Macro questions

rlzwakenberg

Okay, so, using IIFYM.com macro calculator, here are my results.

Female, 22 y/o, 5'11", 246lbs.
Exercise 3x / wk.
BMR - 1974
TDEE - 2715
At "Reckless" or 25% for fat loss my daily recommended goals are as follows:

Calories - 2036
Carbs - 41.6g
Protein - 246g
Fat - 98.4g
Fiber - 49-62g

Okay, so that seems fairly clear cut, minus the whole IMPOSSIBLY low carb levels I am given.

My problem is, this claims to take in to account my exercise calories burned, but I don't understand how it can do that. Monday I may burn 250 cals doing upper body, and Wed I may burn 400cals doing cardio. So how, exactly, can it take exercise into account when my exercise levels are NOT the same everyday.

Also, following this theory I should be eating 2036 calories a day. I am currently at 1850 cals a day, eating back my exercise calories, and not losing weight. I am also not paying any attention to my macros, and exorbitantly cheating on the weekends. So I realize, that I'm not doing like I should. But, hypothetically, with increasing my intake even more, how am I supposedly supposed to be losing weight.

Also, how the HECK am I supposed to intake 2036 calories a day and only appx 40g of carbs. I've had (1) meal today, a smart ones frozen meal, and I am already over my carbs for the day.

I mean, I also don't understand how to eat 246 bloody grams of protein a day, unless i eat an entire chicken, or three, every day.

This whole Macro thing is really getting under my skin because I don't understand how it works.
Even more than that though, not losing weight is getting under my skin. I want to see a change.

TavistockToad

You don't need 246g of protein, try your macros at 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat.

lindsey1979

I think you should reduce the protein as well. I use 0.7 g per 1lb body weight for my numbers as that amount has been shown to reduce lean body mass loss (or even maintain) in a caloric deficit -- i.e. keep muscle and lose fat. For you, that's 172 g -- which can be challenging. You may want to look into supplementing with protein shakes. I aim for 130 g and sometimes I still opt for the protein shake as I find it's hard to eat that much protein.

Also, if you're restricting carbs, which you appear to be given your macros, you want to make up the calories in fat, not protein. Extra protein is insulingenic -- so similar to eating carbs -- which is why low carb diets are usually MODERATE protein and high fat, not the other way around.

40 g of carbs, even if that's net, may hard be hard to do. Some manage totally fine, others really struggle with that. Also, there is something off with the calculations because I don't believe you can get more fiber than carbs you take in unless you're using fiber supplements.

Why are you restricting the carbs? Are you trying to enter ketosis and become keto-adapted?

If you're not trying to get into ketosis per se, I'd opt for something more like 178 g protein, 51 g carb and 124 fat -- that's 35% protein, 15% carbs and 55% fat. With those carbs, if you get a lot of fiber from them, may actually get you into ketosis too as even the Atkins induction phase looks for 20 g NET carbs (so if you had 30g of fiber in there, your net would be only 20 g carbs).

rlzwakenberg

I think you should reduce the protein as well. I use 0.7 g per 1lb body weight for my numbers as that amount has been shown to reduce lean body mass loss (or even maintain) in a caloric deficit -- i.e. keep muscle and lose fat. For you, that's 172 g -- which can be challenging. You may want to look into supplementing with protein shakes. I aim for 130 g and sometimes I still opt for the protein shake as I find it's hard to eat that much protein.

Also, if you're restricting carbs, which you appear to be given your macros, you want to make up the calories in fat, not protein. Extra protein is insulingenic -- so similar to eating carbs -- which is why low carb diets are usually MODERATE protein and high fat, not the other way around.

40 g of carbs, even if that's net, may hard be hard to do. Some manage totally fine, others really struggle with that. Also, there is something off with the calculations because I don't believe you can get more fiber than carbs you take in unless you're using fiber supplements.

Why are you restricting the carbs? Are you trying to enter ketosis and become keto-adapted?

Frankly, (as embarrassing as it is) I have no idea what ketosis is. Or really carb restricting. Heck, I hardly understand the whole macro thing.

I just went to iifym.com and used the macro calculator, as I was instructed to do by someone else on here. I have no idea how it calculated those number, or why.

Is there a better calculator to use?

All this is very confusing and over whelming.

lindsey1979

I think you should reduce the protein as well. I use 0.7 g per 1lb body weight for my numbers as that amount has been shown to reduce lean body mass loss (or even maintain) in a caloric deficit -- i.e. keep muscle and lose fat. For you, that's 172 g -- which can be challenging. You may want to look into supplementing with protein shakes. I aim for 130 g and sometimes I still opt for the protein shake as I find it's hard to eat that much protein.

