Protein question

Roughly protein takes 25% of calories to digest, carbs 10% (with carbs it really depends on the food and is a reason to favor more fiber), and fat 5%. So let's assume 2000 calories, 30-30-40 vs. 20-30-50 vs. 50-30-20. (All P-F-C)

The first (my preferred macros when losing just because I liked eating that was, has an average TEF of 260 calories. The second (the default) has an average TEF of 230 cal. The third (increasing protein to 50%) has an average TEF of 320. But of course you have to scale that up or down -- at 1200 the amounts would be 156, 138, and 192, so a much smaller difference.

I'd say a far more important consideration is how satiated and satisfied you feel, how happy you are with your diet, how sustainable it is (related), energy level (your body uses fat and carbs for energy, protein for repairing and building muscle), and whether you have enough protein.

Even though the differences are smaller, I'd be more inclined to increase protein at 1200 calories (when I briefly did 1250, I did about a third of each macro), since 20% protein at 1200 is only 60 grams, which for many would be on the low side when trying to maintain muscle at a deficit. On the other hand, I would find 50% protein at 1200 (150 g) and certainly at 2000 (250 g!) overly burdensome and it would not work for me in creating a sustainable and satisfying diet. I also don't find that being able to eat more calories on paper translates to any particular benefit -- I do better focusing on how satisfying and satiating I find the foods I am eating (I find protein generally satiating which is why I did 30% or so when losing, in part, and why I make tend to include at least 25-30g in my meals, but eating well over 100 g of protein daily would have no particular added satiating effect to me and for me would be at the expense of other things that make my diet more healthful or satisfying).

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Roughly protein takes 25% of calories to digest, carbs 10% (with carbs it really depends on the food and is a reason to favor more fiber), and fat 5%. So let's assume 2000 calories, 30-30-40 vs. 20-30-50 vs. 50-30-20. (All P-F-C)

The first (my preferred macros when losing just because I liked eating that was, has an average TEF of 260 calories. The second (the default) has an average TEF of 230 cal. The third (increasing protein to 50%) has an average TEF of 320. But of course you have to scale that up or down -- at 1200 the amounts would be 156, 138, and 192, so a much smaller difference.

I'd say a far more important consideration is how satiated and satisfied you feel, how happy you are with your diet, how sustainable it is (related), energy level (your body uses fat and carbs for energy, protein for repairing and building muscle), and whether you have enough protein.

Even though the differences are smaller, I'd be more inclined to increase protein at 1200 calories (when I briefly did 1250, I did about a third of each macro), since 20% protein at 1200 is only 60 grams, which for many would be on the low side when trying to maintain muscle at a deficit. On the other hand, I would find 50% protein at 1200 (150 g) and certainly at 2000 (250 g!) overly burdensome and it would not work for me in creating a sustainable and satisfying diet. I also don't find that being able to eat more calories on paper translates to any particular benefit -- I do better focusing on how satisfying and satiating I find the foods I am eating (I find protein generally satiating which is why I did 30% or so when losing, in part, and why I make tend to include at least 25-30g in my meals, but eating well over 100 g of protein daily would have no particular added satiating effect to me and for me would be at the expense of other things that make my diet more healthful or satisfying).

^^^^^^^ Pretty much that. @Lemurcat is pretty smart, pretty often.

Don't try to game your macro split for higher TEF. It's silly; there's a low return on investment; and it's already plenty hard enough to find a balance of tastiness, nutrition, satiation, sustainability and practicality in one's eating, all at reduced calories, without trying to game macros for a theoretical benefit smaller than the probable inherent error in calorie intake estimating.

If you must game your eating for higher TEF (sigh!) against experienced advice from successful weight losers like me & those above, eat more whole foods. Some small/preliminary research suggests they, too, have a slightly higher TEF, they tend
to be more satiating for many people among other benefits, and you don't have to jack around with macros/nutrition to get there.

For an actual higher probability of calorie burn payoff, jack around with your NEAT, i.e., move more in daily life outside formal exercise. It's a proven practice for quite a few successful MFP weight-losers.

Ann262 wrote: »

Carlos_421 wrote: »

Ann262 wrote: »

also, a diet too high in protein for your needs can be hard on your kidneys.https://www.prevention.com/eatclean/eat-too-much-protein

Lots of woo in that article.
There have been no studies that indicate harmful effects on otherwise healthy kidneys from high protein intake. Not to say that there isn’t an amount of protein which could be harmful...but they’ve tested extreme amounts (over 3 grams per pound of body weight) and not found an upper limit yet.

High protein intake can be stressful for damaged kidneys but we have no reason to believe that it causes any problems for healthy kidneys.

Well, okay.

Going overboard on anything is harmful.

I will just say that exercising to bump up the calorie burn is more efficient weight loss strategy and a healthier choice..assuming one doesn't go overboard on the exercise.

Sure...we just don't have any evidence that going overboard with protein is hard on your kidneys liked the article claimed.

Agreed that worrying about TEF is majoring in the minors.