Show me yours and I'll show you mine....(MACROS that is....)

Options
2»

Replies

  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    c13xhdcisj0u.png

    Mine - I use a nutrition team to provide me mine
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,259 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    idaevon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    The rest of your calories after protein and fats would be carbs. So in your case if you had 125g protein, 75g fat then it would be 500 cals (125g x 4 cals)+ 675 cals (75g x 9cals) = 1175 cals, so carbs would make up the rest. If for example your intake is 2000 that would be 825 cals left (so about 206g carbs since each gram is 4cals)

    Keep in mind those are minimums so you can definitely increase protein and fat as you prefer if you don't want carbs that high.

    Hope that makes sense and didn't confuse.

    So after using my 1460 cals; the carbs look like 71. Which is pretty close to what I'm doing now. I just have my protein higher and the fats lower. Interesting.....

    The MFP defaults aren't crazy for most people, and things in that general region may be OK, too.

    Depending on how low your fats go, that could be a potential problem. If you're eating high-ish fiber (my preference), getting fat too low is a pretty common cause of constipation (and we see that here, IMO, sometimes among people who try to cut fat really far because it's calorie dense, then turn around and eat a lot of highfiber veggies). Fat is also important for hormone balance (especially for women), and cellular health, among other things. Some people find fat satiating, also (I don't, personally).

    I won't try to tell you what "super low" is, but I gave you my target ratios above and others have said similar things. If you're not very far off, you're probably fine. If you're consistently quite far under that recommendation on fat, you might want to sacrifice some carbs or protein to get a bit more in (nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc. - that sort of thing would be especially good).

    If you're currently at 138 pounds, heading for 125, what deficit (percent or number of calories subtracted from TDEE) gets you to 1460, at your level of exercise? (I'm a sedentary li'l ol lady at a slightly lower weight than you, and I'd lose like a house afire at those calories, with your exercise activity level.)

    OP said she was doing 35%, which isn't low fat at all (she said lower than using the 75 g number discussed above, not super low). My math comes out at about 57 g or .46 g/goal weight.

    You're right, of course. OP, I'm sorry: I didn't read closely enough. Apologies.
    idaevon wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    idaevon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    The rest of your calories after protein and fats would be carbs. So in your case if you had 125g protein, 75g fat then it would be 500 cals (125g x 4 cals)+ 675 cals (75g x 9cals) = 1175 cals, so carbs would make up the rest. If for example your intake is 2000 that would be 825 cals left (so about 206g carbs since each gram is 4cals)

    Keep in mind those are minimums so you can definitely increase protein and fat as you prefer if you don't want carbs that high.

    Hope that makes sense and didn't confuse.

    So after using my 1460 cals; the carbs look like 71. Which is pretty close to what I'm doing now. I just have my protein higher and the fats lower. Interesting.....

    The MFP defaults aren't crazy for most people, and things in that general region may be OK, too.

    Depending on how low your fats go, that could be a potential problem. If you're eating high-ish fiber (my preference), getting fat too low is a pretty common cause of constipation (and we see that here, IMO, sometimes among people who try to cut fat really far because it's calorie dense, then turn around and eat a lot of highfiber veggies). Fat is also important for hormone balance (especially for women), and cellular health, among other things. Some people find fat satiating, also (I don't, personally).

    I won't try to tell you what "super low" is, but I gave you my target ratios above and others have said similar things. If you're not very far off, you're probably fine. If you're consistently quite far under that recommendation on fat, you might want to sacrifice some carbs or protein to get a bit more in (nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc. - that sort of thing would be especially good).

    If you're currently at 138 pounds, heading for 125, what deficit (percent or number of calories subtracted from TDEE) gets you to 1460, at your level of exercise? (I'm a sedentary li'l ol lady at a slightly lower weight than you, and I'd lose like a house afire at those calories, with your exercise activity level.)

    I don't know how it got to 1460....I just used the calculators and that's what the majority of them gave me as a "lose weight" (vs maintain weight) number......

    If I assume you're age 30 & 5'6", Sailrabbit (which is multi-formula) suggests your TDEE (without a deficit) at moderately active (exercise or sports 4-5 days a week) would be 1866 to 2134, which would be a deficit of 406-674, so 1460 would be an estimated loss rate of about 0.8-1.3 pounds a week. With 13 pounds to goal, and a desire to preserve or build muscle (how I'm reading "lean look"), the 0.8 might be OK for a few more pounds, but around 10 pounds above goal is about where I got serious about limiting loss to more like 0.5lb/week (that would be 1616-1884 at the Sailrabbit settings I mentioned (which may not be correct; I guessed at them)). Just my opinion, obviously.
  • idaevon
    idaevon Posts: 19 Member
    Options


    What rate of loss did you select though? Because as Ann said, that seems low for the amount of activity you are doing. How tall are you?

    Also, the reason for the change in body composition with lower carbs is a drop in water weight, as a result of lower glycogen (stored carbohydrate) levels in your muscles.[/quote]


    I think i chose 1 pound per week....

    I'm 5'2; 45 yrs old; female; sedentary job but workout consistently at a moderate to intense effort.

    So on the body comp change....once the water weight is gone then those changes will be slower right?

    And is the 70something g carbs considered "low" if its 20% of my cals?
  • idaevon
    idaevon Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    c13xhdcisj0u.png

    Mine - I use a nutrition team to provide me mine

    that's awesome! it sure beats doing all this math!
  • idaevon
    idaevon Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    idaevon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    The rest of your calories after protein and fats would be carbs. So in your case if you had 125g protein, 75g fat then it would be 500 cals (125g x 4 cals)+ 675 cals (75g x 9cals) = 1175 cals, so carbs would make up the rest. If for example your intake is 2000 that would be 825 cals left (so about 206g carbs since each gram is 4cals)

    Keep in mind those are minimums so you can definitely increase protein and fat as you prefer if you don't want carbs that high.

    Hope that makes sense and didn't confuse.

    So after using my 1460 cals; the carbs look like 71. Which is pretty close to what I'm doing now. I just have my protein higher and the fats lower. Interesting.....

    The MFP defaults aren't crazy for most people, and things in that general region may be OK, too.

    Depending on how low your fats go, that could be a potential problem. If you're eating high-ish fiber (my preference), getting fat too low is a pretty common cause of constipation (and we see that here, IMO, sometimes among people who try to cut fat really far because it's calorie dense, then turn around and eat a lot of highfiber veggies). Fat is also important for hormone balance (especially for women), and cellular health, among other things. Some people find fat satiating, also (I don't, personally).

    I won't try to tell you what "super low" is, but I gave you my target ratios above and others have said similar things. If you're not very far off, you're probably fine. If you're consistently quite far under that recommendation on fat, you might want to sacrifice some carbs or protein to get a bit more in (nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc. - that sort of thing would be especially good).

    If you're currently at 138 pounds, heading for 125, what deficit (percent or number of calories subtracted from TDEE) gets you to 1460, at your level of exercise? (I'm a sedentary li'l ol lady at a slightly lower weight than you, and I'd lose like a house afire at those calories, with your exercise activity level.)

    OP said she was doing 35%, which isn't low fat at all (she said lower than using the 75 g number discussed above, not super low). My math comes out at about 57 g or .46 g/goal weight.

    You're right, of course. OP, I'm sorry: I didn't read closely enough. Apologies.
    idaevon wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    idaevon wrote: »
    sardelsa wrote: »
    The rest of your calories after protein and fats would be carbs. So in your case if you had 125g protein, 75g fat then it would be 500 cals (125g x 4 cals)+ 675 cals (75g x 9cals) = 1175 cals, so carbs would make up the rest. If for example your intake is 2000 that would be 825 cals left (so about 206g carbs since each gram is 4cals)

    Keep in mind those are minimums so you can definitely increase protein and fat as you prefer if you don't want carbs that high.

    Hope that makes sense and didn't confuse.

    So after using my 1460 cals; the carbs look like 71. Which is pretty close to what I'm doing now. I just have my protein higher and the fats lower. Interesting.....

    The MFP defaults aren't crazy for most people, and things in that general region may be OK, too.

    Depending on how low your fats go, that could be a potential problem. If you're eating high-ish fiber (my preference), getting fat too low is a pretty common cause of constipation (and we see that here, IMO, sometimes among people who try to cut fat really far because it's calorie dense, then turn around and eat a lot of highfiber veggies). Fat is also important for hormone balance (especially for women), and cellular health, among other things. Some people find fat satiating, also (I don't, personally).

    I won't try to tell you what "super low" is, but I gave you my target ratios above and others have said similar things. If you're not very far off, you're probably fine. If you're consistently quite far under that recommendation on fat, you might want to sacrifice some carbs or protein to get a bit more in (nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, etc. - that sort of thing would be especially good).

    If you're currently at 138 pounds, heading for 125, what deficit (percent or number of calories subtracted from TDEE) gets you to 1460, at your level of exercise? (I'm a sedentary li'l ol lady at a slightly lower weight than you, and I'd lose like a house afire at those calories, with your exercise activity level.)

    I don't know how it got to 1460....I just used the calculators and that's what the majority of them gave me as a "lose weight" (vs maintain weight) number......

    If I assume you're age 30 & 5'6", Sailrabbit (which is multi-formula) suggests your TDEE (without a deficit) at moderately active (exercise or sports 4-5 days a week) would be 1866 to 2134, which would be a deficit of 406-674, so 1460 would be an estimated loss rate of about 0.8-1.3 pounds a week. With 13 pounds to goal, and a desire to preserve or build muscle (how I'm reading "lean look"), the 0.8 might be OK for a few more pounds, but around 10 pounds above goal is about where I got serious about limiting loss to more like 0.5lb/week (that would be 1616-1884 at the Sailrabbit settings I mentioned (which may not be correct; I guessed at them)). Just my opinion, obviously.

    THANK YOU for making me much taller and younger!!!! Ha. I'm only 5'2; 45 yrs old. I'll take my age though cause i'm that much closer to retirement.....:)
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    idaevon wrote: »

    What rate of loss did you select though? Because as Ann said, that seems low for the amount of activity you are doing. How tall are you?

    Also, the reason for the change in body composition with lower carbs is a drop in water weight, as a result of lower glycogen (stored carbohydrate) levels in your muscles.


    I think i chose 1 pound per week....

    I'm 5'2; 45 yrs old; female; sedentary job but workout consistently at a moderate to intense effort.

    So on the body comp change....once the water weight is gone then those changes will be slower right?

    And is the 70something g carbs considered "low" if its 20% of my cals? [/quote]

    Okay, that sounds reasonable given your height.

    And yes, the water weight loss has done all it's going to probably (if you eat higher carbs, it will come back on, too). Any further body comp changes will come from fat loss or muscle gain (second one not very likely eating at a deficit). 70-odd grams of carbs is definitely low. Anything below 100-150g is considered lower carb. It's the gram amount that matters, not the total percentage of calories.