Also, if you're restricting carbs, which you appear to be given your macros, you want to make up the calories in fat, not protein. Extra protein is insulingenic -- so similar to eating carbs -- which is why low carb diets are usually MODERATE protein and high fat, not the other way around.

40 g of carbs, even if that's net, may hard be hard to do. Some manage totally fine, others really struggle with that. Also, there is something off with the calculations because I don't believe you can get more fiber than carbs you take in unless you're using fiber supplements.

Why are you restricting the carbs? Are you trying to enter ketosis and become keto-adapted?

Frankly, (as embarrassing as it is) I have no idea what ketosis is. Or really carb restricting. Heck, I hardly understand the whole macro thing.

I just went to iifym.com and used the macro calculator, as I was instructed to do by someone else on here. I have no idea how it calculated those number, or why.

Is there a better calculator to use?

All this is very confusing and over whelming.

Ah, gotcha. No worries. Ketosis in a very simplified answer is when the body uses ketone bodies for energy (derived from fat) rather than glucose (derived from carbs) as it's energy source. The body prefers glucose so will use it if it's available. So, for folks that want to get into ketosis, they have to restrict eating carbs -- and, at first, this can be sort of unpleasant as the body shifts from one mechanism to the other (often called the "carb flu" -- and varies for people -- some don't get it at all, some for a few days and some for even longer). This is the basis of many truly low carb diets -- like Atkins.

However, there are others that restrict carbs but not to such levels as to get into ketosis. These people have found that they have a carb sensitivity issue, like insulin resistance, so they have to restrict carbs to see good weight loss. I have this, so I not only look to create a caloric deficit, but also restrict my carbs as part of that deficit (while still hitting my minimum protein requirement). I find a range of 50-80g works for me, but that really varies accordingly to the individual.

Others have no carb sensitivity issues, so they don't have to worry about the carbs. Those folks that use IIFYM usually aim for a baseline level of protein -- I personally suggest 0.7 g per 1 lb body weight, which would be 172 g per day for you. A baseline fat level -- many use 0.4 g per lb body weight -- which would be 98 gr for you and then fill up whatever is left over with either protein, fat or carbs.

So, if you were doing it that way, you'd aim for a minimum of 172 g protein per day, and 98 g fat -- then whatever is left over and still in your calorie allowance, you can eat whatever -- either carbs, fat or protein.

I think the easiest thing to do is focus on the calorie deficit first and get those protein and fat minimum amounts in. You may lose a good deal of weight on that alone, so that may be all you need to do. If you feel that the weight isn't coming off after doing that a while and you're confident in your calorie counting (food scale!), then you may try restricting carbs and see how it works as you may have an unknown carb sensitivity issue (as many people do).

rlzwakenberg

Thank you for the information.
I mean, I don't have a food scale. I tried to get one, and it was broken from the get go, so I got discouraged and never went back.

I also don't understand how to use a food scale in the event you are eating something with more than one ingredient, like a recipe. I make many recipes I find on allrecipes.com or the like, and those have spelled out the caloric content. I usually just make the dish following the recipe, divide into the recommended serving, and then "quick add" the calories. Generally I will round up the number quite significantly to make up for any ingredient variances. for example if one serving is 193 calories, I will "quick add" 225 calories. i feel that covers any variances fairly well. But I can't follow that line of logic and count macros too.

To be really honest, I don't see how anyone who eats any home made foods counts their macros. I would have to eat nothing but frozen and prepackaged where I could scan and have an exact amount of everything.

like I said before, i find this all to be very overwhelming and confusing.

lindsey1979

Thank you for the information.
I mean, I don't have a food scale. I tried to get one, and it was broken from the get go, so I got discouraged and never went back.

I also don't understand how to use a food scale in the event you are eating something with more than one ingredient, like a recipe. I make many recipes I find on allrecipes.com or the like, and those have spelled out the caloric content. I usually just make the dish following the recipe, divide into the recommended serving, and then "quick add" the calories. Generally I will round up the number quite significantly to make up for any ingredient variances. for example if one serving is 193 calories, I will "quick add" 225 calories. i feel that covers any variances fairly well. But I can't follow that line of logic and count macros too.

To be really honest, I don't see how anyone who eats any home made foods counts their macros. I would have to eat nothing but frozen and prepackaged where I could scan and have an exact amount of everything.

like I said before, i find this all to be very overwhelming and confusing.

There are some good digital food scales on Amazon for $20-30 -- definitely check it out.

The food tracking thing is pretty onerous when you first start out. I thought it was. But, I wasn't seeing the results I expected, so I had to buckle down and really measure everything. Some can eyeball and they get close enough -- and if they see results, great. It's also why some like Paleo or High Fat Low Carb diets because they're highly satiating and people tend to not overeat as easily (so some folks don't track calories there).

But, if you're not seeing results, the best bet is that you're consuming more than you think and this is where a food scale is really important.

