Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Best macro ratio
Replies
-
I'm totally with the "whatever works for you" crowd. I started with the default setting, tried to switch to 40 30 30, found it uncomfortable when I achieved it (which I rarely did) and gave up and went back to default. If I go over on protein, no problem. Great even. But if I'm under come dinner time, I fix it, even if it means eating just meat and a salad, or a protein supplement. I'm cautious about it because when protein ratio is too low (carbs too high), I am far more likely to crave carbs and feel hungry.0
-
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »PlantBasedKnight wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »This actually would be a point to debate -- if you want to debate it, why not start a thread?
Dear @lemurcat12 why me? what about other participants who stated their ratios like 45% carbs, 35% fat and 20% protein, or 33%/33%/33% CALS or 50% protein, 25% carbs and 25% fats?? Why singling me out?
Because I don't think the first question was really a debate question and most people were saying things like "it's individual, whatever works for you, this is what I do." You seemed to be actually asserting that certain macros were best, and I think that is a debate topic likely to be lost in the advice thread.
For the record, as I said upthread, I don't think specific macros are particularly important beyond certain minimums, as traditional human diets with positive health outcomes are all over the place. For specific goals or health issues they may matter more, but one can have a horrible diet with 70% carbs and a great diet with 70% carbs and same with lower carb diets, higher fat diets, etc.
I am not asserting, I am talking about personal experience based on scientific research. So the "asserting" bit is merely your perception.
"debate topic likely to be lost in the advice thread" that is by definition arrogance, if I were you I wouldn't be so confident. I would be more modest. with all due respect
What's arrogant about that? This section is for debate. I have seen you assert that a HCLF diet is best in other threads, believed you did that here, I thought you might want to debate it. I wasn't being critical. If you are just saying it's what worked for you and it depends on the individual, I misread you.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It's unlikely to matter that much, but picking one and sticking with it for a while and seeing how you feel is a good way to start and those are fine macro percentages to start with.
Agreed. Your macro breakdown is the same as mine and this has worked out great for me so I haven't had any reason to change them. It is unusual to get it right the first time, but you have found a good starting point.0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?
Correct, it will happen through hunger signals and intuitive eating. I eat when I feel real hunger, I eat enough, and I eat whole-plants food. My body takes care of the weight.
Real hunger is the hunger that I feel when I am not thirsty, sleepy or bored/lonely/stressed.. etc.
The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.0 -
I'm trying to figure out the best way to lose weight. So far I have been trying to get my macros 35% protein 35% carbs and 30% fat. But I'm beginning to see that I need to learn how to figure it all out but everyone seems to have different opinions. Can anyone help?
for weight loss you need a calorie deficit, period. Macros don't have anything to do with it.
however,if you want to maintain muscle mass I would suggest about .85 grams of protein per pound of body weight; .45 grams of fat, and fill in the rest with carbs....
I would also suggest that you follow a structured lifting program like strong lifts, all pro beginner, etc...0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.
if OP wants to preserve muscle mass than getting 12% protein is a horrible idea...
and avoiding animal foods has nothing to do with this topic...0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.
On the face of it, it seems problematic, but think of it, what is easier? to have behavioural healthy habits toward food that comes out without much thinking but needs a period of training for many people (you gain good habits after training). Or, keep thinking of the numbers of what is consumed and feel emotional pressure for what can be eaten and not be eaten and eventually fall or have cheat days?
I agree, IE is the holy grail. But for most, unachievable for many reasons not least that, from my limited experience of people who have achieved it, they always seem to have self imposed eating rules which limit choice and bad behaviours. You are an example of this (although I concede that you have not stated that you IE in maintenance, only that it is currently working as a loss tool) in that you have a set of food principles which preclude certain foods.
The emotional pressure leading to a fall or cheat days that you mention in your post can apply to restricting food groups just as much as it can from continual logging.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »PlantBasedKnight wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?
Correct, it will happen through hunger signals and intuitive eating. I eat when I feel real hunger, I eat enough, and I eat whole-plants food. My body takes care of the weight.
Real hunger is the hunger that I feel when I am not thirsty, sleepy or bored/lonely/stressed.. etc.
The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.
Yes, I agree with this. I don't think many humans are easily able to distinguish "real hunger" from other desires to eat or that "real hunger" necessarily is in line with how many calories one needs to lose or maintain weight. Historically humans didn't rely simply on hunger -- food was scarce and people ate when food was available (probably more than they needed) and suffered through periods when food was less available. Even in more abundant times there have been cultural restrictions on eating like ideas about what a good meal is and meal times. Having the current situation where food is cheap, always available, and there are few restrictions as to what to eat or how often presents something that we aren't necessarily evolved to deal with, so the obesity rate is not surprising.
