do macros really matter

janejellyroll wrote: »

Calories for weight loss, macros for nutrition/satiety.

I go by calories, although I do make sure to get sufficient protein and fat.

And another this! ^
The only reason to focus on your macros is if you have specific fitness goals. Eg. lifting weights for muscle mass preservation. Then the focus on protein is a little more important. For just weight loss, calorie first. Then getting good nutrition. Getting adequate protein and fats can help with satiety and controlling hunger.

Priority 1: Protein (high)
Priority 2: Calories (low)
Priority 3: Fat (not trans, not too high, but not too low)
I seem to get enough dairy and animal to get the fat high enough.

I don't prioritize carbs because there's no need to. They are everywhere.

Protein. A woman needs at least 46 grams a day. I shoot for a minimum of 60 grams.

Agreed, Calories are for weight loss/gain and macros are for good health/hunger.

For weightloss, calories are important. Macros might (and might not) matter when it comes to feeling satiated and satisfied on your diet, it is something to look at if you are struggling to hit calories.

For nutrition, I think macros are overrated, although that's where they come in. There's a minimum RDA for protein that most (not everyone) will easily hit, and beyond that if you are at a deficit it can be very helpful to eat more. I aim for .8 g/lb of a healthy goal weight, although I think that's higher than is really necessary even for that purpose. It's satisfying for me, though, so I tend to come in around that number.

As for fat and carbs, well, there's a minimum required for fat (and essential fatty acids in particular), but I don't think anyone ever really eats below that without trying, and there's no minimum for carbs, and sources of carbs and fat are incredibly varied. I tend to think focusing on percentages or even total grams of both is usually overrated (again), although some people find that lowering carbs (even carbs that many find to be filling and nutrient dense) can be helpful for satiety (which is different than claiming it matters for nutrition).

In addition to protein, my main focus for nutrition isn't macros at all, but making sure my diet is largely vegetable-based. I try to get vegetables at every meal, ideally about half the meal or 8-10 servings. I also try to eat a variety of other nutrient dense foods (fruit is good right now), to eat seasonally and, as I define it, ethically, and to make sure that I get in sources of fat like fatty fish, nuts and seeds, avocado and olives, as well as plant based sources of fat like beans and lentils (which I really don't consume as much as I think I should, since my natural tendency is to be a bit lower carb).

lemurcat12 wrote: »

For weightloss, calories are important. Macros might (and might not) matter when it comes to feeling satiated and satisfied on your diet, it is something to look at if you are struggling to hit calories.

For nutrition, I think macros are overrated, although that's where they come in. There's a minimum RDA for protein that most (not everyone) will easily hit, and beyond that if you are at a deficit it can be very helpful to eat more. I aim for .8 g/lb of a healthy goal weight, although I think that's higher than is really necessary even for that purpose. It's satisfying for me, though, so I tend to come in around that number.

As for fat and carbs, well, there's a minimum required for fat (and essential fatty acids in particular), but I don't think anyone ever really eats below that without trying, and there's no minimum for carbs, and sources of carbs and fat are incredibly varied. I tend to think focusing on percentages or even total grams of both is usually overrated (again), although some people find that lowering carbs (even carbs that many find to be filling and nutrient dense) can be helpful for satiety (which is different than claiming it matters for nutrition).

In addition to protein, my main focus for nutrition isn't macros at all, but making sure my diet is largely vegetable-based. I try to get vegetables at every meal, ideally about half the meal or 8-10 servings. I also try to eat a variety of other nutrient dense foods (fruit is good right now), to eat seasonally and, as I define it, ethically, and to make sure that I get in sources of fat like fatty fish, nuts and seeds, avocado and olives, as well as plant based sources of fat like beans and lentils (which I really don't consume as much as I think I should, since my natural tendency is to be a bit lower carb).

This is my focus as well. I don't track macros but I do track my veg/fruit intake and aim for a certain amount every day, as well as beans, nuts, seeds, fish, olives etc several times a week.

Both!!! You need a calorie deficit to lose weight. But, you also need fat, protien, vitamins and minerals to stay healthy. Sure you'd lose weight if your entire day was just 1000 calories of soda, but you'd end up severely malnourished.

At first I only cared about the calories. Now I'm in recomp and working with a trainer towards my fitness so my goals changed and I focus a lot more on my macro balance.

BabyBear76 wrote: »

gebeziseva wrote: »

Proteins and fat are essential for your health. Carbs are irrelevant. I eat them cos they're tasty!

I once had a doctor put me on an ultra low carb diet, I got really close to becoming a murderer over a slice of bread.

Meals just feel wrong and unsatisfying to me if they are unbalanced, whether it is not enough protein or carbs or fat.

ISweat4This wrote: »

I track both

Me too. I think calories and macros are equally important, just for different reasons.