For recipes, I weigh my ingredients (or volume for liquid things like cream, milk, etc.), then add them together in a recipe analyzer, find out what the total calories are for the whole thing then input that along with the weight of that recipe -- this will give me both the total calories per a certain number of grams as well as the associated macros. So, I'll figure out that 125 grams of my vodka sauce is 400 calories, so then once I have that entered as a customized food, I can weigh it going forward -- whether I use 130 gr or 58 grams. It does take a lot of work initially, but once you add in your recipes as you go, you don't have to do it again -- just weigh it as you serve it up.

rlzwakenberg

I love all the info you are giving me, but you just added like 30 minutes to my cook time, and I hate you a little. HAHA!
Just kidding, of course.

Well, I suppose I could get a food scale and start measuring my recipes. I just, I don't take the time to weigh every ingredient every single time I make a recipe. I measure it with measuring cups, and add it. I can't imagine every single night measuring and then weighing every ingredient and then measuring and weighing every serving of everything. That seems extraordinarily time consuming. Time is not something I have a lot of really.

I'm just scared that all of this counting this and watching that and weighing EVERYTHING is going to get me burned out really quick. I have a hard enough time with what I'm doing now making it through the week and actually counting the calories without wanting to just quit eating.

This has taken all of the enjoyment out of eating or weight loss.
It's all just stupid math class again. Constant stressing over this number and that number and can I eat this or should I not eat that. All that stress is what drives me over the edge to just say SCREW IT I'LL STAY A WHALE FOREVER!

I have anxiety disorder, and let me tell you, constantly stressing myself about this number and that number is the number one way to get me to quit whatever diet I'm doing. That's why i couldn't stick with Weight Watchers.

I wonder why it can't be like it used to, where you just work out and try to eat more veggies and less crap and VIOLA you lose weight.


I shouldn't have to have panic attacks over if I'm doing what I'm supposed to in order to lose weight.

:-(

lindsey1979

I love all the info you are giving me, but you just added like 30 minutes to my cook time, and I hate you a little. HAHA!
Just kidding, of course.

Well, I suppose I could get a food scale and start measuring my recipes. I just, I don't take the time to weigh every ingredient every single time I make a recipe. I measure it with measuring cups, and add it. I can't imagine every single night measuring and then weighing every ingredient and then measuring and weighing every serving of everything. That seems extraordinarily time consuming. Time is not something I have a lot of really.

I'm just scared that all of this counting this and watching that and weighing EVERYTHING is going to get me burned out really quick. I have a hard enough time with what I'm doing now making it through the week and actually counting the calories without wanting to just quit eating.

This has taken all of the enjoyment out of eating or weight loss.
It's all just stupid math class again. Constant stressing over this number and that number and can I eat this or should I not eat that. All that stress is what drives me over the edge to just say SCREW IT I'LL STAY A WHALE FOREVER!

I have anxiety disorder, and let me tell you, constantly stressing myself about this number and that number is the number one way to get me to quit whatever diet I'm doing. That's why i couldn't stick with Weight Watchers.

I wonder why it can't be like it used to, where you just work out and try to eat more veggies and less crap and VIOLA you lose weight.


I shouldn't have to have panic attacks over if I'm doing what I'm supposed to in order to lose weight.

:-(

I hear ya -- but if you're already measuring with measuring cups, it's really not that much work. Just weigh how much is in the measuring cups. And, once you do it once, you don't need to keep doing it each time -- just per recipe (just when you make it again, keep the ingredients at the same weight -- or very close).

And, I totally hear ya on going bonkers. But, you know what I've found that drove me even more crazy? Feeling like I was doing a lot of work and not seeing any results! That really made me feel like a nut job -- everyone else is losing weight and I'm not, what in the heck is wrong?!!!! That is maddening!

For me, it also was the key to finding out that I had health issues that impacted weight loss -- both a thyroid issue and insulin resistance. I had plenty of symptoms too, but I was so used them that they were "normal" for me (sadly, my idea of normal was pretty pathetic when I look back on it --- I feel 1000X better having figured things out and getting the treatment I need). It was really the inability to lose weight that finally pushed me over the edge into figuring out what was wrong and finding a true solution.

If you're not ready for this, there is no shame in that. Perhaps you'll be able to eyeball and get away with it -- or eat Paleo or LCHF (low carb high fat) without counting calories -- many do (just, sadly, not me). But, if you're not seeing results, you may want to consider going back into the an*l retentive world of calorie counting and food scale.

For me, I was expending so much energy trying to figure things out, when I finally got on the right medication and saw weight drop in line with my calorie deficits, I felt like the heavens had parted and the angels were singing. It was FINALLY all making sense for me! So, compared to that crazy-making, the food scale was a breeze.