Calories/Macros

Calories in vs out will decide your weight loss. People may find 50-30-20 easier to adhere to than 40-30-30, I guess. But unless there exist kidney concerns or you're feeling lethargic and you are increasing carbs as a pick me up or something similar, I don't know of many compelling reasons why you would need to reduce protein and increase carbs by 10%. Now if you have a preference to do so or if there is some concern with the types of protein you were choosing etc etc, they may be a different story.

In any case long term energy balance (measured in calories), regardless of macros, is what will drive long term changes to your weight level.

It is not unexpected given your particulars (age, height, weight) that weight loss is not very fast.

Here's what I think might be a key thing in your situation as you describe it, if I'm interpreting what you wrote correctly: It's absolutely not necessary to be exactly exact on macros every single day. Pretty close on average should be fine.

If you're using free MFP, you can only manipulate macro percents in 5% increments. That may make it hard to get everything to balance out perfectly, too. Repeating: Close is fine.

Further, it isn't macros that directly control weight gain/loss, it's calories. Your estimated calorie needs as a petite and older woman are low enough that losing weight very slowly is a good plan.

When you say your weight isn't budging, what time period are you talking about?

If your TDEE is accurately 1300-1490, and you're accurately eating 1100-1250, your daily calorie deficit is only somewhere in the range of 50 calories (1300 - 1250) to 390 calories (1490 - 1100). All of that is estimates, of course.

Realistically, with that in play, the scale is likely to move quite slowly. If deficit were actually 390 every day, you'd be expected to lose about a pound of fat every 9 days. If it were only 50 every day, it would take 70 days to lose a pound. If it averaged in the middle, 220 calories, it would take about 16 days to lose a pound of fat. That's assuming perfect logging and accurate estimates.

As context, most of us have water retention and digestive waste fluctuations of several pounds from one day to the next, or even one week to the next. Neither of those is body fat, but they affect the scale, and they can potentially mask slow fat loss for a surprisingly long time.

I'm around your age (69), and fairly close in weight (134 this morning), but taller (5'5"). I'm generally in weight-maintenance mode these days, but a while back I needed to creep my weight back down a few pounds, like maybe 10-12 pounds because it had crept up over about 4 years since my initial larger loss in 2015-16. I didn't want to do some big calorie cut, so I set out to do it slowly, with a calorie deficit in the kind of range you're possibly at with the goals you mention. It can work fine. I lost the weight. It took a long time, but honestly - other than taking patience - it was pretty painless.

Here's the thing, though: Because of that water/waste scale weirdness I mentioned, there were periods of up to 6 weeks where even my weight-trending app thought I was maintaining weight or even gaining. I was pretty sure that was incorrect - from literal years of continuous logging experience at that point, and from previous good results. I kept going.

If I'd relied simply on watching my scale weights rather than the weight trending app, I'm sure things would've sometimes looked unproductive even longer than 6 weeks at times. But eventually the scale and the app ended up where I hoped/expected, when I averaged a long enough time period to see it.

For me, it took around a year to lose the 10-12 pounds. If it were a year, the "looking backward" calorie deficit was yielding around a pound a month average fat loss, which would be a 125 calorie average daily deficit. You may be losing fat a bit faster than that, but still quite slowly. It will take time to show up on the scale.

I'm not trying to encourage you to lose faster. I do empathize that you want to lose those some more weight. A key question IMO - a doctor question, maybe: Are the pounds you want to lose risking your health? Too-fast loss does increase health risks. I can't speak for you, but for myself one difference I notice with age is that my body isn't as forgiving if I over-stress it, compared to when I was lots younger. Fast loss is a physical stress. If we're so overweight that the weight is causing health problems, maybe the risk is worth it. Otherwise, slow loss seems like a good idea to me.

Back to the macros:

Technically, protein and fats contain essential nutrients, so we need to eat a certain absolute amount of those. The percents are more of an approximation. Unless a person has a relevant health condition - such as diabetes or insulin resistance - carbs are more flexible. Different people prefer different carb levels, but any level is fine where your appetite or energy level aren't responding badly to that carb intake.

A lot of people get enough fat without paying it much attention. It sounds like you're one of them: That's good, makes things easier, maybe. Protein is more commonly something people find they need to watch to get an adequate amount, though that's not universal. If you're low on that, that's worth working at.

Personally, I like a rule of thumb that estimates protein minimum at 0.6-0.8g daily per pound of goal weight. If someone wants a more specific estimate with detailed justification, there's an evidence based protein calculator at a site I'll link below, a site that's generally regarded as neutral and up to date. If overweight, it's OK to use goal weight in the calculator, because protein is for maintaining our lean mass. We don't need bunches extra to maintain our fat mass.

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

We do need more protein as we age, and it becomes more important to spread it across the day for better absorption compared to what younger folks may be able to do. If you want to learn more about that, this may be a helpful resource, though possibly a bit on the technical side for some people's tastes:

https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610(13)00326-5/fulltext

It sounds like you're OK on fats, and I think it's fine to set your carbs anywhere that lets calories balance where you want them. And even with macro goals set - as I said - pretty close on average is fine, no need to be exactly exact daily. Nutrition and calories are important, but getting too wound up in the details is more of a threat to mental health and well being than a help to good physical health, potentially.

Best wishes!