Calories and macros

hboa2

Hello

I am just wondering does everyone use the calories and macros set by MFP for weight loss or do you alter them to match what you have been set from elsewhere.

Thank you

PeachHibiscus

I use the calories set by MFP but I alter the macros as the default gives me 50% carbs. I lower carbs to 30%, as I'm diabetic, and up the protein and fat.

I'm sure everyone does it differently, based upon what works for them. That's one of the things I like about MFP.

AnnPT77

Separate answer for calories vs. macros:

I started with the MFP calorie estimate, but after around a month, my weight loss rate made it very obvious that I'm one of the statistically unusual people for whom these research-based estimates are pretty far off. I was logging very conscientiously/carefully/consistently at the time, so I used my own calorie intake and loss rate to estimate the number of calories I needed to lose at a sensible rate. After that, my weight loss was very predictable - the usual ups and downs from one day to the next, but the longer-term trend was very close to what I predicted based on the calorie goal I'd estimated from my own data.

Generally, that's what I (and quite a few other people here) recommend: Follow the MFP estimate and process, logging reasonably accurately, for 4-6 weeks, then compare your targeted loss rate to your actual loss rate. Adult women not yet in menopause should compare body weight at the same relative point in at least two different menstrual cycles.

If there's a meaningful difference between expectation and reality, adjust your goal using the assumption that 500 calories per day is a pound a week. (Keep the loss rate moderate: "Lose weight fast" is most often not a winning strategy.)

MFP uses science-based calorie estimating methods. So do most TDEE calculators. The difference is that MFP expects you to set activity level based on your life outside any intentional exercise, then log the exercise and eat those additional calories when you exercise. TDEE calculators expect you to average in your intentional exercise with the activity from your daily life.

Either of those can work, used intelligently. The thing to know is that they're giving you an science-based statistical estimate. It will be close for most people, noticeably far off (high or low) for a few, and surprisingly far off for a very rare small number of people. That's the nature of statistical estimates. That's also the basis for recommending you check your results against expectations, because it's not always obvious why a particular person is non-average.

Starting with some statistical estimate like that is always a better idea than starting with numbers you get from some other individuals' experience. You're likely to be close to average, but you're less likely to be close to any other specific individual.

As far as macros, there's some discretion involved. For most people the MFP defaults aren't a bad place to start, as long as the person isn't trying to lose weight crazy fast for their current size. Under-eat by too much, there's no way to get adequate nutrition, period.

Unless someone is following some specialized diet that prescribes certain macro ratios or gram goals (like keto, a diabetic-focused diet, etc.), I'd suggest a person start logging, see how their eating choices stack up against the MFP defaults, then adjust if either protein or fats are persistently low. You don't have to be exact, or perfect every day: Pretty close, on average over a few days to a week - that's good enough.

Along the way, you can learn more about what macros do, what lifestyle issues might lead you to want to vary them, how you feel with certain macro mixes, etc. Then you can adjust based on that knowledge. Humans are adaptive omnivores, so as long as you're not starting with a diagnosed deficiency or diet-related disease, you can take a bit of time to work on getting macros where you best benefit.

For myself and my specific size/lifestyle/preferences, I have a minimum protein goal in grams (100g), a minimum fats goal in grams (50g), try to get a good mix of mono- and polyunsaturated fats (not just saturated fats), some Omega-3 fats (not just Omega-6 fats), and 800 grams of varied, colorful veggies & fruits. That's more structured than a lot of people here prefer to be, and I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong.

kshama2001

I use both the calories and macros from MFP. For carbs, I find it helpful to prioritize foods like rice & beans, and fruits and veggies. As high carb snacky/desserty things generally also come with a lot of fat, this also helps keep my fat consumption under control. I love fat, but don't find it particularly satiating, and at 9 calories per gram as opposed to protein and carbs' 4 calories per gram, for me fat calories add up quickly without much satiety for the calories.

neanderthin

If someone has no experience with dieting or has very little knowledge of nutrition in general then using the standard settings on MFP is probably as good as any place to start. Keep in mind institutionally broad recommendations for a population is just a safe and homogeneous template, and obviously results can be conflictive and confusing for a lot of people. Nevertheless, it's a learning curve that everyone needs to go through. cheers

hboa2

Thank you everyone x x