FREE Customized Personal Weight Loss Eating Plan! (Not Spam or MLM)

76h5v4cycg wrote: »

Can someone please help me on setting this up correctly ? I’m really having a hard time understanding the macros and how to calculate properly? Many Thanks in Advance

First, the MFP default macros aren't terrible as a starting point for most people.

If you want to use the suggestions in the OP of this thread, tell me what your healthy goal weight is, or - if you don't know a goal weight - tell me how tall you are, and whether male or female. I can show you the arithmetic to calculate estimated values. It might help to know your age and current weight-loss goals (how many pounds/kg per week); your current weight; and your current daily calorie goal if you've estimated one already.

There's nothing sacred about the macro ranges I recommend: They're what I use, there's some others who advocate similar, but you can fine tune based on your own circumstances.

So, ideally:

* Age
* Sex
* Height
* Current Weight
* Healthy Goal Weight (if you have one)
* Target Weight Loss Rate
* Current Weight Loss Calorie Goal (if you have one)

Caveat, just in case the situation arises: I'm not going to do the arithmetic for lots and lots of people. I'll do the arithmetic for one, and show how it would be done. Others can follow the model.

Sparkuvu wrote: »

@AnnPT77 when I come even close to meeting the macros set up for me by MFP, I am WAY over on calories (1000+ over) and in most values on the chart when I look at nutrition in the food diary. I know it's because I've ate pure junk and ate way too much. But when I eat well and within calorie count, my macros are not any where close. I do not understand the macros and get really confused when I see these macro values. I am just using the free version of MFP. Right now, I'm more curious about this than determined to fix it--because my head has just not been in the game lately, and I am not in serious Just Do It mode. Obviously, contrary to that, I'm still hanging in, tracking, and trying to figure a way. So, without delving deep, taking up much time or thought or effort on a project that's close to not putting in that effort herself, can you surface skim this with a why for me? Should I try to change the macros or just ignore them? By the way, your free plan is excellent advice, and would be a winner if one was to Just Do It----Thank you for your well thought out knowledgeable contributions to these boards!

@Sparkuvu -

My why? Best odds of long term good health. I want future Ann to have a happy, healthy, independent life for as long as possible, and good overall nutrition is one of the foundation blocks for that. Somewhere along the way, this became visceral for me, not just theoretical.

I'm 67. Over the last few years especially (but even starting a decade or more ago), so, so sadly many of my age peers are getting into really unpleasant places as habits of sub-ideal nutrition and inactivity catch up with them. Their quality of life is poor, objectively poor. They can't eat those things they used to eat (because of diabetes, heart disease, medication interactions, etc.). They can't do the things they'd like to do (too much walking, too many stairs, etc.) They're sick more often, recovery takes longer, their many prescription drugs have side effects, . . . . It's Just. Not. Good. Watching it happen, I don't want to participate if I can avoid it.

I'm lucky: I enjoy eating many nutrient-dense foods (veggies, fruits, nuts, seeds, legumes, dairy in my case). That was true even when I was overweight/obese. I gather not everyone feels the same way. IME, there is a little bit of a "training effect": Our old habits are comfortable and comforting. Change is stressful. But sometimes with a little repetition, the new habits have benefits and even joys that weren't obvious at the start.

I can't tell you what your life goals should be, so I can't tell you whether ignoring macros is the right answer for you, or not. I will say these things for you to think about if you do decide you do care about macros/nutrition:

* You don't have to be perfect or exactly exact: Just go for reasonably close, on average, over a few days to a week or thereabouts.

* You don't have to reach your goals instantly. This is one of the cases where you can chip away over a period of time, gradually. Example: Think about your routine habits and patterns. Is there one thing you can change to shift a little bit in a positive direction? If you're short on protein and long on carbs, and you routinely have a sandwich for lunch, could you go for the thin-sliced bread or an open-faced sandwich, and increase the meat or calorie-efficient cheese . . . or maybe just try a new brand of bread with a little more protein? Is there a place where you routinely eat cookies/biscuits/chips where you could make an apple or banana your routine go-to instead? Small changes that you can turn into routine habits are really powerful, if you keep chipping away one tiny bit at a time, over a longer time period.

* Is your calorie goal too aggressive? That makes everything harder. Shooting for a slow loss rate that's achievable routinely (not going over calories often) can sometimes get a person to goal weight in less calendar time than a theoretically faster loss rate that triggers compensatory over-eating or long breaks, maybe even giving up altogether. (If materially overweight, I would for sure target calories first, as I think I said - meant to say, anyway - in the OP.)

This "plan" is supposed to be a gradual, one focus at a time kind of thing: Calories and satiation, then macros, then energy level if needed, then long-term practicality/tolerability. You could shift the order of those things, too, if something seems like a higher priority to you; or make some progress on one front, move to another, then revisit the first again: Gradual, experimenting, establishing habits/routines. If it takes weeks or months or longer to get all the way to wherever you think you need to be, that's OK. If you make some good progress when motivation is high then hold steady for a while, that's OK.

This is all about lifetime habits, not about a temporary project with an end date. Weight management is a forever endeavor. It has to be practical, reasonably enjoyable, relatively easy. If it takes lifelong motivation, willpower or even discipline, it's not going to happen, for me. I need to find relatively tolerable routine habits that I can practice then do almost on autopilot. That's not a quick fix thing, in my world. It's a cycle of monitoring, analyzing, experimenting, changing, assessing, practicing . . . and repeating the cycle as needed, and as I have the emotional energy.

ddsb1111 wrote: »

@Sparkuvu I’ve felt like you regarding macros. The advice that helped me the most was not to worry about it, just track calories and make sure I’m getting enough grams of protein daily. That was way easier and less of the all day mental gymnastics of trying to figure out what to eat. To determine your daily protein intake, you can multiply your weight in pounds by 0.36. It’s perfectly fine to overshoot that, consider that a minimum.

I would go with healthy goal weight as the basis for any protein calculation. We don't need bunches of protein to maintain our fat mass: It's for maintaining lean tissue of various types. Using an overweight current weight as the basis can be overkill in some scenarios.

As you know from my OP, I personally want and would recommend more protein than that 0.36/pound, but I'm not arguing, because we each have different needs and priorities.

ddsb1111 wrote: »

@AnnPT77 Is my math wrong here? For a woman weighing 150lbs that would be 54 grams of protein. On the other extreme a man weighing 400lbs would be 144 grams of protein, is this correct? That does seem low to me, at least on the woman’s side of things. I personally shoot for around 80. Is there a better equation for this?

As per the OP, I'd normally suggest 0.6-0.8g per pound of healthy goal weight per day, and say that more is OK. If a person had a good estimate of lean body mass, 0.8-1g per pound LBM would be a reasonable minimum, close to that 0.6-0.8g/pound goal weight for a lot of people. Of course some would say more, maybe up to 1.2g or so per pound LBM. Most people really don't have a good idea of LBM, especially if substantially overweight, though.

For a more nuanced estimate, there's this, which does use current weight, but IIRC the accompanying guide suggests it can be OK to use a lighter weight if substantially overweight:

https://examine.com/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

That calculator estimate will usually overlap with the 0.6-0.8g/pound goal weight rule of thumb IME.

I'm 5'5", prefer to weigh about 125 pounds, but currently wandering around 130. I shoot for a 100g minimum daily, which I figure is a bit above 1g/pound LBM. I often get more: 110-120g is pretty typical. It was lower when losing because of the reduced calories, but usually at least 80s-90s.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I can't wrap my head around using current weight as a basis for protein: If I were at 250 pounds, BMI 41.6, do I need lots more protein than if I'm at 200 (BMI 33.3) or here at 130 (BMI 21.6)? I admit, I will probably lose some lean mass while losing fat, but ideally not a huge fraction.

judyfca wrote: »

I weight 213.7lbs
how much protein should I aim for? I figured 20-30g every meal?

