Carbs

bgerrard1010
bgerrard1010 Posts: 5 Member
edited March 2022 in Health and Weight Loss
I’ve set my goal to lose 2 lbs per week until I hit my goal weight. I’m having a lot of trouble hitting my carb intake. I eat super clean, 90% paleo, lift, CrossFit 4 days a week, and wondering why my carb requirements are around 230 grams per day? I’m easily hitting around 150, but then towards the end of the day, trying to figure out what else to eat, and do not just want to consume bread or easy, palatable carbs. Are the numbers hard and fast that are set for me? I’m very strict with eating and working out , so I do not have any issues there.

Replies

  • durden
    durden Posts: 3,592 MFP Staff
    Hi @bgerrard1010! I moved this into our Health and Weight Loss section so that you can get the help and answers you are looking for. Best of luck!
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    I’ve set my goal to lose 2 lbs per week until I hit my goal weight. I’m having a lot of trouble hitting my carb intake. I eat super clean, 90% paleo, lift, CrossFit 4 days a week, and wondering why my carb requirements are around 230 grams per day? I’m easily hitting around 150, but then towards the end of the day, trying to figure out what else to eat, and do not just want to consume bread or easy, palatable carbs. Are the numbers hard and fast that are set for me? I’m very strict with eating and working out , so I do not have any issues there.

    Weight management, directly, is about the calorie level. Nutrition is important for health, body composition, and that sort of thing, though. Nutrition can affect weight management indirectly: Poor nutrition could cause fatigue, so we move less, burn fewer calories; poor nutrition could spike appetite, make it hard to stick with reasonable calories. It's still calories that have the direct effect on weight, via body fat.

    For nutrition, you need a certain minimum amount of protein, and a minimum of fats (with a bias toward healthy fats in good balance). That's because protein and fats are "essential nutrients" in the technical sense that our bodies can't manufacture them out of anything else we eat, so we need to eat some. Because carbs are not "essential" in that way - our bodies can make its own carb-equivalent, loosely speaking, from protein or fats - carb level is more flexible.

    For a healthy person, no contraindicating health conditions, it's fine to eat more than minimum protein or fats, as long as it doesn't drive out other needed nutrition within reasonable calories. (Don't forget about micronutrients and fiber, for example!)

    Some people find that carbs spike their appetite. They're better off eating fewer carbs. Other people find that their energy tanks if they don't eat a certain amount of carbs. They may be better off eating more carbs. Carbs are flexible, as long as there's no health condition (such as diabetes) requiring a person to manage them more carefully.

    For most people, the MFP macro percentages are a reasonable target, as a starting point, as long as they've not set calories so low that the percentages result in too small an amount of one of the nutrients. (That's one of many reasons not to try to lose weight super fast.) But if you find you're naturally eating fewer carbs, and your appetite and energy level are fine, that should be OK. Ideally, you'll be eating at least the protein and fats minimums with those "extra" calories. You can even modify your macro percentages, if you want to do that, even in free MFP.
  • bgerrard1010
    bgerrard1010 Posts: 5 Member
    Thank you for the insight, it is very helpful. I hit my fats, protein and still have a little trouble getting to the required Cals too. I feel like I’m eating more than normal since starting to log. I lift a lot, and I was always waking up in the middle of the night cause I was hungry. That prob meant , I was not getting the minimum requirement my body needed during the day. I also drink a min of 100oz of water a day, so I’m not dehydrated.
    My macro requirements are as follows:
    Protein 107
    Net carbs: 266
    Fat: 70
    Cals: 1870
    When I work out, it adds cals back in to my required count for the day. Basically by the time I’m ready for bed, I still need 400-500 calories. I’m just really trying to dial this in. I’m 45, and 17% body fat and weigh 206. I want to get down to 185, which will obviously lean me out too. I feel like I don’t look bad, but I’m stocky and would just like to look leaner. Thanks again for you me help.
  • Bridgie3
    Bridgie3 Posts: 139 Member
    edited March 2022
    Change your macros in the goal setting system.

    Paleo is 30% carbs, 40% fat, 30% protein. Make sure that's what you've got in the system or it will tell you to eat most of your calories from carbs.


  • Bridgie3
    Bridgie3 Posts: 139 Member
    edited March 2022
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Thank you for the insight, it is very helpful. I hit my fats, protein and still have a little trouble getting to the required Cals too. I feel like I’m eating more than normal since starting to log. I lift a lot, and I was always waking up in the middle of the night cause I was hungry. That prob meant , I was not getting the minimum requirement my body needed during the day. I also drink a min of 100oz of water a day, so I’m not dehydrated.
    My macro requirements are as follows:
    Protein 107
    Net carbs: 266
    Fat: 70
    Cals: 1870
    When I work out, it adds cals back in to my required count for the day. Basically by the time I’m ready for bed, I still need 400-500 calories. I’m just really trying to dial this in. I’m 45, and 17% body fat and weigh 206. I want to get down to 185, which will obviously lean me out too. I feel like I don’t look bad, but I’m stocky and would just like to look leaner. Thanks again for you me help.

    probably should have quoted this instead of hte other.

    This is not paleo at all.

    This is high carb low fat.

    If you want to reflect a paleo diet, you have to increase fats and reduce carbs.

    30:40:30 is a start, being c:f:p, but there will be more to it if you are lifting. Certainly not more carbs tho. Maybe more protein and certainly more fat.

    Edit:
    Protein 107g x 4 calories/g = 428 calories = 20% calories from protein
    70 g fat x 9 calories/g = 630 calories = 30% calories from fat
    266 g carb x 4 calories/g = 1064 calories. = 50% calories from carbs.

    By the way, that's 2122 calories a day, not 1870
  • bgerrard1010
    bgerrard1010 Posts: 5 Member
    Okay, when I imputed all of my info, this is what it kicked back to me to follow. I will have to tweak the recommendations to attain my goals. I just had my body fat test in a hydro tank 1 month ago, so, the numbers should still check out. I’m glad I reached out because I was strictly going off of the recommended guide from the app.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Okay, when I imputed all of my info, this is what it kicked back to me to follow. I will have to tweak the recommendations to attain my goals. I just had my body fat test in a hydro tank 1 month ago, so, the numbers should still check out. I’m glad I reached out because I was strictly going off of the recommended guide from the app.

    I think the app might be closer to reasonable if you weren't trying to lose weight so fast. If you go to one pound a week loss, you get 500 more calories daily. At the app defaults, that would add (IIRC) another 25g of protein to what you're getting. Half a pound a week would potentially be a better loss rate if you have muscularity or performance goals, and are already quite lean. That's another 12.5g protein on top of the 25g, at default percents.

    In my first post on your thread, I said "For most people, the MFP macro percentages are a reasonable target, as a starting point, as long as they've not set calories so low that the percentages result in too small an amount of one of the nutrients. (That's one of many reasons not to try to lose weight super fast.)"

    You said you were trying to lose 2 pounds a week, but you hadn't said you were already at 17% BF and only had 21 pounds to goal. That makes a huge difference, y'know? (I should've asked: You're not the typical example of posters here.)
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Bridgie3 wrote: »
    Paleo is 30% carbs, 40% fat, 30% protein. Make sure that's what you've got in the system or it will tell you to eat most of your calories from carbs.


    Paleo has no specific macro percentages.

    Paleo is simply no dairy, grains, legumes, or added sugar, and sometimes no potatoes (and sometimes it's more lenient about certain sources of grains, grains or legumes and often it is restrictive about certain sources of fat and ideally it should be whole-food based). Within those constraints you can eat whatever macros you please. You seem to be conflating it with the Zone (many cross-fit boxes push both paleo and the Zone or used to when both of those were more trendy--paleo isn't really on trend anymore).

    I do agree that if you cannot just ignore the macros, and don't have specific goals for them independent of MFP -- which it seems OP does not -- that it is best to just set them to something consistent with how you eat. Personally, when I log I pay attention to protein percentage but don't worry about specific goals or limits for carbs or fat (but I do tend to eat lower carb and higher fat than the MFP defaults, and that is totally fine).
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited March 2022
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Okay, when I imputed all of my info, this is what it kicked back to me to follow. I will have to tweak the recommendations to attain my goals. I just had my body fat test in a hydro tank 1 month ago, so, the numbers should still check out. I’m glad I reached out because I was strictly going off of the recommended guide from the app.

    MFP has a default based on what tends to be consistent with the typical healthy pattern diet, but it is just a default and there is no need to follow it if it doesn't work with your own eating patterns/preferences and (ideally) those are also healthy.

    So if you prefer fewer carbs and more protein/fat, that's fine. You can adjust the macros to be consistent with how you do eat or perhaps just focus on a minimum protein and fiber level (0.8 or even better 1 g per lb of current or desired muscle mass is a decent goal when very active and trying to gain or maintain mass, which would up your protein -- with your stats I'd probably aim for 170+ g protein with 150 g protein as a minimum, not 106).

    A bigger (and related) issue, as Ann has noted, is if you are struggling to hit a healthy cal level, as that could make gaining/maintaining muscle harder and lead to losses being more likely to be of muscle.
  • bgerrard1010
    bgerrard1010 Posts: 5 Member
    Thank you all for the input. I just tweaked my macros to see if this works better for me. Here is what I did.
    Carbs: 25%
    Protein: 35%
    Fat: 40%
    Does this seem better based on all the info I’ve given? I also changed my goal to 1 lb per week, so I’m hoping that I can turn things around now. I’m super strict with eating, and maybe I should relax a little.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Thank you all for the input. I just tweaked my macros to see if this works better for me. Here is what I did.
    Carbs: 25%
    Protein: 35%
    Fat: 40%
    Does this seem better based on all the info I’ve given? I also changed my goal to 1 lb per week, so I’m hoping that I can turn things around now. I’m super strict with eating, and maybe I should relax a little.

    How many grams of protein and fat is that? Free MFP sets goals in percents, 5% increments, and that can work fine. People who are very nutrition-focused tend to calculate the gram goals of protein and fats they need, then set the percentages accordingly.

    Your low level of body fat, current muscularity with goals for more - that makes you not exactly an average or typical case, so I'd encourage you to figure out protein/fat goals in grams, then set your percentage to come close. There was a bunch of info above to help you set gram goals.
  • bgerrard1010
    bgerrard1010 Posts: 5 Member
    Carbs= 148
    Protein =207
    Fat=105
    Base cals = 2370
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Carbs= 148
    Protein =207
    Fat=105
    Base cals = 2370

    Might be more fat than nutritionally essential, but there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe give it a test drive, see how it works?

    In general, there's no need to be exactly exact every single day, fine to be up or down a little from any of the goals, as long as averaging out around the desired level over a few days to a week. If persistently under sensible minimum on something vital, that can be worth attention. As long as you're not starting with a diagnosed deficiency, it's also fine to chip away at getting to that "averaging around the right amount" level.

    Taking the time to dial in a sustainable eating pattern is IMO the goal, so we can almost go on autopilot after a while, feel full and happy eating in pattern.

    Oh, and: Granny says "don't forget to eat plenty of varied, colorful veggies & fruits"! 😉

    Best wishes - hope this turns out to work very well for you. If you feel like it, maybe come back and let us know how it's going, after a week or few? I'm always curious about that! 🙂
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Thank you all for the input. I just tweaked my macros to see if this works better for me. Here is what I did.
    Carbs: 25%
    Protein: 35%
    Fat: 40%
    Does this seem better based on all the info I’ve given? I also changed my goal to 1 lb per week, so I’m hoping that I can turn things around now. I’m super strict with eating, and maybe I should relax a little.

