Macros

Options
jbeecher1988
jbeecher1988 Posts: 2 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Do you guys find you lose weight faster by prioritizing protein or just getting a good balance of protein/fat/carbs??? Thank you.
Tagged:

Replies

  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,116 Member
    Options
    Everything I have read, albeit not as much as some here, indicates that if one controls for calories keeping them equal macros don't make a significant difference to weight loss. Going low carb can look like it is causing faster weight loss because of significant water weight that comes off as glycogen stores are used up since it requires a fair amount of water to store, but once that is accounted for the fat loss is statistically the same.

    The more important thing has to do with satiety and long term adherence. If how one is eating doesn't make them feel full with their calorie goal and maintain that satiety for sufficient time, that person will be far more likely to go beyond their calorie goal and not adhere to their calorie deficit long term. The macros with the most affect on satiety are protein and fat. In terms of adherence the other factor to consider is whether the pattern of eating is sustainable for a person. That will largely depend on the person, but different macro mixes will fit for some and not for others in terms of foods they like.



  • serpentegena
    serpentegena Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    rileysowner wrote: »
    Everything I have read, albeit not as much as some here, indicates that if one controls for calories keeping them equal macros don't make a significant difference to weight loss. Going low carb can look like it is causing faster weight loss because of significant water weight that comes off as glycogen stores are used up since it requires a fair amount of water to store, but once that is accounted for the fat loss is statistically the same.

    The more important thing has to do with satiety and long term adherence. If how one is eating doesn't make them feel full with their calorie goal and maintain that satiety for sufficient time, that person will be far more likely to go beyond their calorie goal and not adhere to their calorie deficit long term. The macros with the most affect on satiety are protein and fat. In terms of adherence the other factor to consider is whether the pattern of eating is sustainable for a person. That will largely depend on the person, but different macro mixes will fit for some and not for others in terms of foods they like.



    That's not really correct. Fat is the opposite of filling. Protein does correlate to higher satiety, but it is misleading to put two macros with opposite effects side by side in the same sentence.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,918 Member
    edited June 2023
    Options
    My focus is overall health and consume more protein with a higher energy density where animal proteins and veg are prominent and basically lead to more of a whole food diet which are also higher in nutrient density. cheers

  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,114 Member
    Options
    serpentegena wrote: »
    rileysowner wrote: »
    Everything I have read, albeit not as much as some here, indicates that if one controls for calories keeping them equal macros don't make a significant difference to weight loss. Going low carb can look like it is causing faster weight loss because of significant water weight that comes off as glycogen stores are used up since it requires a fair amount of water to store, but once that is accounted for the fat loss is statistically the same.

    The more important thing has to do with satiety and long term adherence. If how one is eating doesn't make them feel full with their calorie goal and maintain that satiety for sufficient time, that person will be far more likely to go beyond their calorie goal and not adhere to their calorie deficit long term. The macros with the most affect on satiety are protein and fat. In terms of adherence the other factor to consider is whether the pattern of eating is sustainable for a person. That will largely depend on the person, but different macro mixes will fit for some and not for others in terms of foods they like.


    That's not really correct. Fat is the opposite of filling. Protein does correlate to higher satiety, but it is misleading to put two macros with opposite effects side by side in the same sentence.

    Highly individual though. Keto is high fat and very satiating for some (but not others).
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,918 Member
    Options
    Yeah, fat is confusing and it's the least satiating macro and the science around that has been there forever. It has to do with energy density. I could easily down 2 tbsp of olive oil in the blink of an eye and feel nothing as far as satiation is concerned. On the other hand I would need to eat 7 or 8 cups of broccoli for the same caloric value. It's how low carb interact with our hormones that effect our satiety and not the fat.
  • serpentegena
    serpentegena Posts: 42 Member
    Options
    jbeecher1988 wrote: »
    Do you guys find you lose weight faster by prioritizing protein or just getting a good balance of protein/fat/carbs??? Thank you.

    The answer is neither. When I was in a weight, or fat-loss phase, I upped my protein intake, but I don't think it was what made a difference to my fat loss. My physical activity program, running 3-4 times a week at 70-85% of maximum, then adding resistance training and building more muscle, which in turn accelerated my metabolism, was what made a radical difference to me.

    I never lost more than 30 lb. (my starting weight was about 180 lb.) but I shed a huge amount of body fat, and built a lot of muscle for a lady in her thirties. This was what built me the body I wanted (still a work in progress, but then again there is always room to improve). My size 8 clothes are loose on me right now. What I gradually moved towards, was a program of body recomposition instead of all-out dieting for magic numbers on the scale.

    What I hope to communicate with this explanation is that dieting by itself is only part of the weight loss equation. If you don't exercise, you won't like the body you'll have after your diet. And you won't feel that well either, because dieting itself is stressful on the body and the mind. You have to put in mental work to stay compliant, to endure the drain of low energy days, to distract yourself from thinking about food. When adding exercice, the focus shifts towards a healthier mindset. You begin to visualize your body as a system with complex interactions (like for example, what to eat, and what time, to have optimal performance in the gym). You begin to chase the post-workout endorphin boost. It replaces the boost you get from your favorite dessert😉 Balanced nutrition + exercice + mindfulness is a winning triad for overall wellness.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,612 Member
    Options
    For me, it's about balancing it. I do find protein satiating and I prioritize fiber along with protein.
  • Rockmama1111
    Rockmama1111 Posts: 262 Member
    Options
    It doesn't help me lose faster, but I am much happier when I eat plenty of protein and fiber. I don't really care how many carbs or how much fat I eat as long as I hit the protein and fiber goals and close to my calorie target.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,154 Member
    Options
    Generally, weight loss is about calories, in the direct sense. Macros specifically and nutrition generally may have an indirect effect, because sub-par nutrition can trigger fatigue (so we burn fewer calories in daily life and exercise intensity) or can trigger cravings/appetite (so we can't stick to a reasonable calorie goal in order to lose fat).

