A Calorie is a Calorie?

In terms of losing weight, a calorie is a calorie. Eat a deficit of calories by only consuming chocolate, and yes, you will lose weight.
However, chances are then you'll be losing muscle mass instead of fat. In order to change your body's actual composition, and burn fat instead of muscle, that's where it's important to watch out for your fat, carb, and protein intake.
Neither fat nor carbs are "bad". Eat both in moderation, your body needs it. Load up on protein, fiber, and all your vitamins. Exercise for at least 30 minutes a day, and you'll lose weight from unwanted fat, not muscle. By eating healthier things rather than all chocolate will also actually give you more sustainable energy, help you remain full, and focused.

A calorie is a calorie. And different macros are important for different reasons. Carbs are a easily accessible source of energy. Protein supports muscle maintenance and growth. Fats are great for brain and organ function. Different people prefer different macros based on their physical activity and how a certain split makes them feel.

I have mine set at 40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fats. I try to hit over 100g of protein every day, to support my heavy lifting. I like to get a significant amount of carbs, as I run 3-4 times a week and a lower level of carbs would make me feel tired and weak. I keep a 30% fat ratio because fats make me feel fuller and keep me satisfied.

I also strongly believe in IIFYM. I try to eat plenty of nutritious things every day, but I also allow for treats. This keeps me on a plan of moderation and helps me make more long-term healthy choices.

Also, why do you think rice, pasta and bread are less healthy?

All of this, especially the bolded parts.

The way I understand it (and please don't be upset with my lack of 'technical' knowledge) is that muscle tissue is more readily available for the body to use as energy. You have to make sure you are fueling your muscles in order for the body to look towards the fat cells to start burning. Mind you, fat cells are not readily available. When the body goes to use the excess calories once they have been stored, the body needs to tell those cells they are needed, then go through another process for the body to turn them into usable energy, once that is finished, the body uses the "stored fat" for its energy consumption. This is why it is important to eat back your exercise calories because your body will see that so much is being burned and look for the easiest place (your muscles) to go for its energy. Seems counterproductive.

While there may be holes in this logic, it is how the TDEE process started to make sense to me. I hope this helps.

For weight loss a calorie is a calorie.

However most people are not interested in weight loss, they want fat loss. For fat loss, macros are important.

Protein = Building blocks for repair, recovery, and muscle growth.
Carbs = High output exercise fuel
Fat = Low output exercise/just sitting around fuel.

Almost everyone will benefit from eating more protein. The only exception are the cool kids who are already into eating lots of protein.

If you live a couch based lifestyle, carbs are no good. The more exercise you do, the more you benefit from more carbs (with one largely irrelevant for this discussion exception).

A calorie is a unit of heat. So yes a calorie by definition would always be a calorie.

For weight loss a calorie is a calorie.

However most people are not interested in weight loss, they want fat loss. For fat loss, macros are important.

Protein = Building blocks for repair, recovery, and muscle growth.
Carbs = High output exercise fuel
Fat = Low output exercise/just sitting around fuel.

Almost everyone will benefit from eating more protein. The only exception are the cool kids who are already into eating lots of protein.

If you live a couch based lifestyle, carbs are no good. The more exercise you do, the more you benefit from more carbs (with one largely irrelevant for this discussion exception).

But do you think it would matter where you get your carbs? So either from fruits and veggies or from bread and pasta? As long as you hit your macros?

If your only goal is weight lose then it does not matter. If you are talking about overall health then yes it does matter.

But do you think it would matter where you get your carbs? So either from fruits and veggies or from bread and pasta? As long as you hit your macros?

It only matters where you get your carbs (and to restrict their intake) IF you have diabetes, metabolic syndrome or insulin-resistance due to those conditions or others such as PCOS, Hashimoto's thyroidism, etc.

If you're not in that group, it's not as important where your carb sources come from, though obviously there are healthier sources than others.

The IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) crowd generally are health-conscious enough to still get proper nutrients ... most of them don't get all their carbohydrates from Coke and Snickers.

