We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Macros?

annie24342
annie24342 Posts: 49 Member
edited December 2024 in Food and Nutrition
Could someone please explain to me what macros are. When people say they need to eat all of their macros, does it mean that they are getting the right mix of protein, carbs, and fat?

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Could someone please explain to me what macros are. When people say they need to eat all of their macros, does it mean that they are getting the right mix of protein, carbs, and fat?

    Exactly.
  • annie24342
    annie24342 Posts: 49 Member
    So what is the best mixture? How much should I be eating of each? Or is the MFP default the best settings?
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    It depends on your weightloss strategy. Some people recommend a low fat approach. Others recommend a low carb approach. I'd look around at the different theories and see which one you buy into the most. Keep in mind that the best diet is one that you will follow.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    So what is the best mixture? How much should I be eating of each? Or is the MFP default the best settings?
    "Best" is in the eye of the beholder. I would tweak it to get enough protein then decide if you prefer energy from fats or to ride the carbohydrate roller coaster.
  • moe0303
    moe0303 Posts: 934 Member
    So what is the best mixture? How much should I be eating of each? Or is the MFP default the best settings?
    "Best" is in the eye of the beholder. I would tweak it to get enough protein then decide if you prefer energy from fats or to ride the carbohydrate roller coaster.

    Love your avatar.

    :)
  • annie24342
    annie24342 Posts: 49 Member
    Thanks for the advice!
  • PercivalHackworth
    PercivalHackworth Posts: 1,437 Member
    Macros : macronutrients : Fat, Carbohydrates, Proteins
    Micros : micronutrients : vitamins/ minerals.

    Macros affect bodycomposition, you need to choose them based on your main activity.
    There is no magic number, as not any magic diet that would make you lose weight.

    For a good start, you can have 50/25/25 Carbs/ Fat/ Proteins.

    As long as you will move on your diet, you will learn to adjust the settings, but when it comes to pure weight loss, you just need a deficit, no matter the macros partitioning. Low-carbs diet/ high protein ones just target one simple thing : make the weight loss more quick.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    . Low-carbs diet/ high protein ones just target one simple thing : make the weight loss more quick.

    Hey Razique!

    I respectfully disagree with the above unless you're including water weight as a part of the rapid weight loss.

    Low carb will not offer metabolic advantages given no medical conditions regarding insulin.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046


    I agree with the rest of your post though, good stuff.
  • PercivalHackworth
    PercivalHackworth Posts: 1,437 Member
    . Low-carbs diet/ high protein ones just target one simple thing : make the weight loss more quick.

    Hey Razique!

    I respectfully disagree with the above unless you're including water weight as a part of the rapid weight loss.

    Low carb will not offer metabolic advantages given no medical conditions regarding insulin.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046


    I agree with the rest of your post though, good stuff.

    Yes sorry, you are right : I wrote a bit quick.

    I started to explain but I didn't end the sentence I was thinking about the TEF only (the diet that give you 200g of proteins for 50g of carbs, ending with a bigger deficit in the end. But at what price ? :D )
  • CoryIda
    CoryIda Posts: 7,870 Member
    Macros : macronutrients : Fat, Carbohydrates, Proteins
    Micros : micronutrients : vitamins/ minerals.

    Macros affect bodycomposition, you need to choose them based on your main activity.
    There is no magic number, as not any magic diet that would make you lose weight.

    For a good start, you can have 50/25/25 Carbs/ Fat/ Proteins.

    As long as you will move on your diet, you will learn to adjust the settings, but when it comes to pure weight loss, you just need a deficit, no matter the macros partitioning. Low-carbs diet/ high protein ones just target one simple thing : make the weight loss more quick.
    Completely agree here.

    Personally, I shed the majority of my weight with the 50/25/25. Once I approached my weight loss goals and switched to primarily strength training and cut way back on my cardio, I changed it. I probably do 35/35/30 now, although that is just what works for me and other people may do better with slightly different partitioning.
  • PercivalHackworth
    PercivalHackworth Posts: 1,437 Member
    Macros : macronutrients : Fat, Carbohydrates, Proteins
    Micros : micronutrients : vitamins/ minerals.

    Macros affect bodycomposition, you need to choose them based on your main activity.
    There is no magic number, as not any magic diet that would make you lose weight.

    For a good start, you can have 50/25/25 Carbs/ Fat/ Proteins.

    As long as you will move on your diet, you will learn to adjust the settings, but when it comes to pure weight loss, you just need a deficit, no matter the macros partitioning. Low-carbs diet/ high protein ones just target one simple thing : make the weight loss more quick.
    Completely agree here.

    Personally, I shed the majority of my weight with the 50/25/25. Once I approached my weight loss goals and switched to primarily strength training and cut way back on my cardio, I changed it. I probably do 35/35/30 now, although that is just what works for me and other people may do better with slightly different partitioning.

    Now I'm trying to adjust by intuition. When I multiply days with no strength training, I just hit a little bit more proteins, when I need to burn a bit, I stay low on carbs. I switch to high CHO intakes when the activity will require a bit more of energy.
    If the training was awesome, I do a glyco. surcompensation, and If I'm in deficit, I enjoy some huge fat intakes (fatty fishes, dried fruits, oils), etc... :-)
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Low carb will not offer metabolic advantages given no medical conditions regarding insulin.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

    small problem with that study - conflict of interest :-

    " HH is an employee of Zone Labs Inc. BS is a stockholder and serves on the boards of directors of Zone Labs Inc and Zone Cuisine Inc; he is also on the boards of directors of Zone Café and ZoneNet. None of the other authors had any personal or financial conflict of interest."

    so financial interest in promoting the Zone diet.

    Has any study found low carb diet to be less effective than high carb ? several can't decide if there's a statistically significant difference, but a few favour low carb, for example http://inspire.stat.ucla.edu/unit_15/NEJM2082.pdf

    "Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [±SD], ¡6.8±5.0 vs. ¡2.7±3.7 percent of body weight;
    P=0.001) and 6 months (¡7.0±6.5 vs. ¡3.2±5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but
    the difference at 12 months was not significant (¡4.4±6.7 vs. ¡2.5±6.3 percent of body
    weight, P=0.26). A"

    so even 12 months out there was a 2% of mean body weight loss difference favouring low carb, but it wasn't statistically significant mainly due to sample size and attrition on both diets.

    "The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease"
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Low carb will not offer metabolic advantages given no medical conditions regarding insulin.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

    small problem with that study - conflict of interest :-

    " HH is an employee of Zone Labs Inc. BS is a stockholder and serves on the boards of directors of Zone Labs Inc and Zone Cuisine Inc; he is also on the boards of directors of Zone Café and ZoneNet. None of the other authors had any personal or financial conflict of interest."

    so financial interest in promoting the Zone diet.

    Has any study found low carb diet to be less effective than high carb ? several can't decide if there's a statistically significant difference, but a few favour low carb, for example http://inspire.stat.ucla.edu/unit_15/NEJM2082.pdf

    "Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet had lost more weight than subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (mean [±SD], ¡6.8±5.0 vs. ¡2.7±3.7 percent of body weight;
    P=0.001) and 6 months (¡7.0±6.5 vs. ¡3.2±5.6 percent of body weight, P=0.02), but
    the difference at 12 months was not significant (¡4.4±6.7 vs. ¡2.5±6.3 percent of body
    weight, P=0.26). A"

    so even 12 months out there was a 2% of mean body weight loss difference favouring low carb, but it wasn't statistically significant mainly due to sample size and attrition on both diets.

    "The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease"

    My issue with that study you posted was that they didn't actually measure body composition and it is well known the the initial greater weight loss seen in low carb diets is from water/glycogen loss. Also you have the Atkins group with 50% more men then the conventional diet group (men have an easier time then women losing weight), protein isn't matched in the diets (a slight metabolic advantage has been shown for higher protein diets), on the high end the conventional diet group was consuming 67.5g of protein for men (avg weight 216.26) and 56.25g of protein for women, so it's likely the low carb group was consuming more protein
This discussion has been closed.

Categories