Fed up with Macros

Sorry your having a tough time. It really is hard at first. Here's what I did when I had extra time, I made a list of foods I like to eat and eat commonly. I used mfp to play around with the different food combinations ( I added in vitamins I take also ) and saw what worked best together and what didn't. When I found a combination of foods that met my macros ,I ate them and then slowly started adding new things and kept playing around with it. For example, I realized I couldn't have 2 biscuits ,then oatmeal and a certain combo of pasta in one day because I was over on carbs but lacking protein . so I played around with it and added a protein source with lunch so I could still meet my goals without lacking in one and being over in another.
Sorry, it's just really hard to put into words. But I'm trying to say, play around with logging your foods and vitamins until you see what's going to work together and what won't. In time, it will be much easier and you'll know what food combos work together to meet your liking and your macros .

A lot of the entries have inaccurate information. You have to learn to pick the correct entries or enter your own from the USDA database. A thread that was incredibly helpful to me is this one: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1234699/logging-accurately-step-by-step-guide/p1

As for macros (protein, carbs, fat), there are a huge variety of healthy macro breakdowns, from a vegan or Kenyan marathoner 80-10-10 (80% carbs) to a keto 5-20-75 (I guess -- I'm a veggie fanatic and have issues with that, but some seem to do well). MFP recommends 50 (carbs)-25-25 (I think), many of us prefer 40 (carbs)-30-30.

The evidence I have been convinced by is that IF you are losing weight and exercising a good amount it is best to keep protein higher than the minimum recommendations to preserve lean body mass. I read the research to mean .8-1 g per lb of LBM or .6-.8 g per lb of goal weight (at least for a woman, likely a bit higher if based on goal body weight for a man). Beyond that, I think it doesn't matter much what the macros are unless they are really extreme and so long as you feel good and maybe experiment to see if other levels might be better. I'm enjoying 40-30-30, but at close to maintenance calories that puts me well over the protein I think I need and I keep reading recommendations for higher carbs for endurance sports (I do triathlon, and am about to do a couple century rides and start training for a marathon), so I am going to try it and see how I feel, to compare. But there's no need to do this -- if you feel good, stick with what you are doing.

Think of the macros as very general guidelines designed for a large population. They are not hard and fast rules and they certainly have not been tailor designed.
Iron and calcium can be found in beans and leafy greens.

My diary is public. Not too concerned at the moment on hitting micros. Have a look through if you like.

Unless you have a health condition or are training for a sport such as a marathon I wouldn't worry about macros. They usually balance out in the long run

Not sure Jeukendrup's opinion on sugar burning exercise is that helpful. I think you're trying to lose weight hence eating at a deficit to your calorie needs ? You clocked 950 cals of exercise one day which would be 238g of extra carbs if 100% carb fuelled - 2.4 litres of coca cola would perhaps be Jeukendrup's suggestion ?

I look for the USDA entries and those with the green checkmark that say "this food has beenverified." They tend to have more complete nutrition information.