Calories or macro

jojorobins
jojorobins Posts: 1 Member
edited December 2024 in Getting Started
Hi just wondering if anyone just counts calories or follow macros ?
And if only calories is it working?

Replies

  • Panini911
    Panini911 Posts: 2,325 Member
    to lose weight you must be in a calorie deficit.

    i only count calories and lost 55lbs (previously lost 100 twice in the past)
  • avalonblues
    avalonblues Posts: 558 Member
    The only way to lose weight is to be in a calorie deficit.

    But I didn't start losing weight in significant numbers and keeping the weight off until I started counting macros.

    YMMV
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,148 Member
    Counting calories and counting macros (if you have specific targets for each macro) comes out to be the same thing calorie-wise, because each macro has an approximate typical calorie level (fat 9 calories per gram, carbs and protein 4 calories per gram, alcohol 7 calories per gram).

    Calories are the major determiner of weight loss, though individual perferences may mean that certain macros are more filling or energy-sustaining for specific people, making the reduced calories easier to sustain for the long haul of a serious weight loss effort. No one loses weight without controlling calories somehow; counting the calories is only one way to do it.

    Macro levels have more to do with nutrition, thus health, body composition, athletic performance, energy level and that sort of thing.

    I counted calories to lose weight, but paid attention to protein & fat macros along the way, because I wanted to be thin and healthy, not just thin, when I got done. Since I'm in year 3 of maintaining a healthy weight after several decades of obesity, it seems to have worked so far. ;)
  • Danp
    Danp Posts: 1,561 Member
    Just calories for me. I have no medical or performance goals that would require constant monitoring of my macro split.

    The only exception is if I have an event or training session coming up that will last longer than 2hrs (usually cycling or triathlon) in which case I'll try and up my carbs the few days prior and morning of a bit.

    Other than that I just stick to my calorie target and let the macros fall where they may.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    @jojorobins I went the macros only route because for some reason it works for me. Did lose weight without effort and have maintained that loss over the past 4 years sticking with my LCHF macros without giving thought to total calories since they seem to manage themselves as long I keep my carbs under 50 grams daily.

    The best way I expect in your case is a way that works for you and that you can stick with it.

    Best of success.
  • prowell57
    prowell57 Posts: 140 Member
    I do macros because I need to watch my carbs/sugar and it seems to help me lose weight also which is a plus!
  • thanos5
    thanos5 Posts: 513 Member
    for me, calories for weight loss/maintenance, macros for satiety
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    Calories as my overall "budget", tracking a higher than usual minimum protein allowance for muscle retention while dieting.

    Fat and carbs looked after themselves and gave me a lot of flexibility within my overall calorie allowance. I have no reason to limit my carbs and frequently the opposite need for a high carb allowance to fuel my exercise optimally.

    Yes it worked very well.
  • Sharon_C
    Sharon_C Posts: 2,132 Member
    For me, calories overall, then protein. I let fats and carbs fall where they may, but I always hit calories and protein
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    Macros ARE calories.

    Carbs have 4 calories per gram.
    Protein has 4 calories per gram.
    Fat has 9 calories per gram.

    Choose to track whichever is easier for you.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Never worried much about macros other than getting adequate protein...other than that, I could give a *kitten* as long as my calories are in line I'm fine.
  • dregz
    dregz Posts: 4 Member
    Library perhaps? Maybe I'll take a look myself. Sure you can lose weight eating bs food if you eat little enough, but your bloodwork and organs aren't going to like it. Some nutritional consideration is needed. There are people take it to a level most aren't willing to go, and that's fine. You don't have to be interested in it or pay it any mind, but understanding nutrition is beneficial either way
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 35,148 Member
    dregz wrote: »
    Library perhaps? Maybe I'll take a look myself. Sure you can lose weight eating bs food if you eat little enough, but your bloodwork and organs aren't going to like it. Some nutritional consideration is needed. There are people take it to a level most aren't willing to go, and that's fine. You don't have to be interested in it or pay it any mind, but understanding nutrition is beneficial either way

    BS food? Have most of us advocated eating super small amounts of that, or recommended bad nutrition? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

    Nutrition is important. I won't even go with the "only protein matters" theory, personally: Fats matter, too, and so do micros (my preferred way of dealing with that is to eat at least 5+, ideally 10+ servings of varied, colorful veg/fruits daily). I think some a few nutrition-conscious folks here ignore fats partly because they get plenty of them without much effort (I can come out low on them if I don't pay attention, so I pay attention).

    But I ate plenty (waayyy plenty) of nutritious food for years, and trained regularly . . . but stayed obese. Healthy food in excess is not the route to healthy weight . . . because calories. ;)
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    I eat the macros that gives me the best pain management for my Ankylosing Spondylitis and let the calories run wild so I eat when I am hungry until I get full and repeat that when I get hungry again. The macro that I landed on nearly 5 years ago is Low Carb High Fat Med Protein with LC meaning 50 grams of carbs daily in my case.

    I did not know about the gut microbiome back in 2014 but my Way Of Eating seems to be good for it.

    https://plexusworldwide.com/sunnyshare/trust-your-gut/benefits-healthy-microbiome
  • Samantharavenclaw84
    Samantharavenclaw84 Posts: 161 Member
    In general, I try to make healthier choices but don't pay any attention to exactly how that breaks down. Calories only for me.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,887 Member
    AyoBenni2618 wrote: »
    Ok there is a lot of suspect stuff being said. I'd recommend reading Burn the Fat, Feed the muscle for a number of reasons.

    Macros are calories, you should definitely understand your body type, you need to understand your TDEE and how macros actually work.

    I've read the book, and I don't consider much of what's being said contrary to what the book says.

    The book is pretty good (I read it before I started at MFP in '14 and found it quite inspiring in terms of understanding I had control over whether I gained, lost, or maintained) but for the body type stuff which has been totally debunked.

    Most people get enough protein, fat, and carbs for their goals without specifically watching them, and you absolutely don't need to watch them to lose weight if calories are on point. Personally I think calories + eating a nutritious diet are what best serve health, and macros can fall within a quite broad range. (Confusing macros with eating a nutritious diet, as someone else did, is rather silly.)

    However, when cutting, it can be helpful to make sure protein is high enough to best maintain muscle, especially if one is on lower cals or just doesn't naturally gravitate to a diet that provides more protein. Carbs vs. fat are unlikely to matter much unless one has specific athletic goals or medical concerns (cutting fat too low is not good, but I don't think most do that without actively trying to).
This discussion has been closed.

Categories