Macros vs. calories

If you're counting macros, then you're literally just a simple math problem away from knowing the calories as well. Why would these two things be mutually exclusive?

Mycophilia wrote: »

If you're counting macros, then you're literally just a simple math problem away from knowing the calories as well. Why would these two things be mutually exclusive?

They aren't always. But if you're just starting out, seeing "500 calories" for a meal is easier than figuring out how many calories it is from the fat, carbs and protein counts.

I'd say that if you want to just "lose weight", counting calories will be just fine for you. If you are wanting to change body composition, macros may be the better way to go so you're fueling your body sufficiently for muscle growth, fat loss, etc. I have done both but have been more successful changing my body by macros.

Weight loss is all about the calories. People sometimes ask a question like, "I've hit my calorie goal for the day, but am under on protein. Should I eat more to hit the protein goal?" That's a personal decision. Depends on your personal goal.

I gave up on macros. I was forever eating protein foods that I didn't want and skipping foods I did want. It was a mess. I cannot eat to a number.

Now, I eat healthy food and watch my micros. I want to try to get all my nutrients from my diet and am working on that. The macros just have to fall where they may. Very often, I'm under on protein and over on carbs. I'm fine with it.

I don't eat X amount of calories a day, either. Some days, I'm hungrier than others. When I'm hungrier, I eat more. When I'm less hungry, I eat less. Some people call it "intuitive eating."

BetterBod91 wrote: »

Which is better, counting based on macros or calories? What are the benefits of counting macros?

Whatever keeps you at your required calorie goal for weight loss or whatever your goal is. Hunger signals and energy output depend on the macros, but weight change depends only on the calories.

So...both? Its a Catch 22

BetterBod91 wrote: »

Okay because I've heard of people who have lost weight that count just macros and don't pay much attention to calories. I thought that there may be some benefits to doing things that way.

Its anecdotal. Some people eat in such a way that, if they count their macros, their body will only take in a certain range of calories, or they won't need to eat more than is necessary.

If you are counting anything at all, then its calories you need to count to lose weight. But macros are important too. You need balance in your diet. You need a good amount of protein. You don't want to restrict your fats too severely because your food won't taste good and you won't be able to sustain your calorie reduction. No one has trouble getting enough carbs. Carbs are in just about everything.

Eat quality food - unprocessed food and lots and lots of fruit and vegetables.

In my opinion, you can optimize performance and likelihood of reaching your goals if you count macros, but it depends on if you want to put the time and effort into doing it

katerams wrote: »

MarziPanda95 wrote: »

IsaackGMOON wrote: »

It's 60g protons

Protons are delicious but they don't give you as much energy as eating electrons.

I laughed

Awesome...

just out of interest and i would never do this if i had 5 double cheeseburger from macdonalds everyday with a total of 2185 calories would i lose weight? My allowance is over 2200 in order to lose a pound a week. If the answer is no then we have to keep an eye on the macros a little. (i know this is a stupid post)