How much do macros REALLY matter?

I am less concerned about my calorie intake. I track my sodium and potassium mostly. Everyone is different on what their goals are. My number 1 goal is to control my BP without medication. Once I learn how to eat properly then I will be more concerned about my calories, fat, carbs etc.

I eat 25% carbs, 20% protein and 55% fat.
I will go up to 30% protein and lower my carbs soon, but I want to do that more gradually.
IMO macros are important - if you eat 100% carbs you will gain weight even on an calorie deficit. I wish I could link the research but it's lost in my browsing history.

This is an example of a guy eating almost 6000kcal every day for 21days with high fat low carb diet and losing inches: http://live.smashthefat.com/category/food/5000-calorie-challenge/

what is toning?

That would be GirlSpeak for Cutting I believe.

They are important but I'd make the following claims:

-In internet arguments about macronutrients it will usually dive straight into stupidity where people discuss diets of singular macronutrients (which are fictional diets) and then take those statements to infer things about mixed diets that are false. (Example: if you eat 100% protein you cannot gain fat and therefore in a mixed diet, excess protein will not make you fat)

-In real world applications you're usually not talking about massive swings in macronutrients. Making a change of, say 30g cho for 30g protein may have a small but noticeable effect on various things whereas shifting 150g would make a larger difference. In most actual scenarios I wouldn't believe you're making massive changes to macronutrient intake.

That being said, I still believe monitoring macro intake is important for a variety of reasons.

-

There are many advantages to utilizing certain macros over others.

You have a physiological requirement for fat. That is a given. Protein has cellular repair functions. carbohydrates provide energy but it isn't as important as protein and fat is.

not all macronutrients are the calories they claimed to be.
protein foods have a higher satiation than most foods. the TEF is also 20-30%. lets say 25%. that means protein costs 1 calorie just to be metabolized. After protein becomes excess it is metabolized into glucose. which loses another 33% of the calories so it becomes 2. this is speaking based off of average. Not all protein is the same. animal protein is better for muscle repair and retention vs plant protein. Its the amino acid composition is what matters the most.

carbohydrates have a lower tef each g of carbs also hold 3g of water. so you can imagine why the illusion of fat loss works with atkins. Carbohydrates have also been associated with the increase of leptin in the system. This really only matters for leaner individuals. Carbs should be titrated to the type of activities/lifestyle you have. low carbs are also associated with poor performance

fat has 5-6% and fat is important for cellular function. fat is also the hormone and mood macro. if you go too low you can also get irritable/anxiety/ hormonal problems, etc

there is a lot more to this, I am just covering whatever is on the top of my mind

some say the body doesn't care about percentages but I personally think macros are very important and for fat loss go for high protein, moderate good fat and low carb.

To use an exaggerated example , if person A ate 100% protein over a month and another person B ate 100% carbs or 100% fat, both on the same daily calories at a deficit, person A would lose more fat.

I would have assumed that high protein diets would be provide to most effective fat loss results, however, interestingly I found research to state otherwise - check it out for yourself

"Next, Kekwick and Pawan [the researchers in a 1956 study] put obese subjects on one of four different diets. The diets all had the same calorie count—1,000 calories per day—but the composition of those calories varied: 1,000 calories of a mixed or balanced diet, 1,000 calories with 90% from carbohydrate, 1,000 calories with 90% from protein, or 1,000 calories with 90% from fat. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, then patients should have lost roughly the same amount of weight on all four diets. Did they? No. Indeed, on the high-carbohydrate diet the patients actually gained a little weight, overall—on just 1,000 calories per day. They lost some weight on 1,000 calories per day of a balanced diet, and even more on 1,000 calories per day with 90% from protein. But overwhelmingly, patients lost the most weight on 1,000 calories per day when 90% of those calories came from fat. Kekwick and Pawan concluded, So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories."

Read more at... http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/03/21/book-review-fat-fast-cookbook/

Really surprised me to hear, what do you make of it?

Fathead? 90% fat? Okayyyyy...

some say the body doesn't care about percentages but I personally think macros are very important and for fat loss go for high protein, moderate good fat and low carb.

To use an exaggerated example , if person A ate 100% protein over a month and another person B ate 100% carbs or 100% fat, both on the same daily calories at a deficit, person A would lose more fat.

I would have assumed that high protein diets would be provide to most effective fat loss results, however, interestingly I found research to state otherwise - check it out for yourself

"Next, Kekwick and Pawan [the researchers in a 1956 study] put obese subjects on one of four different diets. The diets all had the same calorie count—1,000 calories per day—but the composition of those calories varied: 1,000 calories of a mixed or balanced diet, 1,000 calories with 90% from carbohydrate, 1,000 calories with 90% from protein, or 1,000 calories with 90% from fat. If it were true that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, then patients should have lost roughly the same amount of weight on all four diets. Did they? No. Indeed, on the high-carbohydrate diet the patients actually gained a little weight, overall—on just 1,000 calories per day. They lost some weight on 1,000 calories per day of a balanced diet, and even more on 1,000 calories per day with 90% from protein. But overwhelmingly, patients lost the most weight on 1,000 calories per day when 90% of those calories came from fat. Kekwick and Pawan concluded, So different were the rates of weight-loss on these isocaloric diets that the composition of the diet appeared to outweigh in importance the intake of calories."

Read more at... http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2013/03/21/book-review-fat-fast-cookbook/

Really surprised me to hear, what do you make of it?

Carbohydrates are associated with glycogen retention. average person can hold about 500g of carbs in their system. that's 3g for every carbs so lets just say its 4.5 lbs.

There are many weaknesses to this study that I can read from this summary alone

Weight loss =/= fat loss.

they could have lost muscle,
lost water retention
Only properly way to do it is a dexa scan to measure

Ya I just thought it was an interesting read, I can understand your point of view, apparently the atkins fat fast diet with <90% fat ratios was devised in order to be most effective for those with metabolic resistant disorders such as thyroid dysfunction and to only be used for a period of 5 days.

Personally, I believe that moderate-to-high fat, moderate protein and low carb is the best way to go. The only problem with having too much protein is that if there isn't sufficient fat, the body can apparently convert up to half of the protein into glucose.

Fathead? 90% fat? Okayyyyy...

May I ask what or who fathead is in reference to there?

Perhaps that person meant this movie: http://www.fathead-movie.com/

Now that I've been logging for 6 weeks I'm finally cracking down on Macros. It's hard. I could live on rice and beans and this hurts my carb percentage. Grrr.