    The minor caveat to that is that protein takes slightly more calories to digest/metabolize compared to carbs or fat (higher TEF, Thermic Effect of Food), so technically eating more protein can result in burning more calories than if we spend those calories on carbs or fat . . . but the effect in any realistically nutritiously well-rounded total way of eating is quite small. (This effect does mean that weight-loss researchers comparing higher fat diets to higher carb diets need to equalize protein between the research arms, or they're stacking the deck.)
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,116 Member
    Options
    serpentegena wrote: »
    rileysowner wrote: »
    Everything I have read, albeit not as much as some here, indicates that if one controls for calories keeping them equal macros don't make a significant difference to weight loss. Going low carb can look like it is causing faster weight loss because of significant water weight that comes off as glycogen stores are used up since it requires a fair amount of water to store, but once that is accounted for the fat loss is statistically the same.

    The more important thing has to do with satiety and long term adherence. If how one is eating doesn't make them feel full with their calorie goal and maintain that satiety for sufficient time, that person will be far more likely to go beyond their calorie goal and not adhere to their calorie deficit long term. The macros with the most affect on satiety are protein and fat. In terms of adherence the other factor to consider is whether the pattern of eating is sustainable for a person. That will largely depend on the person, but different macro mixes will fit for some and not for others in terms of foods they like.



    That's not really correct. Fat is the opposite of filling. Protein does correlate to higher satiety, but it is misleading to put two macros with opposite effects side by side in the same sentence.

    My personal experience is fat is extremely filling. I can eat a high protein low fat meal and eat far more than one that also has a significant amount of fat in it. The only thing that takes a long time to give me a full sensation is carbs. Not only that, I can eat a huge amount of veggies and feel full only to be hungry again in an hour or so. Since eating more fat I have far less hunger and once full can go for extremely long periods without getting hungry. I have found several online resources that state much the same thing. I will have to dig more I guess, but personal experience of n=1 fat is filling for me. If you have studies that show the opposite I would appreciate them.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,116 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, fat is confusing and it's the least satiating macro and the science around that has been there forever. It has to do with energy density. I could easily down 2 tbsp of olive oil in the blink of an eye and feel nothing as far as satiation is concerned. On the other hand I would need to eat 7 or 8 cups of broccoli for the same caloric value. It's how low carb interact with our hormones that effect our satiety and not the fat.

    And carbs have the opposite affect on me. Sure, I can fill up volume wise on them, but within an hour I could eat just as much and feel miserably hungry. High protein helped a bit, but it wasn't until I added a bunch of fat to my diet that I started to feel full and stay feeling full.
  • Lainie0223
    Lainie0223 Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    What worked/is working for me?

    20 - 30% calories from protein
    30 - 40% from fat
    40 - 50% from carbohydrate.
    30 - 60 minutes of physical activity x 3 per week

    Signed - a 67 yo grammie who dropped 35 # last year, and working on the next 30-40 this year. Total goal is 130, so I have a bit to go, but on my way. Oh, and also a Registered Dietitian, whose seen aaaaaallllll the fads, and finds keeping it simply works !
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,918 Member
    edited June 2023
    Options
    rileysowner wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, fat is confusing and it's the least satiating macro and the science around that has been there forever. It has to do with energy density. I could easily down 2 tbsp of olive oil in the blink of an eye and feel nothing as far as satiation is concerned. On the other hand I would need to eat 7 or 8 cups of broccoli for the same caloric value. It's how low carb interact with our hormones that effect our satiety and not the fat.

    And carbs have the opposite affect on me. Sure, I can fill up volume wise on them, but within an hour I could eat just as much and feel miserably hungry. High protein helped a bit, but it wasn't until I added a bunch of fat to my diet that I started to feel full and stay feeling full.

    Sure, there will always be outliers for all studies, not just ones on satiety of macro's, which can appear to conflict with that assertion. There's people that say protein does nothing for satiety as well. Cheers
  • springlering62
    springlering62 Posts: 7,457 Member
    edited June 2023
    Options
    As a new user (welcome!!!!) don’t stress yourself by overthinking.

    The best way to lose weight is to eat less than you burn.

    You can drive yourself bonkers trying to reach certain macros, when you need to be focusing on learning the simple mechanics of weighing and logging.

    You can move on to macros and other minutiae later.

    You can also set your nutrition to look at weekly macro %s. I find that my macros can vary wildly day to day, but on a weekly average, they’re pretty solid, and I can live with that.

    Eventually you’ll figure out which macro satiates you. Even that can change. Since beginning, I’ve found protein to be very satiating and eat higher than recommended. Lately, however, I’m noticing a trend towards carbs and have been trying to be mindful of that.

    Being more aware of yourself, what goes in your belly, just overall mindfulness makes such a difference in quality of eating and ultimately , quality of life.

Categories