Eating at a deficit or counting macros? Which is better for weight loss?

Options
I've been focusing on my macros for so long that I'm wondering if that's why the scale doesn't move as much as it used to. It has taken me a few years to drop 150 pounds and I would like to get rid of the last 40. My endo told me to not go over 60g of carbs a day. This is doable; I've done less and it's worked....at one time.....Now, I feel like I am simply maintaining. I keep my calories low, and I also burn a decent amount in spin class or weight training. Seems as if all this experimenting has got me all confuzzled. Needing input to get that scale moving again.
«1

Replies

  • evileen99
    evileen99 Posts: 1,564 Member
    Options
    If you want to lose weight, you have to eat at a deficit. Your macros could be perfect with an intake of 3000 calories a day.
  • rushfive
    rushfive Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    Calorie Deficit to lose weight.
    Did you input your numbers into mfp to get the correct calorie number for you?
    As you lose weight you will need less calories, so you may need to redo what your calories should be.
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    Calorie deficit=weight loss, macros=health and nutrition
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    Options
    Your macros need to be set at a level that equals a caloric deficit.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    edited May 2015
    Options

    Set appropriate caloric level so a deficit is created and then set up macros under the caloric goal.
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    evileen99 wrote: »
    Your macros could be perfect with an intake of 3000 calories a day.
    How so? X grams of protein, Y grams of carbs, and Z grams of fat always adds up to 4(X + Y) + 9Z calories every single time. If you're over your calories, you're over on at least one macro.

  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    Options
    evileen99 wrote: »
    Your macros could be perfect with an intake of 3000 calories a day.
    How so? X grams of protein, Y grams of carbs, and Z grams of fat always adds up to 4(X + Y) + 9Z calories every single time. If you're over your calories, you're over on at least one macro.

    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.
  • IsaackGMOON
    IsaackGMOON Posts: 3,358 Member
    Options
    Your macros correspond to your caloric deficit; they make up calories.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    ermm.....

    It's not an either/or scenario.

    As mentioned earlier in this thread, protein and carbs have 4kcals/g and fat has 9kcals/g.

    Your macronutrient intake in grams determines your calorie intake.

    In other words, at any given macronutrient intake (in grams) I can roughly tell you your calorie intake.
  • forgtmenot
    forgtmenot Posts: 860 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »
    Calorie deficit=weight loss, macros=health and nutrition

    This.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    malibu927 wrote: »
    Calorie deficit=weight loss, macros=health and nutrition

    And the important micros. One can easily hit their macros without eating a nutrient dense, healthy diet.
  • PokeyBug
    PokeyBug Posts: 482 Member
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    ermm.....

    It's not an either/or scenario.

    As mentioned earlier in this thread, protein and carbs have 4kcals/g and fat has 9kcals/g.

    Your macronutrient intake in grams determines your calorie intake.

    In other words, at any given macronutrient intake (in grams) I can roughly tell you your calorie intake.

    What he said.
  • nosebag1212
    nosebag1212 Posts: 621 Member
    Options
    you HAVE to eat at a deficit to lose weight
  • Fullsterkur_woman
    Fullsterkur_woman Posts: 2,712 Member
    Options
    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.

    Fair enough, but then you've set your perfect macros to make you fat. So we'll have to ask, "Perfect for what?" I guess it's all about context.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    Options
    PokeyBug wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    ermm.....

    It's not an either/or scenario.

    As mentioned earlier in this thread, protein and carbs have 4kcals/g and fat has 9kcals/g.

    Your macronutrient intake in grams determines your calorie intake.

    In other words, at any given macronutrient intake (in grams) I can roughly tell you your calorie intake.

    What he said.

    +2
  • feliscatus84
    feliscatus84 Posts: 80 Member
    Options
    A deficit is what is needed to lose weight. The reason I play with my macros is because I feel fuller on a higher protein/higher fat diet. I am short and only have so much to play with in terms of calories so I try to divide it up in the best way that will satisfy my hunger and keep me full a longer period of time. Also I don't like seeing the water weight from the carbs on the scale the next day if I have a huge carb fest. But is that real fat? No. Mind games!
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    Options
    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.

    Fair enough, but then you've set your perfect macros to make you fat. So we'll have to ask, "Perfect for what?" I guess it's all about context.

    Macros should obviously be set according to your goal. If you've set them, and your hitting them perfectly but they aren't giving you whatever calories you need to achieve your goal, you're still hitting them..... Which I think is the OP's problem.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.

    Fair enough, but then you've set your perfect macros to make you fat. So we'll have to ask, "Perfect for what?" I guess it's all about context.

    Macros should obviously be set according to your goal. If you've set them, and your hitting them perfectly but they aren't giving you whatever calories you need to achieve your goal, you're still hitting them..... Which I think is the OP's problem.

    Makes no sense
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.

    Fair enough, but then you've set your perfect macros to make you fat. So we'll have to ask, "Perfect for what?" I guess it's all about context.

    Macros should obviously be set according to your goal. If you've set them, and your hitting them perfectly but they aren't giving you whatever calories you need to achieve your goal, you're still hitting them..... Which I think is the OP's problem.

    Makes no sense

    ? They have set macros but not related to their goal. They're meeting set macros.
  • ASKyle
    ASKyle Posts: 1,475 Member
    Options
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.

    Fair enough, but then you've set your perfect macros to make you fat. So we'll have to ask, "Perfect for what?" I guess it's all about context.

    Macros should obviously be set according to your goal. If you've set them, and your hitting them perfectly but they aren't giving you whatever calories you need to achieve your goal, you're still hitting them..... Which I think is the OP's problem.

    Makes no sense

    ? They have set macros but not related to their goal. They're meeting set macros.

    But isn't MFP first and foremost based on calories? And the macro percentages/grams are calculated based on that calorie goal?

    OP what is your daily calorie goal set to?