Macro vs just calorie counting

lisaj5227

Who sees better results or does it matter?

callsitlikeiseeit

still comes down to calories.

doesnt matter how you split the macros up.... if the end calories are over what your body NEEDS and USES, the end result will be weight gain.

SuzySunshine99

For weight loss, only calories matter.

Marco splits can help with satiety and sustainability, but that’s personal preference.

penguinmama87

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

For weight loss, only calories matter.

Marco splits can help with satiety and sustainability, but that’s personal preference.

Yep.

I have played with macros some as I go, but that's been as I've learned more about nutrition and honed in on particular goals besides just weight loss for myself (e.g. retaining muscle and increasing strength, which when I started losing weight wasn't something I really even thought about wanting.)

For weight loss, it's going to come down to calories, so it makes sense IMO to start there.

AnnPT77

Macro counting or calorie counting while paying attention to nutrition arrive at about the same place.

Each macronutrient has a characteristic calorie level: Protein & carbs 4 calories per gram, fats 9 calories per gram, alcohol (sort of a pseudo-macro) 7 calories per gram. Count the macros, you come out close to a particular calorie total.

On the flip side, if you count calories but pay attention to nutrition, that's likely to involve hitting certain macronutrient goals as an aspect of getting good nutrition. Sometimes people only pay attention to protein, finding that they hit fat minimums without worrying much about it; carbohydrates are not an "essential nutrient" in the technical sense so carb levels are less of a concern unless someone needs to limit them for health reasons (such as being diabetic), or prefers to limit them for other reasons (such as appetite). (An "essential nutrient" in the technical sense is something our bodies can't manufacture out of any other nutrient, and can't get along without. More or less, our bodies can manufacture carbohydrates out of protein or fats if necessary.)

So, counting calories while hitting certain macro goals ends up very similar to macro counting.

Either way, someone concerned about nutrition would probably want to at least spot check fiber intake, maybe some micronutrients that are more common to be short on.

neanderthin

Macros refer to actual food and it's distribution in a diet where CICO is basically math to facilitate a number that then can be manipulated to assure/help your weight goals.

cmriverside

I started out with 80 pounds to lose. I logged all my food. As time went on I was losing weight and started getting more interested in nutrition. That's when I began to try to hit my macros.

Weight loss is about calories, but nutrition is important and so is satiety. In early days I really focused on getting enough protein - that's the one macro that is a little more difficult for me to hit naturally/intuitively. Then I worked on fiber. Those two were important for me to monitor otherwise I can tend to not eat enough vegetables and protein and eat way too much of other stuff.

Old habits die hard.

Now, 14 years later I'm pretty spot-on with my nutrition on most days. It's a process.

cwolfman13

lisaj5227 wrote: »

Who sees better results or does it matter?

Weight management comes down to calories. Your macros can/may impact fitness performance, satiety, and overall feel goodz, but they really don't have much bearing on weight management. The only thing I really ever paid much attention to macro wise was protein, but even at that, my natural dietary habits lends itself to plenty of protein.

My focus was always really on good overall nutrition and calories.

I2k4

lisaj5227 wrote: »

Who sees better results or does it matter?

The question doesn't specify "results" for what. The popular tendency is to assume "weight loss", but (unlike the mirror or my pants size) weight doesn't say if it's a beer gut or giant manly biceps and thighs. I lost most unwanted body fat over about a year starting 2019, with little math or fuss or MFP. Signed on here last summer with a goal of more methodical exercise and nutrition, specifically for the easy macro tracking recommended in a fitness podcast - no interest in scale weight - I'd say it's whatever works best for what an individual is trying to do.

gladiator_2021

One logic does not fit all. Try both ways and see how your body reacts. Each one of us body is different. If you are body builder, you may want more protein and carb. They give you energy beside each nutrient has different function inside our body. Therefore, you can't have just one nutrient to satisfy your calorie intake. High protein diet will kill you kidney. High carbs if not used properly. They will turn into fat and if fat is not used all than heart, arteries have problems. Long story short, we do need all nutrient and in correct portions.

mjglantz

IMHO it comes down to calories. Personally I saw better results when I kept my calories within range AND stuck to higher quality foods; e.g., a big salad full of veggies and lean protein w/good carbs & some fat seemed to be better for me than the same number of calories in something like a sandwich and chips. I look at the macros but don't pay that much attention to them. OTOH I do pay attention to nutrients %'s

MichelleMcKeeRN

I have found it easier to balance my meals when I pay attention to macros. I found I am generally satisfied eating a 500 calorie meat and veggie plate. If I am not consciously thinking about nutrition and macros, I could easily eat 1000 calories of zucchini bread… and then still feel hungry. I use to eat very carb heavy and felt like I was always hungry when I reduced calories.
After, I started watching my macros I started to see a big difference in body composition.