Macros or calories in?

erockville77

Hello, I am on the free account on My Fitness pal, is it better to focus on macros or calories in.

peggy_polenta

for me...i have to focus on macros. many people on here will tell you its only about calories and that all calories are equal.... but for many of us with health conditions, not all calories are equal. so i focus on my macros.

28kwztm6hh

I recommend doing both for weight loss, This calculator from legion athletics will help you with both https://legionathletics.com/tools/macronutrient-calculator/

lynn_glenmont

If your primary goal is weight management, start by focusing on calories. Once you have the hang of it, you can worry about macros. As soon as you can manage something more than just the calories, make sure you're getting enough protein. For the large majority of people, those would be the two most important things. After you've got a handle on those, you can assess, perhaps with the help of your doctor or a dietician, if there are other things you need to be managing.

Retroguy2000

Calories and protein (in grams, not a %). I find the rest takes care of itself. You obviously need some fats. I've never felt the need to track them.

tomcustombuilder

Both as they’re interrelated. You need a certain amount of protein and good fat. Once you have those you look at how many calories are left to meet your calorie goal then you can have whatever macros you want to meet that number

lynn_glenmont

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

Calories and protein (in grams, not a %). I find the rest takes care of itself. You obviously need some fats. I've never felt the need to track them.

Seconding protein in grams, not %.

AnnPT77

Counting macros while paying attention to calories is the same thing as counting calories while paying attention to nutrition.

Each macro has an approximate characteristic calorie level: Carbs and protein are 4 calories per gram. Fats are 9 calories per gram. Alcohol is 9 calories per gram.

When logging in MFP, the macros times the individual calorie levels won't exactly match to the calorie total, but if a person has picked accurate database entries, the numbers will be close.

It's the calories that directly affect weight management. But nutrition (including macros) can affect weight management success via things like:

1. Energy level: Sub-ideal nutrition can result in fatigue, so a person drags through the day, burning fewer calories than they expect/estimate.
2. Compliance: Sub-ideal nutrition can trigger cravings/appetite, making it hard (maybe impossible) to stick to a calorie goal, so the person eats more than the level that would let them lose weight.

Both calories and nutrition are important.

Protein and fats (or some of their sub-components) are "essential nutrients" in the technical sense that our bodies can't manufacture them out of anything else, so we need to eat some, for best health. A lot of people get enough fats without paying much attention to fat level (I don't, personally, though). Many people need to pay attention in order to get enough protein.

Carbs aren't "essential" in that same sense, so in theory we can be more flexible with carb levels to balance calories. Some people find that carbs spark their appetite, or have pre-existing health conditions (such as diabetes) that require managing carbs carefully. Those people are often better off eating fewer carbs. Some other people find that too-low carbs tank their energy level. Those people are often better off eating relatively more carbs. That sort of thing is more of a personal experiment, and the food choices that supply the carbs are possibly going to matter.

So, count macros and watch calories, count calories and watch macros: Pretty close to the same outcome is likely. Do what works best for you. You can also start by focusing on one, then pay more attention to the other as the first gets more automatic.