Help with macros

pistachiopeas
pistachiopeas Posts: 165 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I changed my macros to 40 carbs/30 protein/30 fat and now my protein is changed to 137. Is that too high? I've often heard that 100 should be the max for someone my size. (female, 32 years old, 5'2, 148 lbs.). I'm trying to lose .5 lbs a week to get to 135.

Replies

  • fittiephd
    fittiephd Posts: 608 Member
    I'm not sure where you heard that 100 is the max for you.. the max I would recommend is 1g per lb of body weight, but more often than not I see 1g per lb of lean body mass is also acceptable.

    This book has calorie and macro recommendations, maybe it will help you figure out what you want to do:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/2jvhpqdglfkg1op/Guaranteed-Fat-Loss.pdf
  • Sreneesa
    Sreneesa Posts: 1,170 Member
    I do .8 per body weight which has me at 132. I'm 165 5'10. So basically I multiply .8 by 165.

    I do a 40/30/30 as well, which has me at 135.

    Edit: My daily calories are 1800.
  • pistachiopeas
    pistachiopeas Posts: 165 Member
    Thank you both!
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    The RDA is 0.8g per kg of body weight. There is a lot of disagreement over whether more than that is good for you, but that is the minimum you need per day. For weight loss, higher protein is really helpful and you burn more calories digesting protein than carbs or fat. Over 100g of protein isn't inherently bad for you so far as research has been able to show, but it's not really the most efficient source of energy to the body as its primary use is for growth and repair, so eating more than you need is not always a good thing. Also, the more exercise you do, the more protein you need. I think you may do better with slightly less protein and slightly more fat. If you look at it in terms of RDA, 137g is almost 3 times what you need if you're sedentary. Fat is a far more efficient fuel source than protein and you just really don't need that much so it doesn't make sense to eat that much unless you are working out a lot.
  • Sonicz90x
    Sonicz90x Posts: 40 Member
    Never follow macros on a ratio. They do not account for physiological sufficiency, at all. The body requires gram amounts, not a percentage.
  • pennyllayne
    pennyllayne Posts: 265
    Never follow macros on a ratio. They do not account for physiological sufficiency, at all. The body requires gram amounts, not a percentage.

    Very true. However, you can't set a certain amount of grams per macro on MFP, it does it by percentages. So you have to play with the percentages to get the right amount of grams. What I do is work out my grams of protein at around 90, my carbs at around 100g and then the rest is fat and you have to play around with the percentages on here to get those figures right but yes the focus should be more on grams and let the percentages fall where they will.
  • fittiephd
    fittiephd Posts: 608 Member
    ACTUALLY

    I just discovered this amazing bookmarklet someone made that lets you edit down to the GRAM your macros in MFP!!! It's a godsend! You can also elect to set it as percentages down to 1% increments!

    http://karoshiethos.com/2013/08/13/javascript-bookmarklet-for-enhanced-macro-goals-in-myfitnesspal/
  • georgiefear
    georgiefear Posts: 11 Member
    If you don't overshoot calories (sabotaging your weight loss) then you don't need to worry one bit about consuming extra protein. In fact, it's very appetite satisfying and getting 30% of calories from protein is backed by a lot of research to assist with maintaining lean mass when you're dieting.
  • redzgal
    redzgal Posts: 255 Member
    thanks for the bookmarklet!!! Couldn't make my macros come out right and this is perfect! :happy:

Categories