Counting Calories AND Macros for the first time need help.
Lindz2H
Posts: 36 Member
OK, math time.
So my current calorie goal is 1360 (which is a 1000 calorie deficit for me). I planned all my meals for the week and am doing great on the calories. Macros I'm still figuring out, and am confident that I'll get more comfortable with it in time as I work out what fills me up and what is/isn't worth it.
But ... if I eat 1280 calories and work out and burn 350 calories I'm at 930 calories for the day and a 1350 deficit (right???). I definitely feel like I should AT LEAST be eating 1200 calories/day if I intend to create a healthy sustainable diet and not lose all my hair while losing weight. but I'm scratching my head trying to keep my macros within range with the calories I eat now, adding more just really throws it all off, right? or is it me being a n00b?
Help? How do you balance it all out? Am I missing something or not hip to some secret?
So my current calorie goal is 1360 (which is a 1000 calorie deficit for me). I planned all my meals for the week and am doing great on the calories. Macros I'm still figuring out, and am confident that I'll get more comfortable with it in time as I work out what fills me up and what is/isn't worth it.
But ... if I eat 1280 calories and work out and burn 350 calories I'm at 930 calories for the day and a 1350 deficit (right???). I definitely feel like I should AT LEAST be eating 1200 calories/day if I intend to create a healthy sustainable diet and not lose all my hair while losing weight. but I'm scratching my head trying to keep my macros within range with the calories I eat now, adding more just really throws it all off, right? or is it me being a n00b?
Help? How do you balance it all out? Am I missing something or not hip to some secret?
0
Replies
-
If you are going by the percentages shown on MFP, exercise calories get added in the same percentages that you have your macros. So, if you have your macros set to 50% carbs and you add 200 calories for exercise, 100 calories (50%) will be added to the carbs area for the day.
I go by grams. I have a set amount of protein and fat that I aim to get, regardless of my exercise, and then let extra intake beyond that go to any macro.1 -
I’m with you on counting calories and macros for the first time. It does get hard trying to meet all the macros that are set and still get calories. I’ve been mainly focusing on the macros rather than calories but I still make sure I’m eating at least 1200 or more. Something that helped me was removing the fitness calories and just viewing the overall calories I’m eating. I honestly am listening to my body and when I need to eat I eat but I also try to preplan my meals to fit my macros as best as I can. I guess it gets easier the more you do it.1
-
If your goal is a 1,000 calorie deficit, then stick to that. If you burn more calories and increase the size of your deficit, then you'll eat more to bring yourself back to the original deficit.
The macro goals, generally, are set to ensure you're getting sufficient protein and fat. Once you've met these, you can add more calories in whatever macros you wish (if you're limiting carbohydrates for medical reasons, you'll want to consider this when you're adding more calories).
My goal: focus on getting enough protein and fat, on the gram level, to meet my needs. Once I've done that, I don't really worry about percentages.3 -
what a gigantic deficit. wow.
Anyway, here's what I do, but I don't have such a massive deficit, I think i'd die if my deficit was so huge.
I count the macros by the gram as above, and if I fall within 5 of Protein and 10 of the rest (under or over) that's an acceptable lee-way (this has been prescribed to me by more than one coach btw - this lee-way). I still aim to be at the overall calorie goal though - so like if I'm over in one macros and under in another but still around the 1600 calories mark, that's all good.
I don't eat back exercise calories, I set all my exercise to 1 calorie burnt. That way my macros don't go to the *kitten* when the exercise if factored in.
By not eating back any exercise calories and not having such a huge deficit to begin with, I get to eat more and therefore be less hungry, and more easily stay on track without going on massive starvation binges. (been there, done that). Oh, and the weight still comes off when I am consistent.
1 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »what a gigantic deficit. wow.
Anyway, here's what I do, but I don't have such a massive deficit, I think i'd die if my deficit was so huge.
I count the macros by the gram as above, and if I fall within 5 of Protein and 10 of the rest (under or over) that's an acceptable lee-way (this has been prescribed to me by more than one coach btw - this lee-way). I still aim to be at the overall calorie goal though - so like if I'm over in one macros and under in another but still around the 1600 calories mark, that's all good.
I don't eat back exercise calories, I set all my exercise to 1 calorie burnt. That way my macros don't go to the *kitten* when the exercise if factored in.
By not eating back any exercise calories and not having such a huge deficit to begin with, I get to eat more and therefore be less hungry, and more easily stay on track without going on massive starvation binges. (been there, done that). Oh, and the weight still comes off when I am consistent.
It is a huge decifict. I was honestly a little shocked MFP suggested it. I have 100 to lose and want to lose the 2/wk so here I go. But I’ve done pretty well so far. As long as I can keep it up I think I’ll be ok. I was surprised though, I did my first workout in....well, way too long and according to MFP it burned almost 600 calories and my net for the day was 935 and I didn’t feel starving. Sore, yes, but not starving. I did eat back about 200 of the exercise cals1 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »what a gigantic deficit. wow.
Anyway, here's what I do, but I don't have such a massive deficit, I think i'd die if my deficit was so huge.
I count the macros by the gram as above, and if I fall within 5 of Protein and 10 of the rest (under or over) that's an acceptable lee-way (this has been prescribed to me by more than one coach btw - this lee-way). I still aim to be at the overall calorie goal though - so like if I'm over in one macros and under in another but still around the 1600 calories mark, that's all good.
I don't eat back exercise calories, I set all my exercise to 1 calorie burnt. That way my macros don't go to the *kitten* when the exercise if factored in.
By not eating back any exercise calories and not having such a huge deficit to begin with, I get to eat more and therefore be less hungry, and more easily stay on track without going on massive starvation binges. (been there, done that). Oh, and the weight still comes off when I am consistent.
