IIFYMers: Advice on adjusting my macros

Lower your protein to 0.82g per bodyweight custom, and lower fat to 0.4g

CARBS 57.1
PROTEIN 167.3
FAT 81.6
FIBER 41 - 51
CALORIES 1632
GRAMS per day

Thanks, I just didn't know what and where I could move but this could be a good start.

Can anyone advise me a bit on how I should shift around more carbs? 20.4g seems an awful low number.

What % is carbs? Maybe check your numbers?

IIFYM macros are generally around 40/30/30
[/quote]
I didn't touch anything on the settings and that is what it gave me with my tdee and bmr inputs.
Zone (40/30/30) is fine but I just went with what was set on the calc.

I use the 40/30/30 numbers and although it's tough sometimes, I make sure I at LEAST get half my body weight in grams of protein in each day.

I usually get around 100-120 in so not too bad. I just want to shift it to work best so I can lose but also gain muscle on days that my intake is higher due to exercise.

Less than 30g of carbs is considered Ketogenic by some people. Is that your goal?

Not really, it isn't a main focus but I thought going into Keto might hinder muscle growth? Trying to find a happy medium IF there even is one.

What's your current lean body mass. If these macros are for a sustained period, you will need a carbohydrate refeed. Also, a target of 50 grams of carbs can be a chore/pain to endure.

Shoot, that, I can't remember for the life of me. I have it at home. Bother. I am going to have another test done next week to see the change in a 60 days measure from my last reading by the dietitian.

TavistockToad, yeah I figured as much but on days that I do more, I can "eat back" some calories to net higher.

If I were in your position I'd set your intake to roughly the following:

1600 calories
130p
65f
120c


And I would monitor how you feel, how your gym performance is, and what your weight does over the next two weeks.

I appreciate all this from everyone. Like I said I am trying to shift it a bit different from what I previously have done. Way too many years of under-eating and working myself up to 1650 right now (and eating up to 2,000) some days has been a nice change from years of stupid low-cal dieting that really just was not necessary. It is what gets beaten into women's minds that they must eat like rabbits to see weight loss. My protein intake is pretty close to those numbers, same with fat and carbs so I see no reason that it is not achievable. I am adding more strength and lifting in and on those days, I do up my intake. The 1632 was my based for just a sedentary day and home and nothing more.

Commenting because you said you are "eating up to 2,000". I believe sidesteels recommendation is a stagnant number and you should not be eating more based on excercise cals burned.


If i misunderstood the intent of your post then ignore what I said.

No worries. I'll try to explain. What i mean eating up to 2,000 is on days that I work out extensively whether that be heavy cardio or more strenuous exercise on days that burns up more calorie leaving my net looking a little frail. I found it has help with my weight loss to replenish some of my workout calories back and still see the numbers move down. I am not looking for quick weight loss but more of a steady loss and some muscle being added over time. I want to do the iifym calculations because I want to be focused more on fueling my body at a different rate than my current setting (and adding more fiber) to help. Hope that makes a bit more sense. Back when I was at 1200 calorie intake (and years-decades,even- of being told NOT to eat more or I could never lose weight) , i gained when I upped it to 1400 because my body was trying to store everything. Slowly but surely, I am moving up and 1600-1650 has been good for my body as of lately and losing but I feel muscle slowly building as well. Hopefully, I will be able to eat at 2,000 calorie intake and maintain instead of gain but I am moving it up at a slower rate to let my body adjust. Does that makes sense? I wonder if that even answered your thoughts. I'm rabbling rabble rabble.