Eating at a deficit or counting macros? Which is better for weight loss?
autumnsquirrel
Posts: 258 Member
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.
0
Replies
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
Calorie deficit=weight loss, macros=health and nutrition0
-
Your macros need to be set at a level that equals a caloric deficit.0
-
Set appropriate caloric level so a deficit is created and then set up macros under the caloric goal.0 -
-
Fullsterkur_woman wrote: »
If my macros are 100f, 200P and 400c I could hit them perfectly but get fat pretty quick.0 -
Your macros correspond to your caloric deficit; they make up calories.0
-
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.0 -
-
-
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.0 -
you HAVE to eat at a deficit to lose weight0
-
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.0 -
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.
+20 -
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!0
-
Fullsterkur_woman 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.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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 sense0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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?0 -
I lowered it to 1375; I have no problem eating less than that.livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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?
0 -
Caloric deficit equals weight loss.0
-
There are two different types of "hitting your macros":
1. MFP has a set amount of calories and splits them (by percentage) between carbs, fat, and protein. If you multiply your macros by their calories/gram and then add those together, you'll get the calorie goal for the day. That's this:
2. Some people have calculated macro gram minimums for just fat and protein and then fill in the rest of their calories with carbs. Using this method, you can "hit your macros" or even go over on fat and protein but, as long as you are low enough on your carbs, you can still be under the calorie goal. That's most likely what's being referred to here:Fullsterkur_woman wrote: »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.LolBroScience wrote: »Set appropriate caloric level so a deficit is created and then set up macros under the caloric goal.
When someone talks about hitting their macros, that could mean that they are dead on with their calorie goal for the day or it could mean that they got enough fat and protein without reference to how many carbs they consumed.livingleanlivingclean wrote: »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.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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 you set macros within your calorie goal not outside them based on the 9 cal per g fat and 4 cal per g protein then the rest is made up with carbs, proteins, fats as you will
only proteins and fats have a justifiable minimum
why would you set macros unrelated to goal0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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 you set macros within your calorie goal not outside them based on the 9 cal per g fat and 4 cal per g protein then the rest is made up with carbs, proteins, fats as you will
only proteins and fats have a justifiable minimum
why would you set macros unrelated to goal
The way OP talked it sounded like she only monitored her carbs to be under 60 g. Obviously that's not enough to ensure a deficit.
But her new post says she set her calories to 1375.
Are you weighing everything properly? Are you eating back your calories from exercise? Not weighing properly and eating too many exercise calories are the main culprits for not losing.autumnsquirrel wrote: »
I lowered it to 1375; I have no problem eating less than that.livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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?
0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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 you set macros within your calorie goal not outside them based on the 9 cal per g fat and 4 cal per g protein then the rest is made up with carbs, proteins, fats as you will
only proteins and fats have a justifiable minimum
why would you set macros unrelated to goal
People are confusing setting your macros in % of total versus in grams.
If I set my macros as 40/30/30 and hit them - I may be overeating. (General issue of Mfp method)
For others, "setting your macros" is a discussion around grams of each.0 -
autumnsquirrel wrote: »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.
Only 60g? That seems very low. When did they say this? Are you overcompensating for that with too much protein and/or fat?
(Bearing in mind that calories in should always be less than calories out.)
0 -
Not the way MFP set them as they set them via percentageIsaackGMOON wrote: »Your macros correspond to your caloric deficit; they make up calories.
0 -
autumnsquirrel wrote: »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.
Only 60g? That seems very low. When did they say this? Are you overcompensating for that with too much protein and/or fat?
(Bearing in mind that calories in should always be less than calories out.)autumnsquirrel wrote: »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.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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 you set macros within your calorie goal not outside them based on the 9 cal per g fat and 4 cal per g protein then the rest is made up with carbs, proteins, fats as you will
only proteins and fats have a justifiable minimum
why would you set macros unrelated to goal
The way OP talked it sounded like she only monitored her carbs to be under 60 g. Obviously that's not enough to ensure a deficit.
But her new post says she set her calories to 1375.
Are you weighing everything properly? Are you eating back your calories from exercise? Not weighing properly and eating too many exercise calories are the main culprits for not losing.autumnsquirrel wrote: »
I lowered it to 1375; I have no problem eating less than that.livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »Fullsterkur_woman 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?
Yes; I use a food scale; I don't eat my calories back. The only thing I can think of is that I am hypothyroid and it has slowed my progress.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions