Confused how to read Macros % daily goals...

NLR0207
NLR0207 Posts: 10 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hi. I’m confused how to understand this page when I check daily status. Is it 80% of my 5% total, achieved so far?? Or, am I 75% over the 5% goal already?
I’m trying out the Keto diet & need to follow correctly. Thank you! Nancy
vgap45si7qz5.png

Replies

  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 219 Member
    edited January 2018
    From what I can gather it looks like your desired ratios are:

    CHO: 5% of calories
    FAT: 75%
    PRO: 20%

    And you ate honey containing 17 g of CHO, and creamer containing 1 g of FAT.

    So of what you've logged today:

    CHO: 80%
    FAT: 16%
    PRO: 4% (I assume this has to do with fractional grams / rounding due to the small quantities of food consumed so far)

    So you've mostly eaten carbohydrate so far, and will need to skew your other intake accordingly to meet your daily goal.

    Just a reminder (as you might be aware) CHO is 4 calories per gram, FAT is 9 calories per, and PRO is 4 calories.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    edited January 2018
    Personally, I think it's a lot easier to track the number of grams instead of a % (and most recommendations are in grams anyway). For most (not keto)(edit): Set the minimum protein and fat you want to make sure you get, and throughout the day, you'll know how many grams you still need (and grams of a certain macro in a food item is an easily checked quantity).

    The premium app version also lets you customize the dashboard which makes it more convenient:
    ncolyq9qmjge.png

    For keto, it would presumably be a certain number of grams of carbs you'd want to stay under. (ETA: excluding Fiber if 'net carbs'..so having both carbs and fiber visible would be useful in your case).
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    FYI- so far doesn't look like a great start for your keto diet. You may want to pick up some artificial sweetener if you usually add that much honey/sugar to get your tea/coffee how you like it.
  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 219 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    Personally, I think it's a lot easier to track the number of grams instead of a % (and most recommendations are in grams anyway).

    True - although speaking for myself I do protein by grams (1 g per lb bodyweight) and fat and carbs by percentage because I favour carbs on lifting days and fat on non-lifting days, and broadly don't care about their amounts in grams. But that's just to fit the vain aspirations of a weightlifter.

  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    edited January 2018
    I'm going to invade here for a second as I've just started paying closer to my macros to help with satiety and make sure I'm getting enough protein. I weigh roughly 155 and I'm 5-10 away from my goal weight. No real rush to get there as I'm more focused on fitness goals (running and soon some weight training). I digress.

    Anyway, macros. I've just updated (like, yesterday) my macro goals to 124g protein, 62g fat, and whatever is left for carbohydrates within a 1560 calorie goal. I also eat half my exercise calories back, usually in excess of 200 additional calories per day.

    Question: When I eat beyond my target calories of 1560, do I need to be concerned with adding appropriate macro ratios, or as long as I hit 124g protein (consistent with .8 of my current weight), do I still get whatever benefit there is to balancing my macros this way?

    For the last year or so, I've only focused on calories and have lost close to 100lbs, but now that I'm near that goal weight range, my objectives are changing--so I figure my eating habits should, too. Also, runger is real.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Are you on IOS or Android? I got to the macro view on android and the first column (16%/4% in your case) are your actual %s... the second column (75%/20%) are your goal %s.

    So based on your logging so far, 16% of your intake has been fat, 4% has been protein. As you log more foods for the day, those numbers should change.
  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 219 Member
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    Question: When I eat beyond my target calories of 1560, do I need to be concerned with adding appropriate macro ratios, or as long as I hit 124g protein (consistent with .8 of my current weight), do I still get whatever benefit there is to balancing my macros this way?

    I've only ever really worried about hitting my initial quantity in grams without adjusting it for eating beyond my original calorie goal, except on days of very high physical exertion (2000+ calories worth of exercise) where I let it drift upwards of 200, say, from my original 173.

    That said, I was a study participant with the University of Western Ontario regarding protein absorption and metabolism for trained endurance (and strength, in a separate category) athletes and the study found that the maximal level of protein metabolism was higher:

    https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5672&context=etd

    Our IAAO derived break point (EAR; Estimated Average Requirement) for ET and ST were 2.0
    and 1.7 g•kg-1•d -1 with RDA of 2.6 and 2.2 g•kg-1•d-1, respectively. These estimates are 2.7- 3.2
    fold greater than RDA for sedentary young men. These results are clear evidence for greater
    dietary protein needs of exercise trained men on a non-training day. The protein requirements for exercise trained women might not be as great; however, more data are required to document
    this.



  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    Question: When I eat beyond my target calories of 1560, do I need to be concerned with adding appropriate macro ratios, or as long as I hit 124g protein (consistent with .8 of my current weight), do I still get whatever benefit there is to balancing my macros this way?

    Not really. If you're getting sufficient macros for your training and for your goals, then those numbers don't really change as you eat more. If you're doing big workouts and burning a lot of cals, and then eating back those cals, you may way to give some consideration to your macros to help further fuel/recover... but I doubt that's really a make or break scenario.
  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    brendanwhite84 Thanks! So basically that study means that active males need more protein than the traditional .8-1g per bodyweight and the verdict is out on women's need (but probably somewhat consistent with the men's results you'd think).
  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 219 Member
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    brendanwhite84 Thanks! So basically that study means that active males need more protein than the traditional .8-1g per bodyweight and the verdict is out on women's need (but probably somewhat consistent with the men's results you'd think).

    Well, I'm just a sysadmin by day and a guinea pig for Dr. Bandegan, but if I'm reading the study's RDA correctly, 1 g per lb / 2.2 g per kg lines up for strength athletes, but for endurance athletes more is required - which I find interesting and unexpected. It was only one study, mind you, but the methodology seemed pretty sound to me.
  • herownkindofwonderfull
    herownkindofwonderfull Posts: 307 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    FYI- so far doesn't look like a great start for your keto diet. You may want to pick up some artificial sweetener if you usually add that much honey/sugar to get your tea/coffee how you like it.

    Yes, honey is a BIG NO-GO when it comes to Keto.

  • fitoverfortymom
    fitoverfortymom Posts: 3,452 Member
    brendanwhite84 wrote: »
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    brendanwhite84 Thanks! So basically that study means that active males need more protein than the traditional .8-1g per bodyweight and the verdict is out on women's need (but probably somewhat consistent with the men's results you'd think).

    Well, I'm just a sysadmin by day and a guinea pig for Dr. Bandegan, but if I'm reading the study's RDA correctly, 1 g per lb / 2.2 g per kg lines up for strength athletes, but for endurance athletes more is required - which I find interesting and unexpected. It was only one study, mind you, but the methodology seemed pretty sound to me.

    That is interesting. I'll see how I feel simply trying to reach the target I've set out which is .8g per bodyweight. I'm definitely more on the endurance side, but daaaang that could be a lot of protein. I've not been hitting the proper amount anyway, so I'm adjusting my meal plans so I do---but holy cow---thinking about adding more is wild.
  • brendanwhite84
    brendanwhite84 Posts: 219 Member
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    That is interesting. I'll see how I feel simply trying to reach the target I've set out which is .8g per bodyweight. I'm definitely more on the endurance side, but daaaang that could be a lot of protein. I've not been hitting the proper amount anyway, so I'm adjusting my meal plans so I do---but holy cow---thinking about adding more is wild.

    On my low-calorie cycle days (rest days) I eat about 2300 calories but also have to hit 173 grams protein, and I don't eat meat. Basically all I eat on those days is protein-geared dairy items with a little veg and some snacks on the side.


  • klynnega
    klynnega Posts: 1 Member
    I like to use honey in a honey-dijon dip, but I use Nektar Honey Crystals....0 everything and only 12g sodium. You can order on Amazon and not very expensive. I like them because they are easier to use when I fly and I don't have to deal with a sticky packet. I just mix in with the dijon and warm up to dissolve. :wink:
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    brendanwhite84 wrote: »
    fitoverfortymom wrote: »
    brendanwhite84 Thanks! So basically that study means that active males need more protein than the traditional .8-1g per bodyweight and the verdict is out on women's need (but probably somewhat consistent with the men's results you'd think).

    Well, I'm just a sysadmin by day and a guinea pig for Dr. Bandegan, but if I'm reading the study's RDA correctly, 1 g per lb / 2.2 g per kg lines up for strength athletes, but for endurance athletes more is required - which I find interesting and unexpected. It was only one study, mind you, but the methodology seemed pretty sound to me.

    That is interesting. I'll see how I feel simply trying to reach the target I've set out which is .8g per bodyweight. I'm definitely more on the endurance side, but daaaang that could be a lot of protein. I've not been hitting the proper amount anyway, so I'm adjusting my meal plans so I do---but holy cow---thinking about adding more is wild.

    0.8g*[goal weight in lb] is what I aim for.

Categories