How important are macros if you're meeting your calorie goal?

I've never paid attention to macros, and I've had great success just focusing on calories. I don't even have the different macros listed in my food diary ( you can go to settings and edit what you track).

Protein is somewhat important (although many people drastically overstate how much you really need - not everyone is trying to be a bodybuilder) because it tends to be more filling and it promotes muscle maintenance.

Fat and carbs are pretty much irrelevant as long as you get minimum essential fats in your diet.

srd_23 wrote: »

Good to know guys, thanks for the input. I can definitely see myself continuing with the protein shakes once I hit maintenance. I like them, and I'm chronically busy, so if it's not hurting anything I think I'll stick with it.

I'll never give up my protein shakes/smoothies. I love them and look forward to them.

JuliaHaleFitness wrote: »

I'm not sure what macros you have set up to shoot for, but what is your protein intake? When I write meal plans I typically base then in macros and ignore calories. As long as the foods are healthy and clean, it's the macros that matter (aka how much of a nutrient you eat).

Your body doesn't know what a calorie is so it doesn't care about that number. It cares about the nutrients.

Interesting. That is pretty much the exact opposite of most people here say. I'm not knocking your way btw, different things work for different people., and if counting macros and not worrying about calories works for you, then that's all that matters

nutmegoreo wrote: »

JuliaHaleFitness wrote: »

I'm not sure what macros you have set up to shoot for, but what is your protein intake? When I write meal plans I typically base then in macros and ignore calories. As long as the foods are healthy and clean, it's the macros that matter (aka how much of a nutrient you eat).

Your body doesn't know what a calorie is so it doesn't care about that number. It cares about the nutrients.

Macros will determine calories anyway, so it's all the same thing really. Carbs and protein 4cal/gram and fats 9cal/gram. Without getting into the spacious argument on TEF. There's also more to nutrition than just the macronutrients. If this works for you, then great. If OP is happy with how things are going for her, then that's great too.

Agreed. If you ate staying within a total limit of all macros (and not counting carbs but not the other two macros), it'll all boil down to the same. Just a different way to approach counting calories that may work better for some people.

Christine_72 wrote: »

JuliaHaleFitness wrote: »

I'm not sure what macros you have set up to shoot for, but what is your protein intake? When I write meal plans I typically base then in macros and ignore calories. As long as the foods are healthy and clean, it's the macros that matter (aka how much of a nutrient you eat).

Your body doesn't know what a calorie is so it doesn't care about that number. It cares about the nutrients.

Interesting. That is pretty much the exact opposite of most people here say. I'm not knocking your way btw, different things work for different people., and if counting macros and not worrying about calories works for you, then that's all that matters

Counting macros (by gram) is just a different way of counting calories. By percentage would not be, but I assume that's not what the poster means.

That said, I personally think macros are way overrated. Like another poster said, getting enough protein is important and can be helpful for satiety for many. Beyond that, get essential fats (which is hard to avoid) and fats v. carbs really don't matter or are personal. IMO, people should just be sensible and adjust their diets if they aren't feeling satisfied and things like more fiber, in many cases fewer low nutrient sweets and highly refined foods or liquid calories can help with that. But if someone like OP finds liquid calories work fine for her, then personal experience should trump these kinds of tips, which are based on averages.

For me, eating a variety of nutrient-dense foods is more important (for health/satiety) than the particular macro mix for the day (although I tend to fall into a usual pattern).

FindingAmy77 wrote: »

I only focus on calories. This is why I have my food diary set up to only show calories. I just try to keep a balance with the rest throughout my day without obsessing on numbers.

I thought I was the only one who did this, lol.

This content has been removed.

lizziexboredom wrote: »

I think it would be important to at least look at the nutritional content of the food that you put into your diary. I don't know about you, but after years of eating the kind of food that cause me to gain weight in the first place, when I started walking and my food I found that I knew next to nothing. I would put something in my diary thinking that it was healthy, only to look at the nutrition content and find out that it was high in fat and sugar. A handful of almonds here and there, an avocado, and some granola for breakfast might be well under your calorie goal but would probably exceed your fat content for the day. So even if you don't plan on following the guidelines, I think it's definitely beneficial to become aware of the contents of what we put into our body

High in certain kinds of fats isn't bad at all. An avocado, some almonds, and maybe some granola (granola varies so much you cannot generalize) would not be unhealthy, even if over MFP's fat percentage. There's nothing particularly special about MFP's default percentages and many people think they need to be adjusted for them.

I agree that looking at nutrition content is important (although I don't think that's really about macros as the main thing), but I would not say that sugar and fat make a food unhealthy -- fruit and plain yogurt have lots of sugar, the foods you mentioned have lots of fat, as do eggs and olives and of course olive oil, and yet in moderation (within calories) I think these foods tend to make many diets more healthful.

Also, personally, I was not ignorant about nutrition before deciding to lose weight and I didn't eat foods I now consider unhealthful or really make fundamentally different choices. I ate without being mindful and too much and too often (for reasons having nothing to do with hunger). Now I am mindful, which means I don't waste calories on foods I don't care much about, but as before I eat mostly nutrient dense foods with some extras just because I like them and they make my overall diet more satisfying. And I'm very active, whereas for a while I was sedentary (which worked in a loop with being depressed).

IMO you are making the best of a situation that is not ideal. Is it optimal? No. Does it have to be? No. Sometimes we just have to keep ourselves in the game until our situations give us more opportunities...

Sassie_Lassie wrote: »

Your body doesn't know what a calorie is so it doesn't care about that number. It cares about the nutrients.

LOL. If that were the case then there wouldn't be an epidemic of obesity.

Exactly. Your body tracks the calories whether you do or not!