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
-
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?
This seems wrong to me too.
The Kenyan marathoners are often reported as eating an 80-10-10 diet, which means something quite different when eating the number of calories they need to in order to maintain bodyweight at their level of training. Fat percentage is low, but total grams per bodyweight less so.0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »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...
where did you get that "horrible idea" from?
as for "avoiding animal foods" it helps to lose weight because animal products are full of fat and cholesterol. I mentioned it because that is what I am doing.
How does avoiding cholesterol help you lose weight?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...
Hmm...I didn't read that into his post.0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »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...
where did you get that "horrible idea" from?
as for "avoiding animal foods" it helps to lose weight because animal products are full of fat and cholesterol. I mentioned it because that is what I am doing.
Boneless skinless chicken breast, 4 oz.: 120 calories, 55mg cholesterol (18% DRI), 2.5g fat (4% RDI), 22g protein.
But please do go on with your agenda-driven hyperbole and scaremongering.
Also, 12% of calories from protein is most certainly an atrocious idea for somebody attempting to preserve lean body mass. I'd gladly point you to studies regarding ideal protein intake, but I doubt it would make a difference to you so I won't bother.0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »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...
where did you get that "horrible idea" from?
as for "avoiding animal foods" it helps to lose weight because animal products are full of fat and cholesterol. I mentioned it because that is what I am doing.
You're mixing factors that may impact health with those that do affect weight loss. They are not inherently the same thing. Weight loss and health are not the same discussion.0 -
We haven't yet established that fat is to be avoided, either, and dietary cholesterol typically doesn't matter.
150 g of rainbow trout (per USDA): 178 calories, 5 g fat (1 g sat, decent for omega-3s), 31 g protein, 88 mg cholesterol.
Similarly, sablefish, salmon, and arctic char are all fatty fish good for omega-3s and yet not hard to fit into a normal-calorie dinner, hmm.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.
It just goes to show how individual we all are. My macros are pretty much the polar opposite of yours. I couldn't cope with such low amounts of fat and protein.0 -
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »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...
where did you get that "horrible idea" from?
as for "avoiding animal foods" it helps to lose weight because animal products are full of fat and cholesterol. I mentioned it because that is what I am doing.
strange, I lost 50 pounds eating animal products, I guess I did it wrong...
and 12% protein accompanied by a calorie deficit is a horrible way to preserve muscle mass....
0 -
Hey, where has that plant based diet knight guy gone!?! I liked him - he was funny.0
-
It really is personal. I could argue it's not half as important as people are lead to believe because humans have thrived and continue to thrive on a wide variety of macros. It's more of a dieting thing to me, and comes even after micros in my personal pyramid of priorities since I'm not an athlete and all I want from it is to preserve some muscle mass, but not necessarily bend over backwards to maximize the muscle retention. I just do as much as I comfortably can because adherence is way more important to me.
With that said, I do try to get 75-100 grams of protein every day (which makes up anywhere between 12% and 50% of my diet depending on my calorie intake for the day), the rest I let fall where it falls. On a typical 1800 calorie day my personal ratio looks something like 18% protein, 22% fat and 60% carbs with a very slight variation in protein and more of a variation in fat and carbs.0 -
You sure about that?PlantBasedKnight wrote: »as for "avoiding animal foods" it helps to lose weight because animal products are full of fat and cholesterol.0 -
This:
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...
combined with this: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.
is a pretty great way to summarize my thoughts.0 -
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.
Love this!0 -
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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
In the case of being out of range due to being overweight, do you think this could be used with a goal weight? Would that correct the discrepancy?
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
Does it work if you use goal weight or a healthy BMI weight? [Oh, I see I wasn't the first to suggest that! Should read to the end.]
Anyway, that is what I've typically seen for protein gram calculations, and it makes sense for carbs, since carbs would be more variable if cutting calories.
The minimums for me are below 1200, but the ranges seem right on.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
In the case of being out of range due to being overweight, do you think this could be used with a goal weight? Would that correct the discrepancy?
Do you mean using goal weight rather than current weight to calculate the ranges/numbers?
Yes, in most cases it probably will. As with any tool, some common sense needs to be used when considering the numbers. Calculations and generalizations always have limits.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »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.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
In the case of being out of range due to being overweight, do you think this could be used with a goal weight? Would that correct the discrepancy?
I'd say it would definitely work if you use goal weight instead of actual weight.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 387 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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions