What now? All macro'd out /Confused.com

rowenacoops
rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
Hi, im 35yr old female 134lb i train 3/4 times a week including a PT once a week, 20mins of cardio per sesh and 30- 45 mins of resistance training including mountain climbers, weighted squats and ab work.
I have lost 1.5 stone over 2yrs ago and since then its been inches over the last year not lbs and am now showing definition in my upper body, i have more stamina and my legs are like rocks.

I am very happy with what ive done so far but my belly is a constant challenge with (what i feel) is a large amount of fat hanging around.

I have researched until my heads spinning on carbs, fats and proteins and i dont even know how many calories i should be consuming. I have currently just upped it to 1400 and i know its about inches not lbs but i feel like ive hit a wall. I am thinking about getting a fitbit so i can get a better idea of what im actually burning. I try to keep my carbs low 130g 115g protein and 30g of fat but everything i read tells me something different. I drink plenty of water and track everything.

Any ideas if i'm in the right direction or if i need to seek some proffessional advise for the last bit?

Replies

  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    Im 5ft4 and yes i use scales and prep my meals.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    edited April 2019
    The belly is usually the last to go and for women we usually have to be very low body fat. You'll have to lose more weight to get to your goal.

    Your macros are highly personal. You should get about 0.8 to 1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight, 0.35 to 0.45 grams of fat, and fill the rest of your calories however you prefer.

    Sorry for more questions, but... Do you have a good idea of your maintenance calories? Have you ever taken a diet break?
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,255 Member
    quiksylver296 wrote: »

    Your macros are highly personal. You should get about 0.8 to 1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight,

    I thought it was .08 to 1.0 grams of LEAN body weight, not total weight. Which is correct? For me that’s a difference of about 37 grams of protein.

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    whmscll wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »

    Your macros are highly personal. You should get about 0.8 to 1.0 grams of protein per pound of body weight,

    I thought it was .08 to 1.0 grams of LEAN body weight, not total weight. Which is correct? For me that’s a difference of about 37 grams of protein.

    It's LBM or goal weight, but OP is pretty lean already. Therefore, it didn't seem necessary to point out the difference to her.
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,255 Member
    Thanks, just trying to clarify for myself. I’m trying to recomp for the first time, just beginning.
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    I have just upped my cals from 1300 to 1400 ive never done a diet break but i was with ww last year and after all the 'you look like youve got there' comments and my 'ww coach' telling me i had probably found my right weight it was time for a different approach. I suppose years of watching what i eat has made me doubt what im being told about 'not eating enough' being scared of putting weight on i spent so long getting off. Questions are good...keep them coming

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    rowenacoops wrote: »
    I have just upped my cals from 1300 to 1400 ive never done a diet break but i was with ww last year and after all the 'you look like youve got there' comments and my 'ww coach' telling me i had probably found my right weight it was time for a different approach. I suppose years of watching what i eat has made me doubt what im being told about 'not eating enough' being scared of putting weight on i spent so long getting off. Questions are good...keep them coming

    So, do you know your maintenance calories?

    It's not 1400. I can tell you that.

    You can do a TDEE calculator to get a ball park number.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    edited April 2019
    A more science-y answer - research adaptive thermogenesis and reverse dieting. I suspect, if you've been eating so little for so long, you've got some AT going on and reverse dieting may be the answer.
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    Its saying 1900 a day...thats huge 😟
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    edited April 2019
    rowenacoops wrote: »
    Its saying 1900 a day...thats huge 😟

    I'm taller, but my maintenance calories are 2400 per day. 1900 sounds about right for you, especially if you've been building muscle.

  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    edited April 2019
    rowenacoops wrote: »
    Its saying 1900 a day...thats huge 😟

    It's really not. The diet industry and media has told women a lie for years that we have to eat 1000-1200 calories (or even less!) to lose weight. That's not true (unless the woman is older, tiny and/or sedentary)!

    I'm on a pretty aggressive cut right now, and my daily calorie goal is 1700. For an aggressive cut! I shoot for 2000 calories a day when I'm trying to lose more slowly.
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    Well ok i will give it a whirl...1900cals hear i come.

    So do give it a timescale? throw away my bathroom scales? Wow im already full on the protein and water let alone 500 - 600 extra cals....eeeek i can see you have done it so i have faith in your advise
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    I’d walk up to 1900, adding 100 calories every couple weeks, rather than just jump straight up.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,436 Member
    Body weight scale - it’s up to you. I weigh daily because I understand the fluctuations.

    There’s nothing wrong with having a little ice cream, chocolate, or whatever to get your calories up.
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    I’d walk up to 1900, adding 100 calories every couple weeks, rather than just jump straight up.

    Ok well i went up a 100 this week so we will see. Thank you so much for your time and the thought of not kicking myself for that digestive i had earlier sounds appealing. 😉👊
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 38,154 Community Helper
    In your place (i.e., at your size, which is close to mine), I'd want to get more fat than that, especially when female and (presumably) premenopausal. (I like fat at 0.35g-.45g of healthy goal weight. I'm 5'5", about your weight, but decades older, BTW.)

    Were you losing weight at 1200 (which is what I estimated from the macros you gave)? Are you losing at 1400?

    At current height and weight, extra belly fat is still probably more about general fat loss than macro mix. You could look at losing 0.5lb/week, or eating at maintenance and adding a well-structured progressive weight training program (I'm not clear whether your current strength work is that, or not) for even slower recomposition.
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    No i didnt lose anything at 1200 or 1300.

    My training is not structured except when i have my PT once a week but i have upped my personal training and seen myself push more on resistance machines and cut my PBs since having him in Jan...probably needs to be tweeked but doing it yourself against someone telling you is a big diffrence.

    I havent lost weight in a year now (up and down 3/4lbs) but have gained muscle in my upper body and legs and also lost a clothes size...just the dredded fat to go!

    I probably hit the macro thing to early and still need to aim at the fat with a healthy diet (which i do perhaps to well) cutting to much to soon by the sounds of it??
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 38,154 Community Helper
    rowenacoops wrote: »
    No i didnt lose anything at 1200 or 1300.

    My training is not structured except when i have my PT once a week but i have upped my personal training and seen myself push more on resistance machines and cut my PBs since having him in Jan...probably needs to be tweeked but doing it yourself against someone telling you is a big diffrence.

    I havent lost weight in a year now (up and down 3/4lbs) but have gained muscle in my upper body and legs and also lost a clothes size...just the dredded fat to go!

    I probably hit the macro thing to early and still need to aim at the fat with a healthy diet (which i do perhaps to well) cutting to much to soon by the sounds of it??

    Macros are pretty irrelevant to weight loss: Weight loss is pretty much all about calories, except for the satiation and compliance implications of nutrition. Most of us think health is nice, though, which is where nutrition come in . . . and getting good nutrition, especially protein, is important for body composition (i.e., striving to maintain or gain muscle, as you're doing). It sounds like your protein goal is fine, though.

    I agree with QS that 1900 doesn't sound crazy for maintenance. (Even now, I lose slowly at 1850 + exercise calories, and I'm almost 30 years older than you, though I admit I'm a pretty good li'l ol' calorie burner.) I'd endorse that idea of increasing slowly, and working to keep your non-exercise activity (NEAT) up as much as you can while doing it.

    During the 1300-1400, had you been eating exercise calories on top of that? If so, how were you estimating them?

    Fitbit won't necessarily get your calorie burn right, either, BTW: It's still an estimate, just a more personalized one. My Garmin underestimates me, even though the same model does fine for other people.

    Given what you've said, I'm also wondering - forgive me for this - if you're realistically evaluating your own body. We can be really harsh on ourselves. Have you visited this thread? https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10689837/does-this-uterus-make-my-stomach-look-fat

    I can understand having a little extra fat still at our height/weight (I do ;) ), if narrowly built in general, but being self-critical can still be in the equation.

    As far as progressive weight training programs, this is a good thread: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you

    Or for recomp generally:
    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat

    Best wishes!
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    At 1200-1300 i was tipping over into the exercise cals, but to be honest due to my lack of knowledge (should i/ shouldnt i?) i wasnt keeping to a constant for more than 2 weeks but not completly falling off and excessivly binging.

    When i sit down and read thorugh this feed it makes more sense to put my cals higher, which include my exercise and not exceed them rather than be on 1200 one week, dipping into my exercise cals some days and then change to 1300 the next then down again because its not working. i need a constant and now i feel i have a goal to try t least because going down any further was not an option.

    The fitbit was more a case of seeing (even if an estimate) how hard i actually work or not as the case maybe? i think although it may seem silly, i think actually seeing it might make me realise one way or another that i actually deserve the extra cal's.

    As far as the 'being harsh on myself' goes i wish i was, i have cut down by body fat by quite a bit, but around my middle, although there is now shape (which i am very greatful for) there is still a good grab of thick belly fat around my side abdomen and lower belly (i still have rolls).

    I don't necessarily want to be muscular around that area (yet) but the thought of being more toned would be nice and altough people keep teeling me the number on the scales doesnt matter i know when i look bare boned in the mirror that the fat i can see must be weight and it needs to be lost hence the ask for help.

    thanks for the advice!
  • vollkornbloedchen
    vollkornbloedchen Posts: 2,243 Member
    k0pplcov8bqy.jpg
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,055 Member
    rowenacoops wrote: »
    At 1200-1300 i was tipping over into the exercise cals, but to be honest due to my lack of knowledge (should i/ shouldnt i?) i wasnt keeping to a constant for more than 2 weeks but not completly falling off and excessivly binging.

    When i sit down and read thorugh this feed it makes more sense to put my cals higher, which include my exercise and not exceed them rather than be on 1200 one week, dipping into my exercise cals some days and then change to 1300 the next then down again because its not working. i need a constant and now i feel i have a goal to try t least because going down any further was not an option.

    The fitbit was more a case of seeing (even if an estimate) how hard i actually work or not as the case maybe? i think although it may seem silly, i think actually seeing it might make me realise one way or another that i actually deserve the extra cal's.

    As far as the 'being harsh on myself' goes i wish i was, i have cut down by body fat by quite a bit, but around my middle, although there is now shape (which i am very greatful for) there is still a good grab of thick belly fat around my side abdomen and lower belly (i still have rolls).

    I don't necessarily want to be muscular around that area (yet) but the thought of being more toned would be nice and altough people keep teeling me the number on the scales doesnt matter i know when i look bare boned in the mirror that the fat i can see must be weight and it needs to be lost hence the ask for help.

    thanks for the advice!

    You're supposed to eat back exercise calories, just not inflated exercise calories. You could start with 50% of the calories in the MFP database and see what results you get in a month or two.

    I'm not entirely clear what you are saying with the bolded - you'd keep to 1200 for two weeks and then binge? In that case do up your calories slowly as suggested above.

    This graphic has a shorter time period, but well illustrates the perils of undereating, which is what 1200 is for many women who are not very short and completely sedentary, which you are not.

    binge-low-calorie-diet.jpg

    https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/
  • rowenacoops
    rowenacoops Posts: 9 Member
    Thanks for the charts, i think the heart rate monitor/step counter may be a good idea to get a gist of my exercise.

    Now actually seriously looking back over the last month (writing my months daily calories onto a piece of paper and doing weekly averages) I can now see there is no real consistency to what I have been doing!!

    I can eat anything between 1100-1600 cals a day, my binges sent me over 2000 cals once (due to drink) when I was away for 2 days but a ''binge'' would normally top at about 1700- 1800 once a week. I have actually been fooling myself, it seems by binge days are my normal cal days...go figure!!

    Last month my weekly average ranged from 1300 -1550 a day so I haven't been as low as I thought however I still know I need to raise it to be more level throughout due to my exercise which I think I may be underestimating.

    For instance, I have done a workout each day for the last 3 days, a PT sesh once a week can include: box jumps, battle ropes, pull up training, weighted squats and Russian twists, sometimes an 8lb weighted vest is used for the hour training, all of which I don't really tend to count calories for as its classed as strength in the database?

    My own personal sessions I do on-top of the PT at least 2/3 times a week, I will give around 200 -300 cals per session extra for.

    They usually include: cardio usually something like 1000m of rowing in under 4mins 30 sec, or 2000m under 10 mins, 15/20 mins of cross trainer on interval training level 6. Resistance weight machines inc arm, legs abs pushing anything from 50-90 then usually onto sets of either press-ups, crunches, mountain climbers, squats with a 20kg bag or 12kg kettle bell, lunges etc and I might pop in a step class once a week.

    So from today its about consistency, sticking to a higher set calorie goal for 2 weeks then up it again if the weight is still not moving.

    I am so glad i posted!!! :smiley:
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 38,154 Community Helper
    I don't think we were saying that if you're tracking calories accurately but not losing, the answer is always to raise calories.

    For some people, assuming 100% compliance and very good logging accuracy, there's possibly a narrow calorie range where they may lose a little slower at the low end, a little faster at the high end, but the reason is mainly in fatigue/rest in daily life, reduced exercise energy, and water retention.

    I think you're on the right track by tightening up your logging, then staying consistent so you get valid data.

    But two weeks is not long enough. If you're a premenopausal woman, go for at least a full menstrual cycle plus a bit before re-evaluating. If you're not, 4 weeks is good and 6 is better.

    When margins are small (low loss rate or maintenance), then it's going to take time to get a reasonable reading on fat changes, in amongst normal, healthy water weight fluctuations. I feel like part of your issue has been over-reacting to short-term, misleading signals, and not really figuring out what needs to be done to achieve your goals.

    Consistency, moderation, and persistence are important.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories