We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Macros and Weightloss

joshuakcaron
joshuakcaron Posts: 343 Member
edited November 2024 in Health and Weight Loss
Was wondering what macros had to do with weightless if anything.

Replies

  • pinggolfer96
    pinggolfer96 Posts: 2,248 Member
    They have everything to do with weight loss! Macros are protein, carbs, fats. You can automatically determine whether you want to be in a deficit, maintain, or be in a surplus based off of macros. Since fat is 9 calories and protein and carbs are 4, you can configure your macros to your caloric liking. You also will receive the benefits of reaching your minimum and optimal protein/ fat intake.
  • ncboiler89
    ncboiler89 Posts: 2,408 Member
    pinggolfer96 wrote: »
    Since fat is 9 calories and protein and carbs are 4, you can configure your macros to your caloric liking.

    What does this mean?
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    ncboiler89 wrote: »
    pinggolfer96 wrote: »
    Since fat is 9 calories and protein and carbs are 4, you can configure your macros to your caloric liking.

    What does this mean?

    IIFYM maybe?

  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,942 Member
    Nothing, except you want your macros to equal the calories for any given food. Fat has 9 calories per gram, protein 4, and carbs 4. If your macros don't add up to the calories for your food, you could be eating more calories than you realize. This usually happens because food databases such as MFP have inaccurate entries.
  • ncboiler89
    ncboiler89 Posts: 2,408 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    Fat has 9 calories per gram, protein 4, and carbs 4.

    That makes more sense. I have never seen this but it makes sense.
  • 19gabriela01
    19gabriela01 Posts: 2,090 Member
    yi67bfm3th21.jpg

  • pinggolfer96
    pinggolfer96 Posts: 2,248 Member
    ncboiler89 wrote: »
    pinggolfer96 wrote: »
    Since fat is 9 calories and protein and carbs are 4, you can configure your macros to your caloric liking.

    What does this mean?

    It means you can automatically count calories by having a set level of macros that add up to that caloric value.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    19gabriela01 wrote: »
    yi67bfm3th21.jpg

    Perfect example of Excluding the Middle. The fallacy that one's diet must consist entirely of balanced healthy foods, or it consists entirely of junk food.

    To the OP - speaking purely in terms of weight loss, macros have an insignificant effect. You could lose weight eating nothing but junk food as long as you're in a caloric deficit (Google 'Twinkie Diet'). With that said, when you include consideration of overall health/fitness, performance and body composition, macros have a very significant effect.
  • Protranser
    Protranser Posts: 517 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    19gabriela01 wrote: »
    yi67bfm3th21.jpg

    Perfect example of Excluding the Middle. The fallacy that one's diet must consist entirely of balanced healthy foods, or it consists entirely of junk food.

    To the OP - speaking purely in terms of weight loss, macros have an insignificant effect. You could lose weight eating nothing but junk food as long as you're in a caloric deficit (Google 'Twinkie Diet'). With that said, when you include consideration of overall health/fitness, performance and body composition, macros have a very significant effect.

    Hmm, I thought that post was a comparison of volume. The top choice is something upwards of 300 grams (I don't know what that listing is about 7 eggs and 600 grams of cauliflower being a 1/8 omelette?) but 84g of chocolate versus 300+ grams of other things if I only have 476 cal left in my budget and it's only 2:00 pm, I'm going with the 300 g of things. However, with a larger budget (because cardio) I'd be eating both the 84g of chocolate and the 300g misc veggies, grains, protein. Maybe not in the same meal, but you get my drift.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    Protranser wrote: »
    Hmm, I thought that post was a comparison of volume. The top choice is something upwards of 300 grams (I don't know what that listing is about 7 eggs and 600 grams of cauliflower being a 1/8 omelette?) but 84g of chocolate versus 300+ grams of other things if I only have 476 cal left in my budget and it's only 2:00 pm, I'm going with the 300 g of things. However, with a larger budget (because cardio) I'd be eating both the 84g of chocolate and the 300g misc veggies, grains, protein. Maybe not in the same meal, but you get my drift.

    I agree completely. If it's 2:00 pm and I'm starving, I'm going for the top choice. The point I was making is that when talking about calories and macros, some people exhibit irrational binary thinking (read the linked article) - no way somebody could possibly eat a lot of veggies, protein and whole grains and also occasionally mix in some chocolate or ice cream or whatever. Hence, ridiculous comparisons like that picture, as if anybody with half a brain is going to scarf down 4 candy bars for every meal and call it good.

    If I'm hungry and have a lot of the day left, I'm going for something like a couple chicken breasts and a ton of broccoli - but if it's late in the evening, I've done a reasonable job of hitting my macros, have some calories left to eat and am just looking for a snack, one or two of those chocolate bars is going to find its way into my belly! :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories