Macros or Calories

Your weight is just a result of energy balance over time. Fat is just excess energy. You go into an energy deficit, your body uses fat as fuel, and you lose weight. Go into a surplus, you will put on weight. Stay neutral.. no change.

Personally, I only ever worry about my protein and calories. Protein is good for sustaining lean tissue, and calories are.. what I said above. I consistently go way over on carbs but my weight has remained stable for a long time now, because my overall energy intake is in check

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Calories are what have a direct effect on body fat gain/loss. Macros are about nutrition, which is important for general health. (Nutrition can indirectly affect weight loss: Poor nutrition may cause low energy, and dragging through the day burns fewer calories; poor nutrition may also increase appetite/cravings, making it hard to stick with reduced calories. But those things affect calories, and it's still the calories per se that affect weight management.)

That said, counting macros and counting calories get you to roughly the same place, because each macro has an approximate calorie level per gram: Carbohydrates and protein are about 4 calories per gram, fats are 9 calories per gram. (Alcohol is a separate thing that has calories, 7 per gram, but it isn't a nutrient . . . it's sort of like a pseudo-macronutrient, in my view.)

I think both calories and nutrition are important, and I have goals (minimums, in grams) for both fats and protein, as well as a calorie goal. I'd point out that even if you do want to be careful about nutrition, it's not necessary to be exactly exact every day on macros: Close is fine, especially if any given one is a little under on some days, a little over on others, so that it averages out around where you want to be over a few days. Humans are adaptive omnivores, so our bodies know how to juggle things a bit to come out OK over time.

Close is fine for calorie goal, too: Bodies don't reset at midnight, so if we average around the right amount, things will work out OK.

Sometimes people seem to think that if they don't hit all the macros precisely every day, or get below their calorie goal every day, that it's some kind of magic spell that will break their weight loss effort. Not so. Close is fine, and so is close on average.

Just wanted to second all of this.

ayamourada92 wrote: »

Which one should I take care while losing weight and counting my calories, how many grams of carbs, fats and protein or calories burned and consumed overall?
I am somehow confused because sometimes I exceed the limit of protein or carbs grams but I am still within the calories limit so should I watch them or just look at the calories remaining?
Thanks a lot.

Your macros don't directly have any impact on weight management. Calories are a unit of energy...when you consume less energy than your body requires you burn stored energy (body fat) to make up the difference. Your macros are what make up your calories. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 4 calories per gram of protein, 9 calories per gram of dietary fat. Your macros have more to do with the nutrition of those calories.

Watching your macros can help ensure you are meeting nutritional needs at the high level and help avoid a lop sided diet or deficiencies in essential nutrients like protein and dietary fat. Also note that there is nothing magical about MFP's default macro ratios...they're just the default. Many people who actively track their macros customize them to meet their needs. There is no universally optimal macro ratio. A body builder for example is going to have a different optimal macro ratio than an endurance athlete.

xrj22 wrote: »

Mostly watch the calories and protein. There is no problem with going over on the protein, but it is important not to vo under on a regular basis because then you risk losing muscle mass. For carbs and fats just let them fall as they will, as long as they are from healthy sources. If you notice that you rent to run high on one, look into why and ask yourself whether it is a healthy reason. If you are high on carbs due to eating whole grains, beans and lentils, great. If you are high in carbs due to eating white bread and soda, not good.

No carbs in diet soda. More carbs in two pieces of whole grain bread than in the two pieces of white bread I eat daily.

Just saying...

glassyo wrote: »

More carbs in two pieces of whole grain bread than in the two pieces of white bread I eat daily.

I think you may be joking, but if not, you're missing the point. Carbs aren't *bad*.

The point is to make sure the foods you're eating *with or without carbs* are nutrient dense.

Your white bread is lower carb, probably lower calorie, but also practically devoid of nutrients.

Whole grain breads use *whole* grains, which are full of nutrients. White bread is mostly air. It's not as filling and it's nowhere near as healthy.

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

The difference between similar white and whole wheat bread isn't that huge, honestly.

I looked this up for another thread a few months back. I'm not going to recheck to see if the nutrition has changed over those few months (laziness), I'm just pasting those results here. This is for a common brand in the US, similar bread, Pepperidge Farm Farmhouse White vs. Farmhouse Whole Wheat, per 49g slice, white numbers first:

Calories: 130, 130
Total Fat: 1g, 2.5g
Sodium: 230mg, 180mg
Total Carb: 26g, 23g
Protein: 4g, 5g
Fiber: 1g, 4g
Sugar: 4g, 4g (all added sugar in both cases)
Calcium: 40mg, 40mg
Iron: 1.7mg, 1.3mg
Potassium: 50mg, 125mg
Thiamin: 0.2mg, 0.1mg
Riboflavin: 0.2mg, 0.1mg
Niacin: 1.5mg, 2mg
Folate: 95mcg DFE/0 folic acid, 10mcg DFE/50mcg folic acid

That's not the best whole grain bread compared to the worst white, or vice-versa; it's an attempt at a fair comparison using a commonly available mainstream brand, and I didn't cherry pick a brand, it was just the first one that came to mind.

I'd give a slight edge to the whole wheat nutritionally, but it doesn't have the advantage all the way through the nutrient profile, and the differences are pretty small. If I really preferred white bread for enjoyment reasons, it wouldn't be enough difference to sway me, personally. (NB: I prefer whole wheat for taste, if I eat either.)

Source:
https://www.pepperidgefarm.com/product/farmhouse-hearty-white-bread/
https://www.pepperidgefarm.com/product/farmhouse-100-whole-wheat-bread/

It's actually possible that a high-quality white bread might have better nutrition than a low-quality whole wheat bread.

Question the shibboleths, folks, and decide whether they're meaningful in your personal overall dietary context.

If I liked white bread, I'd totally eat it instead of whole wheat. (I'm routinely waaaay over my fiber minimums daily, so the extra fiber - the biggest difference between the two above, IMO - is completely meaningless in my context. Ditto potassium.)

Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

Maybe you should glance at the nutritional label on some different forms of white bread nest time you shop because your stance comes across as a belief rather than being based on fact.

sijomial wrote: »

Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

Maybe you should glance at the nutritional label on some different forms of white bread nest time you shop because your stance comes across as a belief rather than being based on fact.

Okay. See how everyone else in this thread is remaining cordial even with differences in opinion? Maybe you should glance at that, because your stance comes across as a childish attack on someone who isn't touting your own beliefs.

Let's not make this personal. I *much* prefer facts.

So...

Facts:

Wheat has three parts to it.

Wheat bran is fiber-packed.

Wheat endosperm (the largest part of the seed) is predominantly made up of starch.

Wheat germ is the nutrient-rich embryo of the wheat seed.

Facts:

White bread is made with white flour.

Wheat bread is made with whole wheat flour.

Either are legally allowed to *say* "wheat flour" on the packaging, because both are made with wheat.

Facts:

They are very different.

Whole wheat flour uses the *whole* wheat seed. All three parts.

White flour uses *only* the endosperm. No wheat bran. No wheat germ.

Just the large starchy endosperm.

Facts:

White flour is usually (but not always) milled on large industrial machines which are faster and cheaper. The lack of bran (fiber) also adds to the stable shelf life of the flour.

Whole wheat flour is usually (but not always) stone milled to preserve the bran. This gives it a shorter shelf life.

Facts:

Most breads people believe are whole wheat bread aren't. They are made with white flour which hasn't been bleached yet, and called simply "wheat bread". People believe it because it's brown.

White flour is naturally a soft golden brown.

Whole wheat flour is darker brown.

When you buy white flour at the store and it's *white*, it has been bleached.

If your white bread looks white, it's been made with bleached white flour.

If it's not, it's been msde with unbleached white flour.

In neither does it contain the germ or the bran which are the most nutrient dense parts of the wheat seed.

1 cup of whole wheat flour contains 3 grams of fat, 16 grams of protein.

1 cup of white, unbleached "wheat" flour contains 1.2 grams of fat, 13 grams of protein.

1 cup of whole wheat flour contains 86 grams of carbohydrates including 13 grams of dietary fiber.

1 cup of white, unbleached "wheat" flour contains 95 grams of carbohydrates with only 3.4 grams of dietary fiber.

1 cup of whole wheat flour contains 50% of the RDA of Vitamin B1 15% of the RDA of Vitamin B2 37% of the RDA of Vitamin B3

1 cup of white, unbleached "wheat" flour contains 12% of the RDA of Vitamin B1 4% of the RDA of Vitamin B2 10% of the RDA of Vitamin B3

Whole wheat flour has 14% of the RDA of Vitamin B5. White flour has 11%.

Whole wheat has 38% of the RDA of Vitamin B6, while white has only 3%!

Vitamin B9? Whole wheat wins again 13% to 8%

Vitamin E? Whole wheat: 0.85mg to white: 0.07mg

Vitamin K 2% in whole wheat, 0% in white.

How about some mineral Facts:

Whole wheat:
Calcium 3%; copper 54%; iron 24%; magnesium 41%; manganese 212%; phosphorous 61%; potassium 9%; selenium 135%; zinc 28%

White:
Calcium 1%; copper 20%; iron 8%; magnesium 7%; manganese 37%; phosphorus 19%; potassium 3%; selenium 77%; zinc 8%


I'd go on, going into the actual proteins and amino acids but frankly I'm tired of looking up and typing out statistics I am already aware of which are freely available to the public simply because you seem to believe anything which isn't spelled out in your pantry on a nutrition label is "opinion".

But I like math. Let's do some math.

Commercial bread loaves require around 3 cups of flour and have an average of 20 slices per loaf.

1 cup of whole wheat flour contains 3 grams of fat, 16 grams of protein.

1 cup of white, unbleached "wheat" flour contains 1.2 grams of fat, 13 grams of protein.

That's a difference per loaf of 3 × (3-1.2) or 5.4 grams of fat, and 3 × (16-13) or 9 grams of protein.

1 cup of whole wheat flour contains 86 grams of carbohydrates including 13 grams of dietary fiber.

1 cup of white, unbleached "wheat" flour contains 95 grams of carbohydrates with only 3.4 grams of dietary fiber.

That's a difference per loaf of 3 × (13-3.4) or 28.8 grams of dietary fiber. That dietary fiber is the good part of the carbohydrates. Yet the white bread has 3 × (95-86) or 27 grams more carbohydrates per loaf.

With 3 cups per loaf, 20 slices per loaf, 1 slice per serving, whole wheat bread is giving you *per serving* 7.5% of the RDA of Vitamin B1. White bread gives 1.8%

I'd go on, there's huge differences in nearly every nutrient contained in either, but as I said, I am tired of delving into the minutiae to save *you* time doing it yourself.

As I said before:

Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

There is no benefit. Nutritionally. To choosing white bread over whole wheat. Because whole wheat flour contains more of every single beneficial nutrient than white flour.

Based on facts which exist outside the clouded or overstated "nutritional data" which comes printed on the plastic wrap at the friendly neighborhood supermarket.

Yes, it's a belief. Based on things I know because I have done *more* than occasionally glance at a nutrition label.

So,

TLDR

There's nothing wrong with eating white bread... I don't believe in labeling foods good or bad... but there's no nutritional benefit to it either.

Better?

Oh for sanity's sake.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with white bread.

I said it's devoid of the nutrients found in whole wheat.

It is.

I didn't say there's no nutritional benefit in a slice of bread.

I said there is no nutritional benefit to choosing it over *whole wheat* ... which my post clearly outlines in *nutritional data*.

Nutrition labels are notoriously innacurate, but it is relatively easy to find accurate information, especially if you don't rely solely on the usda website, but on the ingredients listed on other countries' food regulation sites as well. I would go into *why*, but thst would dip into the realm of money and politics, which I am fairly certain are not allowed here.

You're all welcome to believe whatever you like.

And I have, as I said, no problem with white bread. I eat white bread. Frequently.

But there is no nutritional benefit to choosing it. The benefit (aka the bulk of nutrients) are in whole wheat.

Choosing white over wheat is not going to make your entire diet *unhealthy*.

But it also is in no way the healthier option.

But as @glassyo said: who cares

@sijomial I will speak the way I speak. If you need clarification it's the typical thing to ask for clarification. There was nothing inaccurate in my statement. I *am* sorry for passive aggressively snapping last night. It was a bad pain day, but that's no excuse. And I am sorry. But my point remains, and it's your choice to believe it or not. However you have chosen no evidence and personal attacks. I guarantee that will not change my mind. I did the same as you (in the reply you were quoting) and corrected what I saw as a factual inaccuracy. Without personal attacks.

I have nothing left to say to you.

@AnnPT77 everything in your latest reply was literally the point I was trying to make initially, before I apparently misspoke and *kittened* off the entire community. I don't disagree with a single point there. Thank you for settling it.

Since my point is available for anyone interested in the topic in the future to judge for themselves, and Ann has clarified the most important point... I am finished with this conversation.

Good day.

glassyo wrote: »

@AnnPT77 So, basically, you're saying sometimes it's healthier NOT to pick the "healthier" food choice? That's what I got out of that.

Anyway, there are also actual medical reasons. I stayed low fiber because I have UC and, even tho I probably didn't need to, it didn't hurt me any either. People with dysfunctional kidneys shouldn't eat a whole lot of protein. If you're celiac, you can't really eat all that healthy carb wheat, barley, and rye. Other than that, I can't think of any other reasons to watch your carbs. But I'm biased.

Should we move on to brown vs white rice? LOL.

Edited to add: Diabetic! You have to monitor carbs when you're diabetic! (And changed my wording on the celiac thing.)

That's a far reach, for interpretation of what I intended, the bolded.

I think it's not necessary to always make the technically most nutritious choice, because balance is important in life; that nutrition isn't the sole and exclusive important thing; that over-focusing on every small choice may distract from and risk one's overall nutrition/weight-management success; and generally that context always matters.

And yes, I was trying to move on. Please.

Cluelessmama1979 wrote: »

Oh for sanity's sake.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with white bread.

I said it's devoid of the nutrients found in whole wheat.

It is.

I didn't say there's no nutritional benefit in a slice of bread.

I said there is no nutritional benefit to choosing it over *whole wheat* ... which my post clearly outlines in *nutritional data*.

Nutrition labels are notoriously innacurate, but it is relatively easy to find accurate information, especially if you don't rely solely on the usda website, but on the ingredients listed on other countries' food regulation sites as well. I would go into *why*, but thst would dip into the realm of money and politics, which I am fairly certain are not allowed here.

You're all welcome to believe whatever you like.

And I have, as I said, no problem with white bread. I eat white bread. Frequently.

But there is no nutritional benefit to choosing it. The benefit (aka the bulk of nutrients) are in whole wheat.

Choosing white over wheat is not going to make your entire diet *unhealthy*.

But it also is in no way the healthier option.

But as @glassyo said: who cares

@sijomial I will speak the way I speak. If you need clarification it's the typical thing to ask for clarification. There was nothing inaccurate in my statement. I *am* sorry for passive aggressively snapping last night. It was a bad pain day, but that's no excuse. And I am sorry. But my point remains, and it's your choice to believe it or not. However you have chosen no evidence and personal attacks. I guarantee that will not change my mind. I did the same as you (in the reply you were quoting) and corrected what I saw as a factual inaccuracy. Without personal attacks.

I have nothing left to say to you.

@AnnPT77 everything in your latest reply was literally the point I was trying to make initially, before I apparently misspoke and *kittened* off the entire community. I don't disagree with a single point there. Thank you for settling it.

Since my point is available for anyone interested in the topic in the future to judge for themselves, and Ann has clarified the most important point... I am finished with this conversation.

Good day.

Words have meanings. Devoid means empty of. Completely without. So no, it isn't. Let's not perpetuate the myth.