IIFYM Help -- Getting varying, conflicting macro suggestions

JuneyCleaves
JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Trying to establish my macro counts, and getting a very large variance depending on which calculator I use (one suggested 50g carbs, another 180?!) -- using the same input information.

Can anyone make a suggestion on which calculator to use so that my starting point isn't flawed?

With thanks,

JC

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Macros are about satiety. You need to tweak the percentages as you go along. I don't really track my macros, I eat what I like. But I am also bad, I really should eat more protein. So, do as I say, not as I do. LOL
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    I understand being about satiety, but what I can't grasp is such a large variance in one macro between 2 calculators.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Which calculator are you using?
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    The largest difference I noticed was through the IIFYM website (50g) and the Lifesum app (184g).
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Not sure why they would be different. What is your goal? To lose, gain, maintain?
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,752 Member
    Pretty sure IIFYM carbs are based on whatever calories are left after protein and fat have been accounted for. How high did you set your protein and fat grams to be - was this unnecessarily high?
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    Fat loss.
    IIFYM site set 133gP/67gF
    Lifesum app set 74gP/49gF

    So there's even a pretty big disparity in the protein as well.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,752 Member
    JuneyCleaves wrote: »
    Fat loss.
    IIFYM site set 133gP/67gF
    Lifesum app set 74gP/49gF

    So there's even a pretty big disparity in the protein as well.

    What g/lb did you use for protein and fat on IIFYM? And what are your stats?
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    The Y is an important part of IIFYM. Your macros, not the macros someone else gives you. How do YOU want to structure your diet?
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    They don't have options for g/lb, it's preset/built in.
    184 to 160, 5'5, likely around a 30% BF.

    IIFYM site pumped out 1330 cal / 136P, 43C + 68F
    Fitlabs site pumped out 1472 cal / 125P, 130C + 50F
    Lifesum app pumped out 1471 cal / 74P, 184C + 49F

    While the latter two are more closely matched, there's still a huge variance in some of the macros, which is kinda the point of following this method. So I'm left a bit confused.
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    I understand the Y is an important variable. But because this is the first time I'm really looking at macros, my Y is really an undetermined variable. Which is why I was seeking assistance.

    I'd love to go 90/5/5 C/F/P but that is obviously not realistic or sustainable.

    I knew there'd be some tweaking after the onset, but I consulted these calculators with the idea of fat loss at the forefront, expecting that there'd be a consistent jumping off point in order to facilitate that.

    I'm left wondering how accurate these suggestions are because of the variance.
    So I came here to ask.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    Pick one. If you don’t like it, pick another.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited February 2018
    JuneyCleaves wrote: »
    Fat loss.
    IIFYM site set 133gP/67gF
    Lifesum app set 74gP/49gF

    So there's even a pretty big disparity in the protein as well.

    There has to be, for equivalent calorie count, you can't have a disparity in just one macro.

    There are different assumptions about what the right macro mix is. There is no definitive answer. Or more exactly - there is no one size fits all answer. Some people do better upping carbs. Others do better upping fats. Still others are happiest when focused on protein.

    Find out which is you, and do that.

    IIFYM is (I believe) setting protein and fat levels, so carbs are assigned whatever is left. Older style calculators generally use the "food pyramid" macro ratios, which tend to be higher carb. There is no wrong answer - follow the model that makes it easiest to stick to the plan.
    I'm left wondering how accurate these suggestions are because of the variance.

    They're all "accurate". The issue here is...what's the question?

    It's not "what should my macros be for X calories" - it's "what should my macros be for X calories, these dietary preferences, and that activity level".
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    Helpful.
    ...thanks.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    In my experience, IIFYM.com gives very high protein numbers. It wouldn't be my choice for a macro calculator, but others like going higher protein. There really is no way to guess which one you'll find better for you. They're all fine splits.
  • JuneyCleaves
    JuneyCleaves Posts: 92 Member
    I get that. But if I knew what macros worked best for me, I wouldn't be seeking the help of a calculator or a forum. I obviously need assistance in finding a starting point.

    What I am failing to grasp is why, if the model is the same, 3 different calculators would pump out 3 different solutions when asking the same questions to reach the answer.

    And because they did, I'm wondering where I should start.
    If the best solution was to just "pick one and go with it," I could have just arbitrarily assigned my percentages on MFP. I was hoping that by using these tools, their educated guess would be more educated than mine.

    What I am hearing here is that it is not.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,754 Member
    JuneyCleaves wrote: »
    I get that. But if I knew what macros worked best for me, I wouldn't be seeking the help of a calculator or a forum. I obviously need assistance in finding a starting point.

    What I am failing to grasp is why, if the model is the same, 3 different calculators would pump out 3 different solutions when asking the same questions to reach the answer.

    And because they did, I'm wondering where I should start.
    If the best solution was to just "pick one and go with it," I could have just arbitrarily assigned my percentages on MFP. I was hoping that by using these tools, their educated guess would be more educated than mine.

    What I am hearing here is that it is not.

    I think, one is not more advantageous. It’s more about adherence.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,752 Member
    Why not just put your stats in to MFP and use that?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    JuneyCleaves wrote: »
    I get that. But if I knew what macros worked best for me, I wouldn't be seeking the help of a calculator or a forum. I obviously need assistance in finding a starting point.

    What I am failing to grasp is why, if the model is the same, 3 different calculators would pump out 3 different solutions when asking the same questions to reach the answer.

    And because they did, I'm wondering where I should start.
    If the best solution was to just "pick one and go with it," I could have just arbitrarily assigned my percentages on MFP. I was hoping that by using these tools, their educated guess would be more educated than mine.

    What I am hearing here is that it is not.

    To the bolded - It is not.

    Several have mentioned HOW each site is starting out - they do NOT start the same. Hence difference results.

    Even the IIFYM site uses different calculator for the TDEE - even if you honestly answer the same (did you? or did you say sedentary when you plan on working out?)

    I'm going to suggest you are going to have a very difficult time if you are getting this hung up about it - you are thinking it's going to be this exact.

    Oh, your first day when you hit 38% of something and want 40% - not sure what you'll do.

    Honest comment on what's been seen many times.

    Yes - you could have made up %'s - but then again - would yours have been in the range you now have?

    Yes - then great - go for it.

    As commented above a couple times - IIFYM's is going for usually desired protein and fat levels when in a diet - carbs get the rest.

    Other sites - who knows.

    And the % is merely a way of looking at it - that math on minimums is actually grams per day - you have to calculate that into what you'll actually be eating to get %.

    I've just read the entire thread at once - the answer are in there - suggest you go back and reread all at once and carefully.
    Don't imagine you aren't getting the answer you want - you actually are - you just don't understand the question to ask it well to match.

Categories