Is it ok to go over one of your macros as long as you hit the calorie goal for weight loss?

AnvilHead wrote: »

half_moon wrote: »

In response to some of the snarky crap on here:

I was at a strict caloric-focused diet for 12 weeks and didn't lose weight and was always hungry. Now I focus on macros and once my numbers were adjusted, I dropped weight quickly. I can easily see now how having lower fats vs proteins vs carbs etc affects HOW my body changes, how quickly, and how strong I feel in my workouts.

Anyone who argues that there is only one way, and that is a caloric deficit, obviously hasn't lived in my body (or millions of others who have experienced what I have), and are speaking out of mere ignorance. There is no one right way, and macros DO matter to a lot of people. In fact, they matter to everyone, but everyone's body and genetics are extremely different and will respond to certain diets differently. If 200 carbs works for you, awesome. For me, I need to spend my calories a bit on protein to ensure I keep my muscle mass at a caloric deficit. How can people argue that?

In response to OP:

I would suggest aiming only for macros and just looking at calories to ensure you aren't going too far over, but a macro-focused diet should stick to the assigned/determined macros, I think. If you are still hungry or are too far under your caloric needs for the day, I think that'd be a sign your macros need to be adjusted. If you aren't on a macro-focused diet that you arrived to with a nutritionist, then I don't think they matter. I think most people here just use it for calories and focus on that number. Depends on what your jam is

Macros certainly matter for body composition goals, overall health, energy levels, workout performance, etc.

Calories are what matter for weight loss. Which is specifically what the OP was asking about.