macros vs calories

Jadu786
Jadu786 Posts: 141 Member
edited November 23 in Health and Weight Loss
Do a lot of people on MFP, track macros? I used to for a while, but I've gone back to tracking calories - and I can't decide which is more effective... anyone have any opinions? suggestions?

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Both above posts nail it.
  • Mrs181
    Mrs181 Posts: 36 Member
    I track my macros, and as a result, my calories.
    Neither is really better than the other, so do what works for you.
  • magster4isu
    magster4isu Posts: 632 Member
    I track my calories, but I am mindful of my macros (if that makes sense).
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    It's like asking what's best, shirts and pants and socks, or clothes. Your calories come from protein, fat and carbs. Too many calories over time, weight gain. Balance calories in/out, weight maintenance. Fewer calories, weight loss. Less calories, faster loss. Too few calories, hunger, overeating, regain. Too little of one or more nutrients, hunger, overeating, regain.

    If tracking macros helps you stick to your calories, then macro tracking is effective. If it makes you obsess over details, or conversely, lose focus, then it isn't effective for you.
  • steveko89
    steveko89 Posts: 2,223 Member
    Here's my list of priorities:
    1. Calories
    2. Sufficient protein
    3. Carbs relatively in check (<100g)
    4. Sugar not excessive (hopefully <50g)
    5. Sodium
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    simi915 wrote: »
    Do a lot of people on MFP, track macros? I used to for a while, but I've gone back to tracking calories - and I can't decide which is more effective... anyone have any opinions? suggestions?

    Weight management is about energy (calories) balance or lack thereof...macros are what make up your calories. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate...4 calories per gram of protein...9 calories per gram of dietary fat. If you're tracking calories, you're tracking macros...if you're tracking macros, you're tracking calories...excess calories will be stored as fat regardless of what your macro breakdown is...insufficient calories will require the burning of fat to make up for the energy deficiency regardless of what your macro breakdown is.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited December 2017
    For me, it's not an either/or thing.

    I track calories because weight is an issue/goal for me.
    I track macros because I have an easier time being consistent when my macros are more reasonable (balanced). Secondarily, I track macros (protein) for body comp reasons.

    So for me, both are important.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited December 2017
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Calories are for weight loss, macros are for nutritional needs/satiety.

    Neither one is "more effective," they're different tools for different needs.

    Agreed.

    Macros can also be important for athletic/workout performance.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Calories are for weight loss, macros are for nutritional needs/satiety.

    Neither one is "more effective," they're different tools for different needs.

    Agreed.

    Macros can also be important for athletic/workout performance.

    Yes, I should have mentioned that too. For people with specific athletic goals, macros can be an important part of achieving them.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    If you track macros closely you are tracking calories.

    I don't have a reason to track macros closely, so I watch protein to make sure it's high enough, and largely let fat and carbs fall where they do (when left to my own devices I tend to eat a bit more fat than the MFP default, which I find works for me).
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited December 2017
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    simi915 wrote: »
    Do a lot of people on MFP, track macros? I used to for a while, but I've gone back to tracking calories - and I can't decide which is more effective... anyone have any opinions? suggestions?

    Weight management is about energy (calories) balance or lack thereof...macros are what make up your calories. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate...4 calories per gram of protein...9 calories per gram of dietary fat. If you're tracking calories, you're tracking macros...if you're tracking macros, you're tracking calories...excess calories will be stored as fat regardless of what your macro breakdown is...insufficient calories will require the burning of fat to make up for the energy deficiency regardless of what your macro breakdown is.

    There is an issue with the bolded section here, as the body will also breakdown muscle when in a deficit. To limit the amount of muscle loss, macros are important, as adequate protein (combined with resistance training) will help minimize the amount of muscle lost, so a larger % of your loss comes from fat.

    essentially, calories for weight loss, but macros can influence body composition (BF%)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories