eating 'healthy; vs tracking calories, vs tracking macros

altairego21
altairego21 Posts: 52 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
can someone explain what each of these mean and who should be doing what?

say someone wants to lose their final 15 lbs of fat what would be best to look into?

Replies

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    Calories for weight loss. You have to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Counting calories ensures this, though some people can certainly eat at a deficit without actually counting.

    Macros for satiety, and minimums for health and fitness goals. Different macros are satiating for different people. Minimum amounts of protein and fat are necessary for good health.

    Eating healthy for, well, being healthy. Means different things to different people.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    I eat to be healthy. Health is many different things though, and different things to different people. I think in an ideal world, everyone would be making an effort to eat for their health.

    Calories are what determine whether you'll lose or gain. If you want to lose any amount you need to be in a deficit. If that requires tracking, do that.

    Macros can be helpful to improve body composition. If you're tracking, perhaps consider monitoring your protein and fat intake to make sure you're getting enough.
  • andreaen
    andreaen Posts: 365 Member
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    So the oversimplified version is this -
    • Eat a healthy diet for overall health - eat a balanced diet (whatever that means to you) of whole foods, convenience foods, and goodies to ensure proper nutrition, vitamins and minerals, as well as a reasonable level of enjoyment of the foods you eat. One can not live on kitkats alone. One should not have to live on chicken breast and broccoli alone.
    • Track calories to control weight.
    • Track macros for performance, body composition, and satiety.

    Good summary right here.

    I personally don't like the word helathy, I rather think of it as eating sensible. Like what your grandma told you as a kid.
  • waynecali
    waynecali Posts: 2 Member
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,562 Member
    edited April 2018
    waynecali wrote: »
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

    I pay zero attention to macros per meal. It’s ideal for those who have medical or training reasons to eat a certain number, but it isn’t necessary for the general population.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    edited April 2018
    waynecali wrote: »
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

    Optimal for what? I don't think it makes one bit of difference. I know some people sleep better after eating carbs so would eat more carbs later. I know others who don't sleep well on carbs so eat less later. Some people focus carbs around training, and minimise fats.

    Do what suits you.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited April 2018
    waynecali wrote: »
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

    I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting macro ratio per meal is advantageous beyond the benefits of long term adherence and personal preference.

    There is some evidence to suggest that nutrient timing is beneficial, but it's so far secondary to overall calorie and macro management that we don't typically talk about it here as a priority for people to worry about. But nutrient timing, I don't think, is what you're asking/talking about.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    waynecali wrote: »
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

    Some people have issues with spiking insulin if they eat all carbs, or mainly carbs or carbs first in any meal or snack.

    Then they'll get low blood sugar usually, and that leaves them feeling hungry, when really they ate enough.

    So if you can fight through that feeling, doesn't matter.

    If you don't like the effect or medical condition and almost passing out, then eat a balanced snack/meal with perhaps protein/fat first.

    Main benefit is you dealing with the effect. Many describe this as time they have a snack when they can't deal with it, thereby eating over goal eventually.
  • mom22dogs
    mom22dogs Posts: 470 Member
    waynecali wrote: »
    Hello :)

    I'm trying to find out if maintaining my macro ratios p/meal is optimal on the meal to meal level. I have asked several people this question and they all say the same thing, "Just hit your numbers by the end of the day". For some reason, my question never gets answered directly. If the answer to my question is "No, keeping the same ratios p/meal doesn't make a difference." -then I would know it didn't matter. Or if the answer is, "Yes, keeping the same ratios p/meal is the most optimum scenario. Not eating meals with the same ratios is ""OK"" as long as you hit the macro ratios by the end of the day... but yes, if you could manage to ALSO eat the same ratios on a meal by meal basis, it will be subtle perhaps, but even better for your system." -Does this make sense, what I'm asking about the individual meal? What do you do? And (whether subtle or not) -do you know if it is scientifically better or not?

    You are way overthinking this. You have gotten your answer in the bolded, just not in the words you specifically want. By saying "just hit your numbers by the end of the day" is saying it doesn't matter what the ratio is per meal, as long as you basically hit it for the day. One meal I will have a ton of protien, the next might be higher in carbs, but at the end of the day, it should all balance out.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited April 2018
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.

    ^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

    Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    The best plan would be tracking calories while monitoring macros and striving to get adequate nutrition (eating healthy). You need a calorie deficit to lose weight, you need enough protein to support dieting and muscle, and you need nutrients so you don't get deficiencies. No reason these approaches would be mutually exclusive.

    ^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

    Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

    Exactly -- I pay attention to all three areas because they drive three different types of success/wellbeing.
  • HoneyBadger302
    HoneyBadger302 Posts: 2,070 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    ^This. I do all three, and they're all for different reasons.

    Calories ultimately drive weight loss. My macro distribution drives satiety and fueling for my activity. And nutrition, well, nutrient dense foods provide... well, nutrition. Being well-nourished is important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

    Exactly -- I pay attention to all three areas because they drive three different types of success/wellbeing. [/quote]

    Yup, same here. Some things I find more important than others at this point, with my goals, needs and my body's responses to things as factors to be considered.

    My definition of healthy will vary dramatically from another person's, but I don't see myself as an unhealthy eater (most of the time LOL). Why I do the things I do are unique to me and what I want/need though and may very well not work for other people.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    I am pretty easy. Healthy to me mostly equals variety and unhealthy mostly means a lack of moderation. There is a little more to it for me but the other healthy/unhealthy rules are specific to my general health like controlling acid reflux as an example.

Categories