help with what my macro's
theresam2469
Posts: 23 Member
I have been using myfitnesspal around a month. At first I let myfittness set my goals. It had me eating 1500 calories a day. I am 5'7 295 lbs was 318 when i started. I changed it to 1200 calories a day, my problem is i don't know what i should set my macro nutrients to for 1200 calories. Can i please get suggestion on what they should be. I'm not very active.
Daily Nutrition Goals
Calories 1200
Carbohydrates 150 g 50 %
Fat 40 g 30 %
Protein 60 g 20 %
Daily Nutrition Goals
Calories 1200
Carbohydrates 150 g 50 %
Fat 40 g 30 %
Protein 60 g 20 %
1
Replies
-
why change it to 1200? were you losing on 1500?
as for macros it has nothing to do with weight loss...it's about health.
MFP will default to the Minimum recommended when you set it up.2 -
Is there a reason why you don't want to use the default macro settings?0
-
-
I was loosing at the 1500 but after reading a few things online it said i could go down to 1200 due to being so heavy. I was hoping if i changed the calories to 1200 i would loose a little more per week, myfitness does not manually calculate the nutrients if you enter the calories manually. I will add more calories once i get the weight off so i can maintain my weight. I am not eating anything process, no potatoes, pasta, nothing white. I am eating healthy.1
-
theresam2469 wrote: »I was loosing at the 1500 but after reading a few things online it said i could go down to 1200 due to being so heavy. I was hoping if i changed the calories to 1200 i would loose a little more per week, myfitness does not manually calculate the nutrients if you enter the calories manually. I will add more calories once i get the weight off so i can maintain my weight. I am not eating anything process, no potatoes, pasta, nothing white. I am eating healthy.
your goal should be to eat as much food as you can and still lose reasonable amount of weight not as little food as possible be hungry to lose as much as fast as possible.
Healthy eating is mute for weight loss...I've lost 50lbs eating pizza, cakes, chocolate bars and drinking...along with "healthy foods"
MFP does calculate nutrients when entered in manually...only time it doesn't is "quick adds'0 -
thank you Sezxy Stef. i will check again on entering manually.
0 -
Your macros seem a bit off.. Should be eating majority protein that is what your body needs most. I eat 40% protein and 30% fat and carbs2
-
caribbeanlove23 wrote: »Your macros seem a bit off.. Should be eating majority protein that is what your body needs most. I eat 40% protein and 30% fat and carbs
Thank you0 -
Just to echo what others have said - myfitnesspal does edit the nutrients for you, when you change the amount of calories in your goal. They will always recommend the guideline amounts..
Doing anything different to them isn't neccesary unless there is a particular nutrient you feel you'd like to have more of, or you are looking in to a diet that does ask you to eat specific amounts of nutrients.. and then you can go into MFP and change the percentages of those manually too.0 -
I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.0
-
rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!0 -
rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
Try a new nutritionist. Your body has clear priorities, specifically:
1. To stay alive (this your bmr)
2. To fuel the activities of daily life and exercise (the extra consumption that makes up your TDEE)
3. To replenish glycogen stores with 'spare' glucose
4. To add to fat stores once all of the above is fully fuelled
Carbs are converted to glucose to fuel these activities, but so is protein. Fat is processed differently, but that would be a long and boring description so please google this if you are interested. The balance of CI and CO is all that matters to your body for weight loss or gain. You could eat high protein, moderate fat and zero carbs but still gain weight if you consume more calories than you burn.
Having said that, different people have found different macro ratios better for satiety. I would suggest that if the OP is finding it easy to stick to calorie restriction on these ratios then don't change anything. If OP is struggling with hunger, first increase calorie consumption to a more sustainable level (MFP can advise on an apropriate level when you insert your stats and set the loss to 2lb a week or less). Once you have tried this with the default macros, assess how hungry you are feeling throughout the day. If it feels unsustainable, try increasing either fat or protein for a few weeks to see if that works. Repeat with different ratios until you find your sweet spot.0 -
theresam2469 wrote: »I was loosing at the 1500 but after reading a few things online it said i could go down to 1200 due to being so heavy. I was hoping if i changed the calories to 1200 i would loose a little more per week, myfitness does not manually calculate the nutrients if you enter the calories manually. I will add more calories once i get the weight off so i can maintain my weight. I am not eating anything process, no potatoes, pasta, nothing white. I am eating healthy.
Let MyFitnessPal set the macros for you: 50% from carbohydrates, 20% from protein and 30% from fat.
Potatoes are not processed. They come right out of the ground and are good for you if they fit into your calories.
Leave your calories at 1500. That is a low enough number for you to lose weight at a good pace.
Remember that the main point is that you want to be successful. You want to keep things as simple and as easy as possible so that you can get to your goal weight.1 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.0 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.0 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
scientifically they don't matter for weight loss...so yes irrelevant for weight loss.
Note however I said they are important for health and to a point fitness.1 -
There is much research out there now that points to different ratios of macros and how they can benefit weight loss. Worth a read if you are open minded.0
-
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »There is much research out there now that points to different ratios of macros and how they can benefit weight loss. Worth a read if you are open minded.
sure link them in.
but that being said "benefit" vs "cause" are two different things.
Regardless of the ratio if you are over your maintenance in calories you won't lose weight.0 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »There is much research out there now that points to different ratios of macros and how they can benefit weight loss. Worth a read if you are open minded.
sure link them in.
but that being said "benefit" vs "cause" are two different things.
Regardless of the ratio if you are over your maintenance in calories you won't lose weight.
I think you're going to have to let it go and agree to disagree with me. Better all round for the poor OP's thread I think!!0 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »There is much research out there now that points to different ratios of macros and how they can benefit weight loss. Worth a read if you are open minded.
sure link them in.
but that being said "benefit" vs "cause" are two different things.
Regardless of the ratio if you are over your maintenance in calories you won't lose weight.
I think you're going to have to let it go and agree to disagree with me. Better all round for the poor OP's thread I think!!
that's fine but the fact you can't produce the links to any peer reviewed studies means your statements can't be backed up....and it is up to the person claiming they have proof to produce it.
For example
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418611/
which has this statement in the abstract<snip>
The results suggested that the proportion of macronutrients in the diet was not important in predicting changes in weight or WC.
<snip>
For the OP that means something...there is no point in worrying about macros at this point....they aren't for weight loss...for the OP it means that there is no need to lower calories yet.
Lose weight at a reasonable pace as you are now at 1500 and don't worry about macros for weight loss.0 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.
all water weight...not real fat loss. As well more protein helps keep you feeling fuller longer.
And of course you retain less water/glycogen when not eating a lot of carbs...that's science...but again
calories are for weight loss...macros are for health and nutrition. No where did I say they don't matter in general just not for weight loss.0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.
all water weight...not real fat loss. As well more protein helps keep you feeling fuller longer.
And of course you retain less water/glycogen when not eating a lot of carbs...that's science...but again
calories are for weight loss...macros are for health and nutrition. No where did I say they don't matter in general just not for weight loss.
But less water in the body makes me look leaner and not so puffy. You are right. Protein keeps you full. Most important when it comes to trying to lose weight.0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.
If you actually look at my post to the OP... I stated that they didn't need to worry about Macros...
The OP also needs to hear all different opinions and advice NOT just the ones who are about "all calories in calories out, nothing else matters ect etc" - there's plenty of people on here like you, but others need to have their voice too.
I didn't post any links because I don't see why I should. I have researched myself and if anyone is curious about it then can do their own research. Like I said - you should save the debates for another thread as you're trying to argue something I never actually started by quoting my response to another poster!3 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.
That's really good to hear you're having success with it, I did read about fat burning being at a slight advantage so you may not be too off with your opinion on what you have seen so far.0 -
Everything SezxyStef is stating is correct. You can eat only carbs and still lose weight if you eat at a deficit. Some people find it's easier to stay in a deficit with certain macro ratios and I feel like that's what mirabelle is trying to express.1
-
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Everything SezxyStef is stating is correct. You can eat only carbs and still lose weight if you eat at a deficit. Some people find it's easier to stay in a deficit with certain macro ratios and I feel like that's what mirabelle is trying to express.
Yeah all I was simply saying to the OP was that they don't need to worry about macros unless they are following a specific plan, or want to up their nutrient intake for some reason in particular.. Then I later replied to another poster saying my macros mattered to me personally and their post was interesting to me as their macros were totally different to mine. That's all, nothing else! 1 -
Mirabelle1983 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »Mirabelle1983 wrote: »rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.
I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!
yes they matter for health...but not for weight loss.
Where calories come from is irrelevant for weight loss....for energy and nutrition yes.
a registered nutritionist may or may not have the qualifications to set calorie/macro goals...I highly doubt most have these qualifications.
Carbs do not translate to fat if glycogen is filled up...extra calories translate to fat...and those extra calories can come from fat, carbs or protein.
For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
For me too, I am not retaining so much water by eating less carbs and more protein, my weight doesn't fluctuate at all and IMO fat comes off easier.
If you actually look at my post to the OP... I stated that they didn't need to worry about Macros...
The OP also needs to hear all different opinions and advice NOT just the ones who are about "all calories in calories out, nothing else matters ect etc" - there's plenty of people on here like you, but others need to have their voice too.
I didn't post any links because I don't see why I should. I have researched myself and if anyone is curious about it then can do their own research. Like I said - you should save the debates for another thread as you're trying to argue something I never actually started by quoting my response to another poster!
******and if you look at my original response to your response to someone who said macros matter and yes you agreed with that person(see below)then you proceeded to disagree with me that they do matter for weight lossx2 and then indicated that there were studies backing you up, so is really arguing here?...regardless if it's you alone or others they don't matter for weight loss period.rockymytdeb wrote: »I'm. Currently working with a registered nutritionist. 1200 calories is too low for your weight. She has my macros at 80 to 100 g carbs and 100g protein, 1300 to 1500 calories ( I weigh 170) Macros do matter. Carbs fill up your glycogen stores, when your body reaches it's max for glycogen the extra goes into your fat cells. Yes, CICO is important, but where those calories come from is too. I am losing 1 to 2 lbs a week.I find that very interesting because to me macros do matter too... but it seems I am doing quite the opposite to you with your ratios!For me they matter for weight loss - not irrelevant at all.
You can state all the opinions and give advice you want but when it isn't scientific truth then it will get countered and it is up to those who mention studies as proof of their "opinion" it is up to them to prove it which you didn't.
Like what I did with the study I linked in which totally counters macros matter for weight loss..
I am not here to argue, I am here to make sure that the OP gets valid truths backed by science not opinions and anecdotal advice. If that doesn't sit well with you my advice is then be prepared with links to studies backing up your posts (when required) most here who request studies do so for a reason....to educate themselves and broaden their knowledge.
And the whole "go find it yourself" business isn't going to float. You can't even give one link to a peer reviewed study backing your opinion...smh0 -
If people wanted scientific proof, they wouldn't be on a forum for "chatting"...
There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence, or opinions.. in fact isn't that what most people rely on when they visit here? Or this forum would be empty and everyone would be asking their doctor/nutritionist..
You obviously ARE here to argue as you quoted MY post to SOMEONE ELSE'S POST...and answered it - you didn't even ask me what I meant by saying macros matter to me.. you didn't ask why or how they mattered.
Anyway case closed, I won't be reading any of your further posts and won't be responding to them either.2 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Everything SezxyStef is stating is correct. You can eat only carbs and still lose weight if you eat at a deficit. Some people find it's easier to stay in a deficit with certain macro ratios and I feel like that's what mirabelle is trying to express.
Exactly, I find it very easy, to stay within my calorie allowance when I eat a lot of protein. I would be super hungry all day by just eating carbs and end up going over my calorie allowance which then would cause weight gain. Less calories make you lose weight but how you set up your macros determines how much you lose or build muscle or fat, how much water you retain and I believe it has an effect on metabolism.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions