Help please!

cheyjanay44 · May 2020

I’m having a really hard time at the moment. I first started my journey by just counting calories and I wanted to switch to macros and now I’m so lost.

I was eating at 1700 cal a few weeks ago and was in a slight surplus so I reduced my Activity level and now I’m eating at around 1600 according to my fitness pal but always have a few cals left over.
I’m right where I should be! Not losing or gaining! Which is perfect since I want to be at maintenance but I noticed my macros are always way off on my fitness pal so today I did it on a notebook and calculated all the macros by the labels and then tried to do the math for calories and it said I’m eating over 1900. I’m so confused and frustrated. I now know that I should have been calculating macros instead of calories. Are calories on the packaging really that inaccurate?

AnnPT77 · May 2020

Something is inaccurate. It's hard to say what.

It sounds like you know that each macro has a characteristic (approximate) calorie level: 4 calories per gram for carbs and protein, 9 calories per gram for fat. In addition to those, alcohol - which is none of the above, but is sort of like a pseudo macro of its own - is 7 calories per gram.

So, other than minor rounding errors, counting calories while paying attention to sensible macros, or counting macros outright: Either one should get you to about the same calorie level.

The MFP database can be incorrect (on either calories or macronutrients), especially since it's crowd-sourced (and may contain once-correct entries for products that have been reformulated and are now different). The packages should be right (subject to the usual caveats about weight discrepancies and such).

I don't think there's a good way for any 3rd party to know what's leading to the discrepancy in your specific case. Did you compare the packages to the MFP database entries, to see if they matched or not?

Wish I could help better . . . :flowerforyou:

MidlifeCrisisFitness · May 2020

It is very difficult to know exactly the calories and macros on a daily basis. It is still better to log than not log. Don't forget the numbers are not the results. It's your goal that is. The numbers are just a tool to help you get there.

Would you benefit from a longer term view point? Perhaps track your weekly caloric results and macros. you can get lost in the numbers. Remember you said where you want to be... not gaining or losing. So take some time and make minor adjustments to increase or decrease the macros.. MFP does have an option to view these weekly.

This is me that past 7 days.

Daily a bit out of control.
But for the week SPOT ON!

cmriverside · May 2020

In addition to what Ann said above, in the U.S. the labels are legally allowed to be "off" by 20%.

Now, whether the macros are right on your labels or whether the calories are right is a question that can only be answered in a lab - which, none of us use on a daily.

So, I would just use the calories. They're going to be off. So will be the macros. Doesn't really matter, especially in Maintenance. I've used this site for 13 years, I've vetted my food choices as well as I can and then I let the rest go.

I'm sure I make a LOT of mistakes.

Doesn't matter. Close enough is good enough. Keep stepping on the body-weight scale and adjust if you move outside your maintenance weight range. Most of us use five pounds in either direction of our Goal weight. If it moves one way or the other for more than a few days, adjust.

You'll be fine.

Jelly_Belly_Jim · May 2020

If you are trying to maintain then just focus on calories and for macros just keep in a good range. For instance my protein goal is set a little bit higher, but I know as long as I get .8 grams x body weight, I’m good. Same with fat - around .4 grams x body weight. Then fill the rest with carbs....or more protein and fat. Basically just stay within your calorie allowance and hit your minimums for protein and fat.

cheyjanay44 · May 2020

Thank you everyone for your advice. I also reset mfp and it looks better now

cheyjanay44 · May 2020

cheyjanay44 · May 2020

cheyjanay44 · May 2020

How does it look?

AnnPT77 · May 2020

Looks pretty nutritious, with the caveat that if it were me I'd be hoping for quite a few veggies & fruits in the later meals, and presumably the MUFAs/PUFAs were zero only because of incomplete data in the database. If it tasted good, left you feeling full, happy, energetic, and was a practical way for you to eat, I personally think you're good to go.

cmriverside · May 2020

That fiber looks a little suspicious too. 33g for those food choices sounds too high, unless that plant protein powder is really high fiber. My plant protein powder is 5g fiber for a scoop (34g scoop.)

You may want to check that data if fiber is important to you.

ahoy_m8 · May 2020

I think about macros in terms of the minimums I need. Percentage of calories isn’t that helpful to me.

Rule of thumb minimums are:
Protein: 1g per pound lean mass to preserve muscle (when deficit eating or trying to gain muscle, less ok at maintenance)
Fat: 0.35g per pound body weight to support essential hormone synthesis
Carb: no minimum, but fiber minimums are 20g (women)/25g (men)

Some people feel best with lots of carbs (e.g. endurance athletes). Other people feel best low carb/high fat (e.g. people with insulin resistance). Start with the rule of thumb and experiment to find what feels best for you.

Macro grams * calories per g rarely equal total calories. Lots of places error enters the equation. One is 4 cal/g and 9 cal/g aren’t exact.

ETA: blog post re: why it doesn’t add up- https://mikeclancytraining.com/why-you-cannot-count-calories/
Fwiw, I disagree with his conclusion but the error discussion is interesting. Take with grain o salt as he cites no sources.

Skrib69 · May 2020

Go back to what works for you and stop overthinking things. All methods are an estimation!

Help please!

Replies

Categories