Do macros really count if in a caloric deficit?

guitarguy310

Hello all,
I'm curious to see what people's thoughts are regarding weight loss...are macros really important or are calories the determining factor for losing weight? Health aside, I'm just talking about general weight loss. If someone is in a calorie deficit, say 500 below maintenance...do macros matter? I appreciate your thoughts - Thanks.

Howbouto

IMHO, yes and no. A calorie deficit will allow for weight loss, but (at least personally) if my carbs are too high, I'm constantly hungry and it is next to impossible to be at a deficit. However, if I raise my fat intake and lower my carbs and there are days I'm eating too little because my appetite is in control.

On a side note (and i find this very interesting), I have heard you truly can not be exact enough in your calorie counts to be able to maintain for a lifetime (hence the reason 95% of people who lose weight gain it back.) Here is an example: For simplicity, let's say you have a 2000 calorie diet to maintian your weight and there is an error rate of 1%. That is 20 calories, no big deal right?
In :
one year a 20 calorie overage is a 2 pound gain
in 5 years a 20 calorie overage is a 10 pound gain
in 10 years a 20 calorie overage is a 20 pound gain
in 50 years a 20 calorie overage is a 104 pound gain

So at age 70 are we suppose to be 100 pounds overweight?

TriLifter

For weight loss, no. For fat loss, yes. You have to make sure you're getting adequate protein to feed your muscles so your weightloss isn't also muscle loss. I also agree with the above re: too many carbs causing me to overeat.

guitarguy310

Right!?! Plus, I thought carbs curbed hunger? Either way, I'm eating low carbs, high fat and mid protein. I have enough muscle and bulk so I just need to slim. Working a 65/25/10 right now. I eat waaaaaay better now than I used to...compared to lots of weight training with super high carbs and protien with low fat. Feeling a tad sluggish in the afternoons with this low carb diet but Im guessing it will turn around soon. I drink black coffee like crazy too...maybe that has something to do with it...thanks for your input!

Akimajuktuq

I don't claim to violate the "laws" of physics, but I do think there is much we humans still do not know, including about our own bodies. For me the macros are all important. For instance, if I go all crazy with sugar and carbs, I can store every calorie I eat as fat (I gained 7 pounds in 10 days at Christmas-I don't have any other explanation for that since I did not eat TONS of food).

Interestingly, I can't say what happens if I eat my macros but eat higher calories than I burn because when I eat low carb, high fat I lose the ability to over-eat. Some days I do eat over 2000 calories with no ill effect. Our body will regulate fat storage without us expending so much time worrying about it and second guessing it, but I do think keeping carbs, especially sugar, low/moderate is part of that (depends on one's personal situation of course!). Healthy, adequately nourished people do not store excess fat. That's a sign of metabolic disorder. We don't have to consciously count every single calorie because if we feed our body properly it will manage itself!

pattyproulx

I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it comes down to two things:

1 - Macros definitely impact our hunger so in terms of being able to stay in a caloric deficit in the long run, I think it's important to find a macro ratio that allows you to stay satiated.

2 - In terms of body composition, the amount of protein you eat is definitely important. The total macro ratio isn't as important but you should be ensuring you eat sufficient protein to be able to maintain body mass.

3 - Some studies seem to indicate that your macro ratios could impact your metabolism. One study shows that individuals eating high-fat, low-carb seemed to burn an additional 300 calories a day compared to those who ate high-carb, low-fat. Obviously, more research needs to be done there, but it could be a consideration.

MikeFlyMike

^ this plus..

my thoughts. calorie deficits matter
Catch is, you have to maintain them. Low fat is disastrous for me (and I believe most people) as you are left unsatiated AND it totally messes with your hormones such as leptin , testosterone and others. also screws with your lipids.

Higher fat and cleaner foods promote better hormone balances, better metabolism.
This is why I say paleo in general is a livable lifestyle and not just a diet.

pattyproulx

I'm just repeating what's already been said, but I think it comes down to two things:

1 - Macros definitely impact our hunger so in terms of being able to stay in a caloric deficit in the long run, I think it's important to find a macro ratio that allows you to stay satiated.

