2500=500 cal, so the goal becomes 2500-500=2000.

Both are right, but the TDEE calculator includes exercise in the goal upfront and also forces you to pick a more moderate loss goal, which is often a better choice when you don't have a whole lot to lose.

AnnPT77

Reichlmama wrote: »

I am a behavior specialist at a middle school, so I spend a lot of my day on walks and doing other physical things with my students (yoga, basketball, catch, etc.) to keep them on the move and help with their behavior needs. I average about 17K-20K steps during my school day, with about 3 sessions of 20+ minutes that are higher in steps, if that makes sense. I chose the 2nd option for my activity level during the day, so not sedentary, but choice after that, as some days it may not be that much depending on student needs or non-school days, which is also why I'd like to get back in the habit of using my treadmill at home. I did go in and change it to 1 pound of weight loss per week, which gave me 1600 calories/day. Instant weight loss is not going to happen, definitely not if I want to maintain it once I get there, so I need to keep reminding myself of that.
Thanks again for all the advice and articles, appreciate it!

Deanna is right: What you're describing (17-20k steps, some of which is during basketball, catch, etc.) is not the second level of activity. It's probably the top level of activity. At 1600 + all treadmill calories (however estimated) you could still get a too-aggressive weight loss rate.

It's following a goal for 4-6 weeks that will give you the true answer . . . but losing weight too fast is a health risk, whereas losing it too slowly is frustrating. Targeting either an aggressive rate or a modest one for 4-6 weeks, and staying with it consistently, will give you the data you need to know your calorie needs, either way . . . but personally, I'd want to be on on the lower-risk end of that range.

I underate for a while when I first got on MFP (it underestimates my calorie needs based on accurate behavior/demographic data, which is rare). I got weak and fatigued, even though I corrected as soon as I realized (and feel lucky that nothing worse happened, frankly). It took several weeks to get back to normal strength/energy. I'm thinking that with your active life, you wouldn't want something like that.

Best wishes for much success!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

PAV8888

17 to 20K steps is above MFP's very active setting. I would log activity and exercise beyond 17K steps as additional exercise to be eaten back.