How to hit my carb intake (MACROS)

Gabriellemlr

Im a carb-aholic ...when it comes to eating.
Only when Im being moderate and healthy I cant hit my carbs.
Mostly because if I add in the "bad carbs" to fill the carbs then Im over on sodium or calories. I guess the real probelm is I dont know enough "healthy" carbs to make the most of my meals. Any pointers or guiders.

NYPhotographer2021

Fruit is mostly carbs, so fruit. Same with veggies. Brown or wild rice. Really, there are no "bad carbs". I limit carbs because I'm diabetic and feel better when my carbs are low. But if you're not diabetic or have a medical issue eating carbs, then just keep track of your calories. Don't try to hit your carbs all the time.

snowflake954

Sorry, but I'm finding your post confusing. What exactly are "bad" carbs and what are "good" carbs? You don't know how to add fruits and vegetables into your diet? Is that your problem?

Lietchi

First of all, not reaching your suggested carb intake isn't necessarily an issue - different macro distributions work for different people and carbs are less essential than (healthy) fats and sufficient protein intake, unless you need to fuel extensive exercise.
I naturally tend to eat at 40-45% carbs instead of the 50% MFP recommends, it hasn't impeded my weight loss at all.

Secondly: without knowing what/how much you're currently eating or what you consider to be 'bad' carbs, it's hard to give suggestions. But generally speaking, most vegetables are sources of carbs. Potatoes and sweet potatoes too. LBeans and legumes (chickpeas, lentils,...). Pasta, rice,... They can all be part of a healthy diet, nothing bad about them unless eating them makes you have cravings (very individual).

cwolfman13

Lot of perfectly healthy sources of carbohydrates. Oats and other whole grains, rice, pasta, potatoes and other root vegetables, beans, lentils, fruit, veg.

lemurcat2

Are you referring to carbs+fat as "bad carbs"? If so, that would explain why you are then going over your calories. If not, you could just adjust portion size (eat 50 g of bread rather than 100 g, if you are calling bread a bad carb). I think it's not especially helpful to call foods that are a mix of carbs and fat "carbs," but I know it's common.

Anyway, to repeat what others have said, you don't need to hit your carb goals. You should hit your cal goal or come close, but if you like eating more protein and fat and fewer sources of carbs, that's cool. I'm currently eating around 25% protein, 45% fat, and 30% carbs on average (some days I have more carbs, some days less), as it just fits my preferences lately and is satisfying for me.

But as others have said, good choices of carbs that don't come with a lot of other cals to blow the cal budget include vegetables and fruit, beans and lentils, whole grains, potatoes and sweet potatoes, and many others. And there's nothing actually wrong with white rice, bread, or pasta, either, except that for some they can be easy to overeat.

Gabriellemlr

snowflake954 wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm finding your post confusing. What exactly are "bad" carbs and what are "good" carbs? You don't know how to add fruits and vegetables into your diet? Is that your problem?

Sounds a bit cocky to say the least.
To further clarify at the end of planning my meals out I tend to have an excess of 100+ grams of carbs remaining. I'm fairly new to planning based on Macros. In which on boards and fourms I just keep reading "make sure you hit close as possible to your numbers"
So If others said "don't worry about hitting carbs" what's the point of counting at all?

lemurcat2

Gabriellemlr wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm finding your post confusing. What exactly are "bad" carbs and what are "good" carbs? You don't know how to add fruits and vegetables into your diet? Is that your problem?

Sounds a bit cocky to say the least.
To further clarify at the end of planning my meals out I tend to have an excess of 100+ grams of carbs remaining. I'm fairly new to planning based on Macros. In which on boards and fourms I just keep reading "make sure you hit close as possible to your numbers"
So If others said "don't worry about hitting carbs" what's the point of counting at all?

Generally, the idea of a macro-based approach is to try to help you find a sensible, nutrient sufficient diet, rather than one that is overly lopsided in some way. If you are a complete beginner to planning your diet, some default macros like MFP has can be a starting point, and will (generally) make sure you are getting sufficient protein and fat and, hopefully, nutrient-dense carbs (and sufficient fiber, which is counted as a carb in the US/Canadian entries, and IMO is a more important thing to count than sugar or sodium).

But beyond that, a macro-based approach (if it fits your macros) is more designed to be planned around the macros that help you specifically reach your goals (fitness, satiety, etc.) and eat in a way easy to stick to. So many experiment to see what way of eating works best for them, choose their macros if they like a macro-based approach, and then eat to those macros. No one set of macros is necessary or right for everyone, and carbs in particular can very from quite high to quite low and still be part of an overall nutritious diet. It's the specific foods eaten and not the macros that determines how healthy the diet is.

If you are at your calories and way under carbs, you should be high on fat or protein. Chances are that is fine, if you are enjoying what you eat and feeling good and satisfied. If you are at your calories and way under carbs and not high on the other macros, then it might be an issue with the entries chosen (some have no macro information or bad macro information). If you want to open your diary I'd be happy to check, or you can do it yourself, of course, if what I am saying is clear enough.

sijomial

Not seeing the problem that you are under your carbs and over your fat and protein allowances but hitting your calorie goal. Are you perhaps missing your fibre goal as that's a potential issue?

