Is this Intake Fine?

KLABINFINITY123

Im not sure where else to ask this, but I wanted to ask if these Carbs, Fat, and Protein intake is fine. Im 5’9 230ish tryin to cut weight. (162g Carbs, 60g Fat, 214g Protein, 2,137 Cal) I’m new to all this so I just needed some reassurance that I’m doin it correctly. Thanks in advance.

tomcustombuilder

You don’t need that much protein so cut that down and shoot for an even 2,000 a day for now

AnnPT77

If that's what MFP told you based on accurate profile entries, and a weight loss goal that is 0.5-1% of current weight per week at most (bias toward the 0.5%), then that's a good starting point. Sticking with that accurately, and consistently (like maybe plus or minus 50 calories daily, not way off) would result in the average person losing fat at about the rate they requested in their MFP profile, as averaged over 4-6 weeks.

More detail:

It's the calorie level that determines fat loss directly. The macronutrients are important for nutrition, health, energy level and that sort of thing, but affect body weight only indirectly (through energy/fatigue or appetite).

Obviously, nutrition is a Good Thing, but even if you choose to work on optimizing that, it's not necessary to be exact every single day. Pretty good, on average over a few days, should be fine. Protein and fats both contain essential nutrients (things our bodies can't manufacture out of other nutrients, so we need to eat some). Carbs are more flexible. Therefore, fat and protein goals can be considered as minimums - i.e., fine to be over. Many people find that they get enough fat without paying much attention to it, and therefore focus on getting their protein at a sensible minimum.

Even if you decide to work on improving nutrition, it doesn't need to happen day one for anyone who doesn't have a diagnosed deficiency. You can gradually remodel your routine eating habits in positive direction over time, and things will be fine.

Even then, there's some flexibility in protein and fats goals. It's things like figuring out what keeps you full and happy, or recognizing that your needs differ because of fitness activities, or whatever. The MFP defaults are fine to start. As you go along, you'll learn more about why you might to tweak your goals, and how to do so sensibly.

As far as calorie goal, that's a starting point, too. MFP gives you a goal that would let the average person of your demographics (the data in your profile) lose at the rate you asked for. In real life, few of us are exactly statistically average in calorie needs. Most are close, but a few meaningfully far off.

The best idea IMO is to establish a consistent calorie goal and logging routine, and stay with that for 4-6 weeks. At that point, estimate calorie needs from the accumulated personal calorie logging and weight-change data. Use the assumption that 500 calories a day is about a pound a week. (Use arithmetic for fractional pounds, of course.)

Short of that 4-6 week time period, there isn't enough data to get a sensible average weight loss per week estimate. Weight loss won't be the same every week, even at the same calorie levels: Reality is in the multi-week average. For women of relevant age, they'd want to compare body weight at the same relative point in two different monthly cycles to estimate average weekly weight loss.

I'd suggest that someone stick with the same calorie goal for at least that time period, even if seemingly losing slower than desired/expected at first. For one, the slowness may not continue. For two, knowing a personalized calorie-needs estimate becomes very useful as loss continues. However, if someone seems to be losing very fast at first, and starts feeling weak or fatigued for otherwise unexplained reasons, I think they should eat more, and reset the data collection starting point. Fatigue/weakness plus fast initial loss is a warning sign of unhealthfully, unsustainably extreme under-eating.

I'm cheering for you to succeed in this process: IME, the results are worth it. I did pretty much as described above, back in 2015-16, to lose 50-some pounds, class 1 obese to a healthy weight. I've been at a healthy weight since. Personally, I focused on calories first, figuring out how to eat at the right calorie level while feeling reasonably full most of the time and eating foods I actually enjoy. Once that was reasonably dialed in, I started working more on the nutritional part of it, first looking at the MFP defaults, then later personalizing my goals.

There's no one process that works for everyone, but that worked well for me.

Best wishes going forward! If you feel up to it, let us know how it's going.

KLABINFINITY123

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

You don’t need that much protein so cut that down and shoot for an even 2,000 a day for now

Appreciate the fast response. So I removed the WHEY protein and I’m now at (158 Carbs, 59g Fat, 190g Protein, and 2,017 Calories) is this better? Im not the brightest when it comes to this type of stuff and apologies for any inconvenience.

KLABINFINITY123

AnnPT77 wrote: »

If that's what MFP told you based on accurate profile entries, and a weight loss goal that is 0.5-1% of current weight per week at most (bias toward the 0.5%), then that's a good starting point. Sticking with that accurately, and consistently (like maybe plus or minus 50 calories daily, not way off) would result in the average person losing fat at about the rate they requested in their MFP profile, as averaged over 4-6 weeks.

