Calorie count versus macros

Kissxx

Okay Ive been looking at things closely for the last week now and have finally seen success in the scale. How? I looked at my macros instead of calorie count.

Today for example, it said I only had 1156 calories but my macros were carb 158/ protein 70/ fat 39 so (158+70) x 4 + 39 x 9 = 1263
That is 63 calories over my goal of 1200! This happened on several days also. And because of this, This week I lost 2 lbs instead of the usual plateau. And that's with one "cheat day" full of sushi and Italian bread. (YUM LOL) Anyway, I have been eating ALL my exercise calories previously and who knows how much extra calories Ive been eating because of the discrepancy between calorie count and macro nutrient count.

I just like to share this to people who haven't seen a drop in the scale. I think it might be helpful.

rileysowner

It is just as likely your cheat day kick started your weight loss. I hate to say it, but 63 calories over is probably less than the margin of error in calorie counting in general. Those 63 calories, unless you are running a very small deficit, will not make you plateau as opposed to losing 2 pounds. Also realize that MFP rounds up the macro values. So anything with .5 grams of something or more will be rounded up increasing the macro number.

ruststar

I just calculated my calories and found the MFP number was 100 calories under. I suspect there are errors in the data entered in the first place, which will make all of the numbers we get a little questionable.

Kissxx

It is just as likely your cheat day kick started your weight loss. I hate to say it, but 63 calories over is probably less than the margin of error in calorie counting in general. Those 63 calories, unless you are running a very small deficit, will not make you plateau as opposed to losing 2 pounds. Also realize that MFP rounds up the macro values. So anything with .5 grams of something or more will be rounded up increasing the macro number.

I'd like to think that sitting on my butt all day and eating tons of food makes me lose 2 lbs. Ive been zig zaggin, upped my calories, more exercise and ate all the calories back. I just realized how diet is really 80% of the challenge and exercise is only 20%. When I exercise, I eat around 1500-1600 a day which could equal to an extra 200 or more due to discrepancy. That is a lot IMO. Its just so hard for us short girls

bellinachuchina

It is just as likely your cheat day kick started your weight loss. I hate to say it, but 63 calories over is probably less than the margin of error in calorie counting in general. Those 63 calories, unless you are running a very small deficit, will not make you plateau as opposed to losing 2 pounds. Also realize that MFP rounds up the macro values. So anything with .5 grams of something or more will be rounded up increasing the macro number.

I'd like to think that sitting on my butt all day and eating tons of food makes me lose 2 lbs. Ive been zig zaggin, upped my calories, more exercise and ate all the calories back. I just realized how diet is really 80% of the challenge and exercise is only 20%. When I exercise, I eat around 1500-1600 a day which could equal to an extra 200 or more due to discrepancy. That is a lot IMO. Its just so hard for us short girls

Agreed 5'2" here, and diet is the main factor in my loss/maintenance.

AdAstra47

I totally agree. For some people, the oversimplified "calories in / calories out" thing works. And I'm happy for them. But in reality, your body treats a protein calorie a lot differently than a sugar calorie. So depending on your metabolism, it may be more beneficial to pay attention to your macros rather than your calorie count.

For example, my doctor tested my metabolism and recommended a ratio for me of 5% carbs, 30% fat and 65% protein. That's not going to work for everyone, but that's optimal for my personal metabolism. (Apparently I don't process insulin and carbs very efficiently.) And I've discovered that I can go over my calorie count every day of the week, I don't even pay attention to it any more. But as long as I don't go over 30g carbs, I continue to lose weight steadily, and I feel great.

Kissxx

I totally agree. For some people, the oversimplified "calories in / calories out" thing works. And I'm happy for them. But in reality, your body treats a protein calorie a lot differently than a sugar calorie. So depending on your metabolism, it may be more beneficial to pay attention to your macros rather than your calorie count.

For example, my doctor tested my metabolism and recommended a ratio for me of 5% carbs, 30% fat and 65% protein. That's not going to work for everyone, but that's optimal for my personal metabolism. (Apparently I don't process insulin and carbs very efficiently.) And I've discovered that I can go over my calorie count every day of the week, I don't even pay attention to it any more. But as long as I don't go over 30g carbs, I continue to lose weight steadily, and I feel great.

wow! 30 grams? thats like 1/2 cup of my rice per day! I cant live without my carbs. Well as long as you can sustain it and a medical professional suggested it, then its fine. But that's wayyyy too low for me. I can barely survive 120 grams. Good luck to you and your weight loss!

Kissxx

UPDATE! I found out the culprit! FIBER. Specifically, insoluble fiber. I eat fiber one cereal and it has 15 grams of fiber per 1/2 cup.

"Insoluble fiber passes through your body without being converted to a form that provides energy, or calories. Knowing this, the manufacturer may subtract the caloric value of the insoluble fiber (4 calories per gram) from the total calories figure. When they do this, the 4-9-4 method will give you a higher figure for total calories than the one you find on the food label. "

Another reason to add fibrous foods to your diet!