2 - In terms of body composition, the amount of protein you eat is definitely important. The total macro ratio isn't as important but you should be ensuring you eat sufficient protein to be able to ***maintain body mass***.

3 - Some studies seem to indicate that your macro ratios could impact your metabolism. One study shows that individuals eating high-fat, low-carb seemed to burn an additional 300 calories a day compared to those who ate high-carb, low-fat. Obviously, more research needs to be done there, but it could be a consideration.

Fix: That's supposed to say "maintain lean body mass".

strychnine7

I've posted an article by Taubes before. In it, there is a great analogy that helps the understanding of calories in-calories out::

"But now imagine that instead of talking about why we get fat, we’re talking about a different system entirely. This kind of gedanken (thought) experiment is always a good way to examine the viability of your assumptions about any particular problem. Say instead of talking about why fat tissue accumulates too much energy, we want to know why a particular restaurant gets so crowded. Now the energy we’re talking about is contained in entire people rather than just the fat in their fat tissue. Ten people contain so much energy; eleven people contain more, etc.. So what we want to know is why this restaurant is crowded and so over-stuffed with energy (i.e., people) and maybe why some other restaurant down the block has remained relatively empty — lean.

"If you asked me this question — why did this restaurant get crowded? — and I said, well, the restaurant got crowded (it got overstuffed with energy) because more people entered the restaurant than left it, you’d probably think I was being a wise guy or an idiot. (If I worked for the World Health Organization, I’d tell you that “the fundamental cause of the crowded restaurant is an energy imbalance between people entering on one hand, and people exiting on the other hand.”) Of course, more people entered than left, you’d say. That’s obvious. But why? And, in fact, saying that a restaurant gets crowded because more people are entering than leaving it is redundant –saying the same thing in two different ways – and so meaningless."

Full article:
http://garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/

TriLifter

3 - Some studies seem to indicate that your macro ratios could impact your metabolism. One study shows that individuals eating high-fat, low-carb seemed to burn an additional 300 calories a day compared to those who ate high-carb, low-fat. Obviously, more research needs to be done there, but it could be a consideration.

Interesting! If this actually is the case, would help answer my question as to why I am losing weight while eating 2400-2500 cals/day when my TDEE is supposedly around 2200. I'm bulking and just upped my calories further to 2600/day.

pattyproulx

3 - Some studies seem to indicate that your macro ratios could impact your metabolism. One study shows that individuals eating high-fat, low-carb seemed to burn an additional 300 calories a day compared to those who ate high-carb, low-fat. Obviously, more research needs to be done there, but it could be a consideration.

Interesting! If this actually is the case, would help answer my question as to why I am losing weight while eating 2400-2500 cals/day when my TDEE is supposedly around 2200. I'm bulking and just upped my calories further to 2600/day.

Ya, the study came out a year or two ago. When I have time, I'll see if I can dig it up. I think it was from Harvard.

They were assessing different things and not just caloric expenditure. The most frustrating thing about the study is that they found that the low-carb group had slightly higher stress hormones (really, scientifically negligible), but for some reason they really focused on that as a reason not to go low-carb rather than highlight the point that you burn an extra 300 calories, which to me, is a huge finding.

Edit:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

Nutmeg76

I don't claim to violate the "laws" of physics, but I do think there is much we humans still do not know, including about our own bodies. For me the macros are all important. For instance, if I go all crazy with sugar and carbs, I can store every calorie I eat as fat (I gained 7 pounds in 10 days at Christmas-I don't have any other explanation for that since I did not eat TONS of food).

If you increased your carbs during that period then it may not have been fat gain, but instead your glycogen stores rebuilding. Which would then come off relatively quickly too once you went back to low carb. If you wanted/needed to increase your carbs in the future you will probably have an initial gain, then plateu and then be able to lose/maintain again. I have thyroid issues and VLC messed with my thyroid function, so I increased from <50 to about 100-125 a day. At first I gained, but now I am able to lose again.