Back in the first post on this thread, I suggested getting at least 0.6-0.8g protein per pound of healthy goal weight (approximately equivalent to 0.8-1g per pound of lean body mass for most people). But more is fine, within reason.

If you don't know a goal weight, use the middle of the BMI range for your height. (I know, I know, BMI is not popular . . . but it's plenty close enough to use for this purpose.)

Since you don't mention your height, that's as specific as I can get.

If you want a more goal-specific protein estimate, consider this:

https://examine.com/protein-intake-calculator/
https://examine.com/guides/protein-intake/

Put a goal weight into that calculator (as the linked guide suggests), assuming you have a fair amount of weight to lose.

Sure, spreading the protein total across all of your meals is a good thing, particularly if you're an aging person like me. Even for others, doing it that way may help with appetite management.

Best wishes!

stevenwilliams512 wrote: »

Can someone provide an explanation of what the acronyms are in PAV8888's post?
gF?
gM?
TDEE?

gM - yes, grams, I think. Not sure where he got the 38, though. I've usually seen 25 for women, 35 for men. 38 might be the number some sources recommend for men, but I don't know because I'm not a man so haven't much researched it.

gF - might be grams of fat, but I'm not sure because later he says "Personally I would say that males can go down to 0.25 to 0.35g per lb in normal weight range for daily fat intake and females 0.3g to 0.4g, i.e. just a touch lower than Anne suggests.", so I'm not sure. Also, while men may be able to go lower on fat than I suggest, I'd encourage women not to lowball it.

By the way, it's "Ann". Ann.

TDEE = Total Daily Energy Expenditure, the number of calories a person burns all day, in all ways, from the combination of just being alive, doing daily life stuff (job, home chores, non-exercise hobbies, etc.), intentional exercise, thermic effect of food (TEF, calories needed to metabolize the food), and probably some other small stuff I'm forgetting.

@PAV8888, would you care to clarify gM and gF, if I guessed wrong?

Quoting PAV below so there's context, since it took me some time to figure out it was all back on page 1.

PAV8888 wrote: »

U forgot a couple of extras
*These are all appropriate for people not under direct doctor supervision. If under direct supervision then follow doctor's orders assuming you've done your due diligence to ensure they are appropriate to your conditions (second opinions etc)
*Trending weight app and measurements (if can be taken consistently) for progress.
*At least 26gF, 38gM fibre
*Exercise is not *necessary* for weight loss, but the WHO exercise
recommendations are not a bad place to start and their strength training minimums may help you retain more lean mass than you otherwise would.
*choose appropriate deficits: 20% off of TDEE max (25% while obese). Cross reference to losing no more than 0.5% to 1% body weight per week on average over 4-6 week period for pre menopausal females, 3-4 weeks for the rest of us. Morbidly obese ok to hit 1.5% if that can be done using the tdee % deficits specified above
*Personally I would say that males can go down to 0.25 to 0.35g per lb in normal weight range for daily fat intake and females 0.3g to 0.4g, i.e. just a touch lower than Anne suggests. CAN does *not* mean MUST.
*There are no prizes, other than saving a few pennies, for eating the least you can. The winner eats the most they can, want, and enjoy while still able to meet their reasonably chosen goals!
*Hard to review your logs, progress, and decisions if you regularly only do a half *kittened* job of keeping records.
*Up to the individual to review if they have medical conditions that render any of these suggestions inappropriate.

SuzanneC1l9zz wrote: »

I'm reading it as 26 g if female/38 g if male, of fibre.

Thank you. That would make sense. But I don't know where the 26 comes from, either.

But hey, I usually get 40+ grams of fiber daily, so I don't personally pay that much attention to the minimums, TBH. If people follow the "5+ servings of fruit and veg" suggestion in the OP, I think they'll get their fiber minimums, as I mentioned in my initial reply to PAV.

Again, thanks for the sensible interpretation.