    If your goal is healthy eating and there is a nutritional reason for this macro allocation, then starting out a plan with strict adherence to a macro plan may make sense. Especially over a long period.

    But, if your goal is weight loss, starting out with a net calorie count and letting your menu planning and taste preferences develop at a lower calorie level over time and then tweaking the menu to fulfill macro allocations is more likely to work IMO.

    After all, macros may mean something to some people, just not enough to stress about them when you are just getting your feet on the ground.
  • Bridgie3
    Bridgie3 Posts: 139 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Okay, when I imputed all of my info, this is what it kicked back to me to follow. I will have to tweak the recommendations to attain my goals. I just had my body fat test in a hydro tank 1 month ago, so, the numbers should still check out. I’m glad I reached out because I was strictly going off of the recommended guide from the app.

    the automatic split is something like 50% carbs. you have to change the macros to suit the style of eating you want to follow. It's a very basic mathematical calculation; carbs and protein are 4 calories per gramme, and fat is 9.

    Tutu with the carb percentage, altering the fat amount and going back to your food page to see how many actual carbs that gives you till you feel it is at the right level.

    Then go back and fiddle with the protein/fat ratio (the only ratio remaining) till you have the protein grammes right for your diet.

    Fat is the 'what's left' bucket.

    Talk to the guys at the gym, re what macros you want for body building. one thing I can promise is that they wont want you to have 20% protein. That's too low surely.
  • Bridgie3
    Bridgie3 Posts: 139 Member
    bgerrard1010 wrote: »
    Thank you all for the input. I just tweaked my macros to see if this works better for me. Here is what I did.
    Carbs: 25%
    Protein: 35%
    Fat: 40%
    Does this seem better based on all the info I’ve given? I also changed my goal to 1 lb per week, so I’m hoping that I can turn things around now. I’m super strict with eating, and maybe I should relax a little.

    that looks great. :) disregard my last post. :D
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,598 Member
    Just as an observation, for other readers: Percentages for macros are an approximation, and for average-ish people, MFP's defaults are likely to be in the ballpark. Still, something like 20% protein can be reasonable, or high, or low . . . depending on specifics about the size of a person, their goals, and perhaps most importantly, their calorie needs.

    The community here is quite diverse, not just overweight people trying to lose weight, but also underweight people trying to gain, people trying to fuel high-volume endurance exercise while maintaining weight, people with goals of muscle gain, and people with complex combinations of situations with goals.

    I'd put OP in the latter category, complex situation/goals combination: IMU, he's trying to lose a little weight, continue gaining muscle (with an exercise type/load seriously aimed that way), is already quite lean compared to an average person. I made a mistake in my first post, assuming he was more typical of the average person here, and gave generic advice. IMO, that generic advice turned out to be inappropriate, so I posted something different once it became obvious that OP was non-average.

    20% protein can be fine, particularly for someone with exercise calories being added, even with some muscle-gain or muscle-maintenance goals. (20% of my calories for protein is well over 1g per pound of estimated LBM, which is adequate for repair and even gains.)

    For most people, who are average-ish in situation, goals and activities, maintaining or losing/gaining at moderate paces, 20% protein is likely to be non-crazy. It's a reasonable first goal, for most people, while working on dialing in good overall nutrition - it's common generic advice from dietitians and national/international nutritional authorities. MFP didn't make it up out of the air. Gym bros who'd universally say 20% can't be enough for someone with muscle-gain goals would be making the same mistake I did on this thread, assuming that the person they're advising is average-ish for their frame of reference.

    Sure, as people learn more, they can tweak the MFP goals to be more appropriate to their specific case. Those who have an inkling that they may be "less average than average" might want to give that some thought earlier rather than later.

Categories