I have to agree though, I can eat more than my "allowed" calories on a lower carb diet (including keeping them sort of "higher' now) than I could before paleo. I used to eat 1200-1400 a day andnot lose, but now I can lose at a respectable 1500-2200 depending on the type of food I eat.

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

I always wonder if it is hard for people to stick to it because the read or hear that it is hard, so they give up. Or is it the "all or nothing" mentaility? "I ate a piece of birhtday cake, so I blew it and I have to quit paleo now."

TriLifter

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

That's lame because I have no problem sticking to low carb. Increasing my carbs has been one of the biggest problems with my bulk. I'm getting better at it, but it was a struggle at first!

FitToLead

I'm struggling to increase my caloriesand hence macro nutrients right now on strict paleo. I just am too satiated to eat more, and each day I am 400-500 calroies short of my TDEE- which is not my preference.. At least not with over 120lb to lose. Without oils I'd be 200-300 lower still. Just trying to see how I can adjust.

Mind you, I'm in Australia, it was 111 degrees today, we're expecting it to get up to 115 in 2 days time.. and I am only 2 weeks after an emergency appendectomy.. (which is why I want to be well nourished to help heal).

homesweeths

I don't claim to violate the "laws" of physics, but I do think there is much we humans still do not know, including about our own bodies. For me the macros are all important. For instance, if I go all crazy with sugar and carbs, I can store every calorie I eat as fat (I gained 7 pounds in 10 days at Christmas-I don't have any other explanation for that since I did not eat TONS of food).

If you increased your carbs during that period then it may not have been fat gain, but instead your glycogen stores rebuilding. Which would then come off relatively quickly too once you went back to low carb. If you wanted/needed to increase your carbs in the future you will probably have an initial gain, then plateu and then be able to lose/maintain again. I have thyroid issues and VLC messed with my thyroid function, so I increased from <50 to about 100-125 a day. At first I gained, but now I am able to lose again.

I have to agree though, I can eat more than my "allowed" calories on a lower carb diet (including keeping them sort of "higher' now) than I could before paleo. I used to eat 1200-1400 a day andnot lose, but now I can lose at a respectable 1500-2200 depending on the type of food I eat.

It's extremely frustrating because even though low-carb did much better except for on the c-reactive protein, they claimed at the end that low-glycemic was the better choice because it's easier to stick to.

So then you had all the health news sources come out saying that low-glycemic won out against low-carb and low-fat.

I always wonder if it is hard for people to stick to it because the read or hear that it is hard, so they give up. Or is it the "all or nothing" mentaility? "I ate a piece of birhtday cake, so I blew it and I have to quit paleo now."

I suffered this "all or nothing" syndrome for years. I blew it with that piece of cake or whatever and went into a self-defeating frenzy of eating until I could work up the mental energy to start again. (Call it "first thing Monday morning" thinking.)

But after eating paleo/primal style for months (and mostly low carb), I don't have the same reaction. For example, I ate buttered homemade toast on Sunday -- first in six months -- (road trip, little diner in the middle of nowhere that made everything from scratch including the bread they toasted for breakfast plates) and neither felt like a failure nor triggered strong (irresistible) cravings. I think it may be because I'm fat-adapted now. I know better than to continue eating grains and more than 50-80g carb a day, because I doubt it would take long for my body to go back to carb burning again.

Now that we're home and I can cook again I'm being a bit more careful this week to get back into the flow.

NZVeganPhysique

Hi im vegan and eat a lot of carbs (thanks fruit and veg) but i eat at a caloric deficit! Im training for a physique comp in June 2020 and a personal trainer told me last year that ill need to count my macros if i want to shred. This is a complete fallacy when it comes to my own personal journey and experience. Again im vegan and eat a lot more carbs because the fruit and veg. My theory is as long as you are eating at a caloric deficit you will lose weight and shred! But again this is just what I have experienced in my journey and im still five months out from my comp and im shredded and im 45!

FIT_Goat

You're vegan and paleo?