Suggest you look though your day and think if you want to swap out some of the foods or change quantities if you really want to add the restriction of getting very close to all your macro goals. Although that is just one approach and not a requirement. Many people simply treat carbs as a filler once their protein and fat goals are met.

Explaining what you mean by "bad carbs" would help enormously.
Personally I don't have that distinction, food is food with different nutritional profiles but no moral values attached.

AnnPT77

Gabriellemlr wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm finding your post confusing. What exactly are "bad" carbs and what are "good" carbs? You don't know how to add fruits and vegetables into your diet? Is that your problem?

Sounds a bit cocky to say the least.
To further clarify at the end of planning my meals out I tend to have an excess of 100+ grams of carbs remaining. I'm fairly new to planning based on Macros. In which on boards and fourms I just keep reading "make sure you hit close as possible to your numbers"
So If others said "don't worry about hitting carbs" what's the point of counting at all?

Others have given good guidance, since you posted this question. I'd just like to add one piece of context, sort of a pedantic technical point, that may make it more clear why people would say the bolded thing.

In a strict technical sense, both protein and fats are "essential macronutrients" in the sense that we MUST eat some for good health: Our bodies can't manufacture those two macronutrients out of any other macronutrient.

Carbohydrates are not an "essential macronutrient" in that sense. It's oversimplifying a little, but basically our bodies can manufacture carbs if it really needs some, using some of the protein and fats we eat as building blocks to create carbohydrates.

That doesn't mean carbohydrates aren't important at all - clearly, they're so important that human bodies have learned how to create them. It also doesn't mean that some individuals won't find they do better eating a certain level of carbs, because there can be individualized effects on energy level, feeling full, and that sort of thing. (Obviously those personal, subjective aspects can be figured out only by experimenting, because other people's experiences may not apply.)

That carbs are not an "essential macronutrient" does mean that carbs are a more *flexible* piece of the nutritional puzzle. We need a certain minimum of protein. We need a certain minimum of fats. Getting more of fats or protein than the minimums is generally fine, for a healthy person (i.e., without a disease that requires that person to limit one or the other).

Once we have the needed minimums of protein and fats, any remaining calories can come from any of the three macronutrients. How much should be carbs is personal and subjective.

As has been said, start with MFP's recommendations, treat both fats and protein as minimums (or at least get close - exact isn't essential). Don't be way low regularly on either one of those. Once that's good, you can decide whether you do better getting relatively more carbs, or getting more than the minimum of fats or protein.

IMO, that's the point of counting: Get enough protein. Get enough fats. Figure out your personal sweet spot for carbohydrates. That's the foundation of nutrition.

Next chapter: Fiber (important), micronutrients (important), balance of types of fats, and more. Do you need to go that far? No, not unless you want to, or some problem (deficiency) leads you there. Many people lead long lives without ever counting any of these things.

Best wishes!

cwolfman13

Gabriellemlr wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm finding your post confusing. What exactly are "bad" carbs and what are "good" carbs? You don't know how to add fruits and vegetables into your diet? Is that your problem?

Sounds a bit cocky to say the least.
To further clarify at the end of planning my meals out I tend to have an excess of 100+ grams of carbs remaining. I'm fairly new to planning based on Macros. In which on boards and fourms I just keep reading "make sure you hit close as possible to your numbers"
So If others said "don't worry about hitting carbs" what's the point of counting at all?

This depends on context and why you're taking a macro approach. In terms of weight management, macros don't really matter...weight management is about calories. If you're new to all of this, I'd focus on that first and foremost.

Certain macro ratios may help with hunger...or fitness performance...to some extent body composition, and it can be of benefit if you have a super lopsided, out of balance diet. But there is no universally optimal macro ratio. A bodybuilder is going to have a far different ideal macro ratio than a marathon runner for example. A vegans macro ratio is typically going to look much different from that of an omnivore...and so on and so forth.

Carbohydrates are the most flexible macro as they aren't absolutely essential to our health and survival...protein and dietary fat is.

kshama2001

Gabriellemlr wrote: »

Im a carb-aholic ...when it comes to eating.
Only when Im being moderate and healthy I cant hit my carbs.
Mostly because if I add in the "bad carbs" to fill the carbs then Im over on sodium or calories. I guess the real probelm is I dont know enough "healthy" carbs to make the most of my meals. Any pointers or guiders.

Not being over on calories is the key to losing weight.

As others have said, macros like carbs can be important for satiety, and so can be important for weight loss, but only indirectly.

If your carbs come from whole foods like fruits, veggies, grains, legumes, etc., sodium won't be an issue.

That said, since I have no medical reason to track sodium, I don't. I swapped it out for fiber in my food diary. Hitting my fiber (and protein) goals is very important for my own satiety.