Hello & asking for help with Macros

Ms_P_Lioness

First, i'd like to say hello and glad to be here (again). I'm def going to try to be more engaged and push myself harder.
I'm wondering if I can ask for assistance with figuring out my macros. Maybe I did something wrong for it to calculate 206 carbs. My numbers just seem awfully high.

Lietchi

206gr of carbs isn't particularly high. MFP uses standard percentages, which you can't deviate from if you want.

If you want to lose weight, calories are what counts. Macros are important for health, satiation, if you have particular athletic goals...

If you tell us more about yourself and your goals, we might be able to give more specific advice.

AnnPT77

If your calorie goal is around 1650, that'd be about right as the default. It's also not just an "MFP thing", but a common mainstream recommendation by actual experts. But there's nothing magical about it.

It's calories that matter directly for fat loss, not macros. Macros are more about satiation, body composition, nutrition, health, energy level, etc. In that sense, macro levels can indirectly affect fat loss: Fatigue from undernutrition may make us move less, burn fewer calories than expected. Cravings from undernutrition may make it hard to stick with a calorie goal. But the direct issue is still calories.

Carbs are not the devil, though a lot of dumb stuff in the blogsphere would make you think that. Veggies, fruits, whole grains, most dairy foods contain a fair fraction of carbs, and those are nutrient-dense foods. And even some baked goods or candy, in the context of overall good nutrition and appropriate calories, are not going to cancel out the broccoli you ate.

Protein (essential amino acids) and fats (essential fatty acids) are "essential nutrients" in the technical sense that our bodies can't manufacture them out of any other nutrient, so we need to eat some. Carbohydrates? Our bodies can make those out of extra fats or protein, so carbohydrate intake is more flexible, in that technical sense.

As long as you don't eat so many carbs that you can't get enough protein or fats within sensible calories, you'll be OK.

Some people find that eating more carbs spikes their appetite. Those people will benefit from eating fewer carbs. Some other people find that eating too few carbs tanks their energy level. Those people will benefit from eating more carbs. Sometimes food choices to get those carbs will matter to a person. (Many people find so-called "whole foods" more filling than so-called "hyperpalatable foods", for example.) You can figure out where you stand, if you experiment.

I didn't worry too much about carbs one way or the other while losing weight. I focused on adequate protein and fats, plus making sure to get plenty of varied, colorful veggies/fruit for micronutrients and fiber. But looking backwards, I was eating 150+ grams of carbs most days then, usually just under 50% of my calories. Now, in maintenance, it's 200+ grams most days, often more. (I'm older, female, non-large.) It's not been a problem either losing weight or maintaining weight, for me, to be eating around the default recommendation for carbs.

neanderthin

It really depends on an individuals health status and the type of lifestyle they have. If someone is obese has IR or is diabetic and is pretty much sedentary that might be a reason to pause and think that fewer carbs are probably a better route as opposed to someone that's happy with their weight and is maintaining and is involved with some exercise routinely. Personally I focus on quality protein and consume more than what most people would consider normal or needed for that matter and my consumption of carbs is below 100g's and I consume around 2500ish calories a day, but I am an advocate for lower carbs, so there is that and my consumption of essential fats comes from natural seafood source to which I consume quite a bit which also adds to my quality protein intake. Basically, it depends on your circumstances and of course anyone can eat anything in any quantity they want but there are consequences that might not be as good health marker wise and understanding your own blood markers is, I believe, important going forward because most negative outcomes are generally not observed or felt immediately, or ever. Cheers.

springlering62

Instead of stressing over daily macros, use the seven day view. I find that I’m pretty close to goal if I average out the week.

I can live with that, and it sure takes the pressure off versus Tetris’ing my meal plan every day!

lindasahn7276

How does one determine nutrition ( macros) percentages for age, and gender.?

AnnPT77

lindasahn7276 wrote: »

How does one determine nutrition ( macros) percentages for age, and gender.?

Not all that different by age and gender. There's some evidence and current recommendations that people 60+ should get a little more protein, and spread it through the day, because we metabolize it less efficiently as we age. Women may need a bit more fat than men. There may be some micronutrient differences (iron, or certain B vitamins for women who could become pregnant are examples), but the differences mostly aren't huge.

Size and goals (fitness, weight, etc.) make a bigger difference than age and gender, IMO. For sure, pre-existing health conditions, and some familiar (genetic) risks may lead an individual to prioritize certain things.

Since you seem to be new here: It's fine to use the MFP defaults while you work on learning more, both about nutrition and how your body responds to some of the more flexible aspects. I recommend thinking of nutrition as something that should be good overall, on average over a day or few.

Healthy body weight is possibly the biggest deal for health, followed by regular exercise, and avoiding smoking/nicotine and excess alcohol. Most people - according to surveys - eat way fewer vegetables and fruits than would be ideal.