What works for me is mindfulness -- thinking in terms of how much I ought to be eating (which does not require strict counting) eating only at regular times of the day (I prefer 3 meals, don't think this matters), and serving size, as well as getting a good bit of low calorie, filling food like vegetables, and overall balanced meals (which I believe includes a variety of carbs like vegetables and starch, fat, and protein). I find that my appetite is better controlled by mind and habit than thinking I can just follow hunger signals (and the reverse of this, which is helpful to me, is that I don't tend to struggle with hunger any more than I have an easy "no more eating" signal).0 -
My "no more signal" is pretty much dead I think. LOL0
-
Everyone has different ideas because there is no right answer. Speaking very generally, recommended macros should be viewed as a range, not as specific numbers. Where any one person falls within that range can vary based on goals, preferences, etc.
Here is the cheat sheet I keep for myself. I tend to get bogged down in the finer details that don't really matter all that much, so this is a helpful reminder for me. It tells me 2 things: (1) what my range is for each macro, and (2) what my min/max cals are for cutting and bulking. You can use the same recommendations, but use your own weight/body fat to figure out your specific macros/cals.
0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »The problem with that is that for most on this site, intuitive eating is what got them overweight in the first place and detecting the "real hunger" is technique that, sadly, some people never manage to pull off.
On the face of it, it seems problematic, but think of it, what is easier? to have behavioural healthy habits toward food that comes out without much thinking but needs a period of training for many people (you gain good habits after training). Or, keep thinking of the numbers of what is consumed and feel emotional pressure for what can be eaten and not be eaten and eventually fall or have cheat days?
Seems to be begging the question. You're trying to make it sound like the behavioral / intuitive is easier, but you're saying it to an audience that has plenty of indications that say it isn't even proven possible for all people. Even if it is easier at the moment, if it gets the wrong results and weight goes up, it goes up.0 -
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.0 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.
Why does protein depend on bodyweight but fat on the number of calories you're eating?0 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.
Why does protein depend on bodyweight but fat on the number of calories you're eating?
I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that protein is necessary for maintaining and building muscle whereas fat is stored for energy. Fat needs are more variable depending on diet and exercise goals.0 -
itsthehumidity wrote: »
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.
Why does protein depend on body weight but fat on the number of calories you're eating?
I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that protein is necessary for maintaining and building muscle whereas fat is stored for energy. Fat needs are more variable depending on diet and exercise goals.
he was asking why that poster was putting protein in grams, and fats and carbs in percents...if you are going to use grams, then you should use grams for all your macros...0 -
I've been 40/30/30 since I started losing weight. My N1 says that is the best.
ETA : my TDEE is higher than most so hitting minimums is not something I have to worry about.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »PlantBasedKnight wrote: »80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.
I don't understand how it could be both (automatic loss and sustainable long term). If the weight loss is automatic then you are in calorific deficit. To continue on that long term would mean you would eventually become unhealthily underweight and eventually die. So, I assume you are, at some point, intending to consciously up your calories to stay within a healthy/desired weight range - or do you anticipate that, that will happen automatically (hunger signals?) too?
It also means it would be impossible for people on a whole foods plant-based diet to gain muscle and that children on a whole foods plant-based diet would fail to thrive. If this is the case, then a whole foods plant-based diet sounds like a pretty terrible idea.
Fortunately, we know that if one gets sufficient calories from plant-based foods, you can both gain muscle and grow up healthily.0 -
People will (and have) given you a multitude of responses and a lot of information. You'll probably notice that some information contradicts the next person. This is because we are all unique. While you have some consistent facts that hold true (Cal In vs Cal Out), each person is made up a different percentages of muscle (which burn calories quicker) and fat (which stores not only energy but medications, etc). Each person processes food at different rates and some are more efficient than others. Some medical issues can come into consideration, etc.
The moral of the story is take all the information, soak it up, learn it and apply it. Keep the things that work for YOU, your body and your lifestyle and get rid of the things that don't fit you. It takes some effort and experimentation. It takes perseverance. You will get frustrated but at the end of the day, you can do this. Its just about becoming VERY familiar with your own body and its internal processes, which is still a good thing.
I, personally, have found that low carb works very well with my body, my metabolism and my medical issues. That doesn't mean its right for the next person. I experimented, I consulted everyone, I spoke with my doctors and this is what works for me. You will find what works for you.
And we'll still probably see someone say that I don't know what I'm talking about, low carb is bad. SMH. Good luck to you!! You will figure it out and you will have success!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 385 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions