Question about my macro

drewc1130

So I am trying to go from 153 to 120 losing 2 lbs a week. It gave my my macro goals it’s saying I need mostly carbs?? How does that make sense I thought you go on a low carb to lose weight? It’s saying goal 50% carbs that cannot be correct is it?

drewc1130

AnnPT77

Calories, not carbs, are the direct factor in weight loss/maintenance/gain. For some people, eating fewer carbs helps them reduce their appetite. I lost weight fine eating about 50% carbs: 50+ pounds in under a year, almost a third of my body weight. Some people need to limit carbs for a medical reason, such as diabetes. For most, it's purely a matter of preference. If you want to eat fewer carbs, you can change your macro percents in your MFP profile to anything that adds up to 100%. i

As an aside, it's possible that with only 33 pounds to lose, 2 pounds a week is too aggressive, i.e., hard to stick with, and causes higher health risks compared to a slower loss. That's your call, though, how much risk you like to take.

mnewsom73

My goal is to go from 200 to 165. I was advised to get around 150 grams of protein a day? That seems like a lot for a woman almost 50? Anybody have any comments or advice on that?

AnnPT77

mnewsom73 wrote: »

My goal is to go from 200 to 165. I was advised to get around 150 grams of protein a day? That seems like a lot for a woman almost 50? Anybody have any comments or advice on that?

Many of us around here (including me) think it's good to get 0.6-0.8g protein daily per pound of healthy goal weight, which for most people equates reasonably closely to 0.8-1g daily per pound of lean body mass. This is extra-much encouraged if active, especially if active with strength exercise.

One of the risks in weight loss is losing unnecessarily much lean tissue alongside the fat we lose. Things that counter that are losing at a sensibly moderate rate, staying active (especially strength-challenging activity), and getting ample protein (plus generally good nutrition of course).

Many people don't realize that overweight people tend to have more muscle mass than similar-activity-level healthy weight people, just from carrying that extra weight through life. Keeping as much muscle as possible is long-term beneficial.

As far as being 50: There are some indications (from research) that we absorb protein less efficiently as we age, so there may even more benefit from keeping it on the high side.

This is an evidence-based tool that will give you protein goals based on research findings, from a site that's generally regarded as neutral:

https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/

This explains the reasoning behind that tool, and includes footnotes linking to the supporting research:

https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

I'm not affiliated with that site in any way, other than being a fan, and they don't sell protein supplements. (They sell research-based nutrition guides, and these are some of the pages they offer for free to get people interested, basically.)

The US recommendations for protein minimums are about half the above, but they're aimed at the average person in the population (to avoid undernutrition) . . . the average person isn't losing weight, isn't all that active, etc. USDA's nutrition needs estimator based on government recommendations is here:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/home/leaving?allowTrusted=1&target=https://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/dri-calculator/

I'm female, 5'5", age 66, active, maintaining in mid-120s pounds, figure my lean mass is in the range of 90-100 pounds, shoot for a minimum of 100g protein daily and usually exceed it (as a vegetarian), so I'm following my own advice.

P.S. Your question is a good one, but you'll probably get better answers to questions if you post your own thread to ask them, or at least post on a thread that's on the exact topic. This is a little bit different thread, so not that many people might notice your question. That's not a criticism - just trying to help you get the best help possible!

xrj22

If you try to eat heathy but normal diet -- I.e. whole grains, beans, lean meat, lots of vegetables. It will probably come out to about 50% carbs, 25% protein, 25%fats. There really isn't any reason to try to go lower carb that than. What really matters is the calories. First make sure that you are getting enough protein (50 to 100 g is my goal). Extra protein doesn't help or hurt. Then the key with the fats and the carbs is to make both of them healthy. Definitely avoid saturated fats (mostly animal fats), especially if you are worried about cholesterol. Healthy unsaturated fats like olive oil, nuts, etc are probably OK if they don't put you over your calorie limit. Likewise complex carbohydrates are fine - especially if they come from things that are helping with your protein and nutrition (bean, legumes, whole grains). Stay away from sugars and from processed white carbs which are just giving you calories, but no nutrition (white bread, cakes, cookies, potatoes, white rice crackers, etc.)

AnnPT77

xrj22 wrote: »

If you try to eat heathy but normal diet -- I.e. whole grains, beans, lean meat, lots of vegetables. It will probably come out to about 50% carbs, 25% protein, 25%fats. There really isn't any reason to try to go lower carb that than. What really matters is the calories. First make sure that you are getting enough protein (50 to 100 g is my goal). Extra protein doesn't help or hurt. Then the key with the fats and the carbs is to make both of them healthy. Definitely avoid saturated fats (mostly animal fats), especially if you are worried about cholesterol. Healthy unsaturated fats like olive oil, nuts, etc are probably OK if they don't put you over your calorie limit. Likewise complex carbohydrates are fine - especially if they come from things that are helping with your protein and nutrition (bean, legumes, whole grains). Stay away from sugars and from processed white carbs which are just giving you calories, but no nutrition (white bread, cakes, cookies, potatoes, white rice crackers, etc.)

One of these things is not like the others, maybe.

Plain potatoes are actually a reasonably nutritious food, and one of the most sating for many people, according to a research study. I don't understand why they're demonized as a "white carb".

Christmas day, I ate 618g (about a pound and a third) of potatoes, raw weight. According to MFP, that's 416 calories, 12.4g protein, 12.4g fiber, 6.2% calcium, 18.5% iron, 2,515.3 mg potassium, 203.9% vitamin C. It was filling, for sure, for me.

Now, that's kind of a silly big quantity of potatoes, so I wouldn't do it every day (dietary balance, and all that) . . . but it's only around 20% of my TDEE. A smaller portion would fit into many people's day quite nicely, and still make a meaningful contribution to fiber, potassium, and vitamin C.

Also, just as they sat there on my kitchen counter before I cut them into wedges to put in the oven, they're not what I'd call a "processed" food. 🤷‍♀️ YMMV.

kshama2001

mnewsom73 wrote: »

My goal is to go from 200 to 165. I was advised to get around 150 grams of protein a day? That seems like a lot for a woman almost 50? Anybody have any comments or advice on that?

Cosigning for https://examine.com/nutrition/protein-intake-calculator/ protein recommendations.

I shoot for @ 500 calories of exercise per day, and when I achieve that, using the MFP default of 20% protein aligns with the protein recommendation from examine. If I were completely sedentary, I'd need to bump it up to 30%.

callsitlikeiseeit

as others have said, calories are what matter. half my macros are routinely carbs in various forms.

natasor1

What happens in the MFP with 50% carbs. It follows the government obliged program. It simply takes on consideration the average for healthy average male, who is not going to loose weight, but trying to live healthy life. This may fit somebody, but for female trying to loose weight and have done this macro in the past with no success, could be too high. You would be better to test your own macro and follow your own plan, which is suite you better. we are all unique and what suites one person next to you may be completely wrong for you.
Many women have better results with low carb (not necessary 20%) Don t have to go that low, try 30-40, it won t hurt you

callsitlikeiseeit

natasor1 wrote: »

What happens in the MFP with 50% carbs. It follows the government obliged program. It simply takes on consideration the average for healthy average male, who is not going to loose weight, but trying to live healthy life. This may fit somebody, but for female trying to loose weight and have done this macro in the past with no success, could be too high. You would be better to test your own macro and follow your own plan, which is suite you better. we are all unique and what suites one person next to you may be completely wrong for you.
Many women have better results with low carb (not necessary 20%) Don t have to go that low, try 30-40, it won t hurt you

cutting carbs is one way to achieve a calorie reduction. I'm a woman who lost over 200 pounds eating a diet fairly high (the 50% range) in carbs. Unless you are diabetic, there is no reason to reduce carbs unless you simply WANT to use it as a method to reduce calories.

kshama2001

drewc1130 wrote: »

So I am trying to go from 153 to 120 losing 2 lbs a week. It gave my my macro goals it’s saying I need mostly carbs?? How does that make sense I thought you go on a low carb to lose weight? It’s saying goal 50% carbs that cannot be correct is it?

Like others have said, what is needed to lose weight is a calorie reduction. Once you've hit minimums of fat and protein that are needed for health, what you do with the rest is personal preference.

The healthiest and fit group of people I've met in my adult life were at vegetarian yoga centers. They were likely eating between 50-80% carbs. Many were vegans and vegetarians. What they all had in common, however, was an active lifestyle.

I'm not necessarily making claims about veg* eating, but about this population's dedication to a healthy lifestyle. Any macro split can be healthy.