Which is the better option?

gracieabem

What do you think is the better option in this scenario:

1. You stay under all your macros, but you are also 300/400 under in calories.

Or

2. You go over slightly in a macro, but are closer to your calorie goal?

dvisser1

I guess it depends on how over on the macros you would be. For me personally I am more concerned about calories right now than most macros. However I am typically way over on sodium and a bit over on sugar. Since I don't have blood sugar problems I am not so concerned about being a little over on sugar, but the sodium is starting to be a concern. Got to re-think my diet some more. I've got a 1900 calorie net target and on gym days I can easily burn 1200-1300 calories with exercise. I eat back most of my exercise calories, but a lot of the time I don't want to eat 3000 calories in a day. So on gym days I'm regularly under by 200-300 calories.

Depending on what your calorie goal is, 300 could be a small or large percentage. If you're working off a 1200 calorie target, I would say definitely not. You would only be giving yourself 900 calories a day (assuming no eating back exercise calories) and that is not enough for most people. If you've got closer to a 2000 calorie target or eat back your exercise calories, I would not recommend it for everyday, but it wouldn't be that bad.

ladyraven68

What do you think is the better option in this scenario:

1. You stay under all your macros, but you are also 300/400 under in calories.

Or

2. You go over slightly in a macro, but are closer to your calorie goal?

I'd say 2.

I get as close to my calories as possible.