It is a huge decifict. I was honestly a little shocked MFP suggested it. I have 100 to lose and want to lose the 2/wk so here I go. But I’ve done pretty well so far. As long as I can keep it up I think I’ll be ok. I was surprised though, I did my first workout in....well, way too long and according to MFP it burned almost 600 calories and my net for the day was 935 and I didn’t feel starving. Sore, yes, but not starving. I did eat back about 200 of the exercise cals
1000 calories per day * 7 days = 7000 calories per week deficit / 3500 per pound = 2 pounds per week. That's why MFP suggested it. With 100 to lose you can probably get away with it for a while (remember to eat back your exercise calories and make sure you choose the proper activity level - ie, not sedentary when you're really lightly active) but you'll want to adjust your rate of loss down as you lose.3 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »what a gigantic deficit. wow.
Anyway, here's what I do, but I don't have such a massive deficit, I think i'd die if my deficit was so huge.
I count the macros by the gram as above, and if I fall within 5 of Protein and 10 of the rest (under or over) that's an acceptable lee-way (this has been prescribed to me by more than one coach btw - this lee-way). I still aim to be at the overall calorie goal though - so like if I'm over in one macros and under in another but still around the 1600 calories mark, that's all good.
I don't eat back exercise calories, I set all my exercise to 1 calorie burnt. That way my macros don't go to the *kitten* when the exercise if factored in.
By not eating back any exercise calories and not having such a huge deficit to begin with, I get to eat more and therefore be less hungry, and more easily stay on track without going on massive starvation binges. (been there, done that). Oh, and the weight still comes off when I am consistent.
It is a huge deficit. I was honestly a little shocked MFP suggested it. I have 100 to lose and want to lose the 2/wk so here I go. But I’ve done pretty well so far. As long as I can keep it up I think I’ll be ok. I was surprised though, I did my first workout in....well, way too long and according to MFP it burned almost 600 calories and my net for the day was 935 and I didn’t feel starving. Sore, yes, but not starving. I did eat back about 200 of the exercise cals
1000 calories per day * 7 days = 7000 calories per week deficit / 3500 per pound = 2 pounds per week. That's why MFP suggested it. With 100 to lose you can probably get away with it for a while (remember to eat back your exercise calories and make sure you choose the proper activity level - ie, not sedentary when you're really lightly active) but you'll want to adjust your rate of loss down as you lose.
Oh, I'm about as sedentary as it gets. I have a desk job, do like one chore/day because I haven't had the energy to do anything more. Haven't been to the gym in a long time. I fully understand the algorithms, but was surprised that it had me just jump right into it is all.0 -
Cahgetsfit wrote: »what a gigantic deficit. wow.
Anyway, here's what I do, but I don't have such a massive deficit, I think i'd die if my deficit was so huge.
I count the macros by the gram as above, and if I fall within 5 of Protein and 10 of the rest (under or over) that's an acceptable lee-way (this has been prescribed to me by more than one coach btw - this lee-way). I still aim to be at the overall calorie goal though - so like if I'm over in one macros and under in another but still around the 1600 calories mark, that's all good.
I don't eat back exercise calories, I set all my exercise to 1 calorie burnt. That way my macros don't go to the *kitten* when the exercise if factored in.
By not eating back any exercise calories and not having such a huge deficit to begin with, I get to eat more and therefore be less hungry, and more easily stay on track without going on massive starvation binges. (been there, done that). Oh, and the weight still comes off when I am consistent.
It is a huge deficit. I was honestly a little shocked MFP suggested it. I have 100 to lose and want to lose the 2/wk so here I go. But I’ve done pretty well so far. As long as I can keep it up I think I’ll be ok. I was surprised though, I did my first workout in....well, way too long and according to MFP it burned almost 600 calories and my net for the day was 935 and I didn’t feel starving. Sore, yes, but not starving. I did eat back about 200 of the exercise cals
1000 calories per day * 7 days = 7000 calories per week deficit / 3500 per pound = 2 pounds per week. That's why MFP suggested it. With 100 to lose you can probably get away with it for a while (remember to eat back your exercise calories and make sure you choose the proper activity level - ie, not sedentary when you're really lightly active) but you'll want to adjust your rate of loss down as you lose.
Oh, I'm about as sedentary as it gets. I have a desk job, do like one chore/day because I haven't had the energy to do anything more. Haven't been to the gym in a long time. I fully understand the algorithms, but was surprised that it had me just jump right into it is all.
@pinuplove point though is that it had you just jump right into it, because you told it you wanted to jump right into it. If you go in and change your goal to 1 lb per week, MFP will update your calorie goal to a 500 cal daily deficit. There is no harm in starting slow and then once you feel confident, bump your weekly rate up. MFP doesn't actually decide anything for you, it just takes the numbers you put in and spits out a calorie goal.
The MFP calorie goal assumes you will log your exercise and eat back those calories. So yes, you should eat more on days you exercise.
The macros are really just a guideline, not something you should worry too much about. Many of us tend to look at protein and fat as goals to try to exceed, and let carbs fall where they may. But there are plenty of days I fall short on one or the other, and I don't sweat it! I also watch my fiber, as I find getting closer to that goal helps control my appetite.
In general, first just get logging and calories down. Calories for weight loss, macros for satiety and some health and fitness goals. Good luck!3 -
I thought I was sedentary too, until I did the math based on my actual results. I'm not, despite my desk job and the butt imprint on my couch. It's possible you'd have energy to do more if you ate more. Some people find that their increase in TDEE at a higher calorie level more than compensates for the extra calories consumed (I'm one of those people, incidentally).
As @kimny72 pointed out, MFP is just spitting back numbers based on the input you chose to give it. It's nothing more than a calculator.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions