macro nutrient to maintain weight loss

[wilson416]

I have lost 40lbs counting macro nutrients (Carbs 25%, Fat 35%, Protein 40%).  I'm ready to maintain my weight loss and not sure how to adjust the macro nutrients.  My calorie intake is about 1500 and I exercise 5-7days a week.

Thank you.

[ThatGreen]

Hi and welcome!

Your macros doesn't have to change, only your calories.

See what your Fitbit says your calories burned are and eat about that number. You may have to adjust up or down after a while, but it's a good starting point.

[wilson416]

Thank you.

Maintenance makes me a little nervous.  I have always been able to lose weight and really struggle to keep it off. 

I have worked really hard this time and feel great.  I desperately want to be able to maintain my weight loss for GOOD!

[Dominique]

What caused your weight loss was the caloric deficit you were able to obtain, not the split between macronutrients. The split probably helped make the deficit more sustainable (for instance, a diet higher on protein is typically more satiating). There is no particular need to adjust your macros: just bump up your calories so they match your expenditure at your current activity level. Hunger should now be less of an issue (since you will be eating more food), but it’s still a good idea to favour food that provides more satiety with less calories (e.g. veggies).  

[wilson416]

Thank you.

That makes perfect sense.

[Dave001]

---

@wilson416 wrote:

I have lost 40lbs counting macro nutrients (Carbs 25%, Fat 35%, Protein 40%).

---

I'm not in to counting or weighing stuff, I prefer to just eat well and exercise. The end result is the same, I'm losing weight because I burn more calories than I consume, I just don't know (or care!) what the numbers are. 

With that in mind, these questions are purely academic and for my own interest, rather than to apply to my life. 

Those of you who do count, how do you know or decide what % a particular food breaks down to. 

I'm thinking of protein/fat particularly. For example, if you eat a fillet of smoked mackerel, do you consider it protein or fat or both? If both, what is the ratio?

How about an egg? If it's poached do you count it as more protein than a fried egg? How about what it's fried in, does that make a difference?

And do you count all fats equally? A mouthful of lard is more harmful to health than a mouthful of olive oil, but both are a mouthful of fat.

Do you calculate % by weight or volume?

So, so many questions for the "counters" out there!

[ThatGreen]

@Dave001  I don't personally care too much about my macros as I eat relatively varied throughout the day. I tend to lean towards more protein and also choose low fat products because it allows me to eat more of it.

As for calories, 1g of protein or carb = 4 calories. 1g of fat =9 calories. So anything with a high fat content will pretty much have a higher calorie content.

I'm gonna try to answer your questions as best I can. Bear with me.

To deterimine the breakdown of nutrients in a particular food you can just google it these days. Many foods, at least natural things, pop up with nutrition to the right of the search results. It will usually by default give you calories per 100g (which is often the standard) and the breakdown of nutrients per 100g.

The Fitbit food diary has a lot of things but I use MyFitnessPal which has 97% of the foods I eat regularly. MFP tells me the % so that's really easy.

Macerel is both protein and fat. Atlantic mackerel has 18g of total fat and 24g of protein per 100g for 262 calories.

Cod on the other hand would be almost purely protein with 0.7g of total fat and 18g of protein per 100g for 82 calories.

Anything used to cook a food (like an egg) would have to be counted but people practice this differently. I have a glorious frying pan which requires no extra fat for cooking so I just log one egg.

If you fry it in fat and count all ingredients, it will naturally have more fat that a poached egg, since you used to fat for it.

No, not all fats are created equally. But, they're very similar from a caloric standpoint in that any 100% fat food is 900 calories per 100g (because 1g of fat is 9 calories). This is ususally where you'll find pure oils at. Butter is usually 700+ calories in my experience as it has some water in there as well.

The issue with fats aren't the calories through, it's how they're created on a molecular level and how our bodies break it down. Very long explanation short: our bodies can more easily break down fats that have a natural bend in their chemical structure like unsaturated fats.

Artificical trans fats are the ones you want to stear clear off in any case. You pretty much find this in anything you think is bad for you.

Hope you got some of the answers you wanted.

[Baltoscott]

---

@Dave001 wrote:

---

@wilson416 wrote:

I have lost 40lbs counting macro nutrients (Carbs 25%, Fat 35%, Protein 40%).

---

I'm not in to counting or weighing stuff, I prefer to just eat well and exercise. The end result is the same, I'm losing weight because I burn more calories than I consume, I just don't know (or care!) what the numbers are. 

---

Well, you are weighing one thing, @Dave001.  You are weighing YOU, which creates a pretty useful feedback loop as to whether whatever you are putting into you makes you bigger or smaller over time.  I do that too, and it is one of the most useful metrics we have, and it is easy to use.

I've been using My Fitness Pal to log/count what I eat to understand how many calories I eat daily.  It will give you different calorie and nutrient values depending on how you prepare the food (i.e., fried eggs cost more calories then raw or poached, as you would expect). I don't think it gives you different data based on the type of fats used, just reports the calories. I started doing that 100% of the time in January and will probably continue to do it through 2017 to get good info as I try to change from losing to maintaining my weight and try to add more muscle.  Diet-wise, I have upped the protein (MyFitnessPal is very helpful in monitoring macros), vegetables and fruit, reduced alcohol, prepared more of what I eat from whole foods, and eaten out less.

@wilson416 - I'm concerned about maintenance too.  I've got a history of going up and down about 20lbs + or - of being mildly overweight.  My average weight over the past 5 years has been around 185 lbs.  (I'm in the normal BMI zone at 174 lbs or lower).  I almost slipped into obese (by BMI standards) before I turned things around this year.  Like others here have said, you need to increase your calorie intake as you move from losing to maintenance.  If you are losing at 1500, try 1800-2000/day and see how things look in a couple of weeks.  If you are still losing, add some more.  I don't think the macro mix makes that much difference (definitely not as much as total calories), but your ratio seems sensible if you can maintain it eating food that you like. 

[waffle1]

Just to reinforce what's been said already: in terms of where the research lies these days, consensus is indeed that macro breakdown does not have a significant effect, the only thing that matters is the calorie intake and whether you can maintain a level that is inline with your current weight. Here's an example of a study that demonstrates this.

So if a lower-carb diet is something you're fine sticking with, go for it. Low-fat? Fine as well.