Thanks for the fast response. However this isn’t what the MFP showed me. I pretty much copied this 2000 Cal. Meal Prep From Remington James and unfortunately they both don’t share the same nutritional goals. So that’s why I was asking to see if it’s still just as good if not what it is that I should fix. Thanks once again.

Retroguy2000

It's good to get high protein, but close to 1g per pound while overweight is a lot even if you're lifting weights, which you don't mention. There's no harm in it, unless you have certain health issues, and it'll help you feel satiated, but it's not necessary.

Don't sweat the macros at this point. Focus on sustainable calorie deficit. If you're eating balanced meals and ensuring your protein is high too, you'll probably be getting enough fats naturally on around 2k per day without needing to micro-manage it.

KLABINFINITY123

Retroguy2000 wrote: »

It's good to get high protein, but close to 1g per pound while overweight is a lot even if you're lifting weights, which you don't mention. There's no harm in it, unless you have certain health issues, and it'll help you feel satiated, but it's not necessary.

Don't sweat the macros at this point. Focus on sustainable calorie deficit. If you're eating balanced meals and ensuring your protein is high too, you'll probably be getting enough fats naturally on around 2k per day without needing to micro-manage it.

Thanks for the response, my mistake for not mentioning that. I do not go to the gym however I walk 20,000 steps on average 5 days outta the week and no I do not have any health issues. I’m just a picky eater and don’t know how to cook. So I just eat terribly for the most part. That’s why I had to YouTube meal prepping and allat. Thanks once again for the response very appreciated.

yirara

Well, if you like protein-rich food, it makes you happy and you don't have kidney problems there's probably no harm in eating so much protein. Unless you fart a lot of course. But if you don't work out there's really no use in so much protein. Have you considered learning to cook? Cooking doesn't need to take a long time, and lots of things that sound yucky are actually quite nice when prepared differently. Just as an example: My mom was a miserable cook. Her specialty was spiral pasta with tomato ketchup and analogue cheese grains from a tin. It was yucky. As was all her veggies because they were literally cooked to death. Now I eat a lot of veggies because they're mostly cooked Asian style, and I have so many proper, tasty pasta recipes in my repertoire that all taste amazing. It was just taking the step from Everything tastes yucky to Hey, that's tasty if prepared properly.

KLABINFINITY123

yirara wrote: »

Well, if you like protein-rich food, it makes you happy and you don't have kidney problems there's probably no harm in eating so much protein. Unless you fart a lot of course. But if you don't work out there's really no use in so much protein. Have you considered learning to cook? Cooking doesn't need to take a long time, and lots of things that sound yucky are actually quite nice when prepared differently.

I’ve “tried” to learn but for some odd reason it ends up taking like 3 times as long which is why I’ve turned to this new food prep that’s relatively a LOT easier considering most of it is already “preset” i.e. frozen peas, 90 sec. Brown Rice Packet, 1lb. Ground Turkey, etc. Appreciate the response.

AnnPT77

KLABINFINITY123 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

If that's what MFP told you based on accurate profile entries, and a weight loss goal that is 0.5-1% of current weight per week at most (bias toward the 0.5%), then that's a good starting point. Sticking with that accurately, and consistently (like maybe plus or minus 50 calories daily, not way off) would result in the average person losing fat at about the rate they requested in their MFP profile, as averaged over 4-6 weeks.

Thanks for the fast response. However this isn’t what the MFP showed me. I pretty much copied this 2000 Cal. Meal Prep From Remington James and unfortunately they both don’t share the same nutritional goals. So that’s why I was asking to see if it’s still just as good if not what it is that I should fix. Thanks once again.

A lot of the same process applies, even so.

The calorie goals we get from any site/calculator/trainer/tracker are basically an average of demographically similar people, so a hypothesis to test for accuracy at n=1.

The nutrient levels are a good starting point (as modified per above comments), in the sense that you may learn things about how your body responds to varying macro mixes.

The average of similar people is close enough, is a good starting point. then adjust based on how your body responds.

KLABINFINITY123

A lot of the same process applies, even so.

The calorie goals we get from any site/calculator/trainer/tracker are basically an average of demographically similar people, so a hypothesis to test for accuracy at n=1.

The nutrient levels are a good starting point (as modified per above comments), in the sense that you may learn things about how your body responds to varying macro mixes.

The average of similar people is close enough, is a good starting point. then adjust based on how your body responds. [/quote]
Appreciate it, I wasn’t sure since it didn’t reach the quota that it would be healthy for me so I was hoping a second opinion would help me reaffirm my new meal prep.