Macros? How important are they?

I think macros are important for health and specific health goals. For weight loss, unless your weight is tied to an issue affected by macros, a caloric deficit is the main thing.

I have autoimmune issues and insulin resistance that is helped by a lower carb diet. When I address my macro needs, weight management seems to fall in line much easier for me.

Good luck.

I pay attention to the macros but I know that I feel better with fewer carbs and more protein than the default. I have played around with changing them in MFP but I am still exploring what works best for me. For now I am concentrating on healthy fats and watching my caloric intake.

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Unimportant for weight loss (mostly*) but important for health.

For most, the MFP defaults aren't awful.

Now in maintenance, I go for daily minimums of:

• 0.8g protein per pound of healthy body weight (others will argue that this is excessive or inadequate - meh . . . and I really do mean 'per pound');
• 0.35-0.45g fats per pound (as much as practical from sources like olive oil, avocados, seeds, nuts, etc.);
• 25g fiber;
• 5 servings fruit/veggies, but ideally 10 or more (yes, really).

I set my MFP percentages to come close to that (before exercise), but eat to the gram goals.

Carbs just fall where they may, to hit calorie goal. It's usually in the 200s, and was close to that while losing 60+ pounds (1/3 of my body weight).

(*)Macros can affect weight loss indirectly, such as through satiation or cravings. They can be relevant to weight loss to people with special conditions, such as diabetes or insulin resistance.

Ann pretty much nails it here. But she, as do many of us, has certain fitness and athletic goals for which this mix, especially the protein, makes sense (the fats goal is dead on for almost everyone).

So, what are your fitness goals if any? Lean mass preservation with resistance exercise? A little low impact cardio like walking to burn some calories. If the latter, MFP defaults are a good starting point and then adjust based on outcomes and satiety.

Some play with their macros to accomplish more satiety by increasing the one does that trick for them. For some that is protein (my personal favorite), other carbs or fat. It take a little experimentation to dial it in.

mmapags wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Unimportant for weight loss (mostly*) but important for health.

For most, the MFP defaults aren't awful.

Now in maintenance, I go for daily minimums of:

• 0.8g protein per pound of healthy body weight (others will argue that this is excessive or inadequate - meh . . . and I really do mean 'per pound');
• 0.35-0.45g fats per pound (as much as practical from sources like olive oil, avocados, seeds, nuts, etc.);
• 25g fiber;
• 5 servings fruit/veggies, but ideally 10 or more (yes, really).

I set my MFP percentages to come close to that (before exercise), but eat to the gram goals.

Carbs just fall where they may, to hit calorie goal. It's usually in the 200s, and was close to that while losing 60+ pounds (1/3 of my body weight).

(*)Macros can affect weight loss indirectly, such as through satiation or cravings. They can be relevant to weight loss to people with special conditions, such as diabetes or insulin resistance.

Ann pretty much nails it here. But she, as do many of us, has certain fitness and athletic goals for which this mix, especially the protein, makes sense (the fats goal is dead on for almost everyone).

So, what are your fitness goals if any? Lean mass preservation with resistance exercise? A little low impact cardio like walking to burn some calories. If the latter, MFP defaults are a good starting point and then adjust based on outcomes and satiety.

Some play with their macros to accomplish more satiety by increasing the one does that trick for them. For some that is protein (my personal favorite), other carbs or fat. It take a little experimentation to dial it in.

Good points - thank you. I can expand on why my personal protein goal is higher than, say, USDA's (around double their minimum for the average woman, IIRC).

First, there's little to no evidence that extra protein is harmful for otherwise healthy people, within reason and in context of an overall balanced, nutritious diet. (Those with medical conditions that require limiting protein generally know their limitations already.) The only downside, IMO, is that protein tends to be a little more expensive.

Second, there's reasonable evidence that additional protein may be beneficial in certain subgroups. These include, as you say, active people (especially those doing strength training); but also people in a calorie deficit, aging people, and perhaps people getting a larger fraction of their protein from plant sources.

Generally, in these subgroups, a larger amount of protein appears to either facilitate muscle gain/repair, or to spare muscle loss. In the case of those getting more of their their protein from plants, extra grams of protein, plus varied sources, can be a bit if an insurance policy, as animal proteins are complete (contain all the amino acids our bodies can't synthesize), whereas most plant sources are incomplete, so need to be combined to get the full amino acid complement.

I'm no scientist, but as an interested reader, I think the evidence, while short of anything like definitive proof, is sufficient that getting more than USDA/WHO minimums is a conservative/sensible choice for people in these subgroups. (Others will differ.)

As someone who's active, aging (61), and vegetarian (but in maintenance), and based on my reading, I've settled on around .8g per pound of goal weight, which is arithmetically similar to the 1g per pound of lean body mass (LBM) you'll see some others advocate (It simply rolls in a conservative LBM estimate to keep the recommendations simple).

Percentwise, I'm at 50c/30f/20p, but that's misleading as my calorie goal is unusual for my size/age, and I eat to the gram goals anyway. I usually end up over on that on protein & under on carbs.