My personal feeling is when you find the macronutrient ratio (percentage of calories each from fat, protein and carbohydrate) that works best for you (and we're all unique here), do your best to choose more nutrient-dense items (IE: non-starchy vegetables have more nutrients per gram of carbohydrate than white bread) but do NOT totally exclude the foods you love, unless you've a legitimate medical reason to do so.

'Diet' is the way you eat for life ... it should be healthy but shouldn't feel like a prison sentence.

I believe a calorie is a calorie. The reason most people lose weight on Atkins is because it's essentially a low-calorie diet. You give up high-calorie carbohydrates and replace them with lower calorie protiens. But a balanced, low-calorie diet combined with daily exercise is the best way to lose weight.

Very true, even though the low carbers won't agree... When I did Atkins I could hardly hit 1,200 because I literally got sick of eating all that fat and protein. So yeah I would lose weight fast but I was sick and miserable all the time, also because I didn't work out at all. Now I eat more balanced and I exercise 6 times a week, BUT my calories are still way too low...

Want to up them but I don't see me hitting my macro goals with the food I am eating that is all considered "healthy". I can only eat so many eggs, veggies, fruits. Therefore was interested about everyone's thoughts on calories.

If you are eating healthy type of foods and you think you are getting good vitamins then perhaps you should only track calories. You are clearly concerned about your other macros a bit more than most people would say you should be. Try just tracking calories and nothing else for a while.

A calorie is a calorie. And different macros are important for different reasons. Carbs are a easily accessible source of energy. Protein supports muscle maintenance and growth. Fats are great for brain and organ function. Different people prefer different macros based on their physical activity and how a certain split makes them feel.

I have mine set at 40% carbs, 30% protein, 30% fats. I try to hit over 100g of protein every day, to support my heavy lifting. I like to get a significant amount of carbs, as I run 3-4 times a week and a lower level of carbs would make me feel tired and weak. I keep a 30% fat ratio because fats make me feel fuller and keep me satisfied.

I also strongly believe in IIFYM. I try to eat plenty of nutritious things every day, but I also allow for treats. This keeps me on a plan of moderation and helps me make more long-term healthy choices.

Also, why do you think rice, pasta and bread are less healthy?

I also have my macros at 40/30/30 because I do lots of cardio, but I find it hard to hit my carbs, because like I said before, I was brainwashed into thinking that carbs are bad. So I automatically stay away from them. And I said that they are "considered" bad (white bread, pasta, rice). I am starting to believe more and more that yeah, a calorie is a calorie.

It is just really frustrating to have Mr. Atkins in the back of my head saying that carbs will make you fat -_- But seeing my slim friends around me eating white bread, pasta etc and stay slim, it doesn't add up.

I will have me some ravioli for diner, how is that?

I do 30% carbs (35% on a spike day) 35% protein and 35% fat. I find these good for weight loss. Above 35% carbs my losses stall. I try to keep my sugars to 30-35g. It does make a different to my losses. It's enough carbs to eat a pretty normal diet, but not too many to stall my losses. It's about finding a balance. No carbs or very very low probably isn't very healthy, neither is it if they are too high. Honestly when I keep to mostly Complex carbs I do see a difference. I do allow for treats though. I sometimes use IIFYM and I also have some treat per night, that I save carbs for. My diary is open if you would like a peek.

Zara

My diary was a little off as I have had hand surgery and cooking is a struggle right now, so lots of snacks but the macros add up. You have to find what works for YOU.

The IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) crowd generally are health-conscious enough to still get proper nutrients ... most of them don't get all their carbohydrates from Coke and Snickers.

Obviously carb based foods can be carriers for other nutrients like vitamins/minerals, and you do have to make use of that property often (like almost all the time).

But vitamins/minerals are for the most part "good enough" items, once you've met your daily amount, there is almost no benefit to eating more.

If you don't need the other nutrient carrier properties of the carb source, it doesn't matter; bread, pasta, candy, cereal, vegetables, have at it, carbs are carbs.