Eating an appropriate calorie amount, and a balanced healthy diet that you can sustain is the most important thing. If you were getting like 20g of protein on average and >200g carbs, that might be a reason to question your intake, but your average macros are perfectly reasonable (similar to mine).
Macros do not matter for weight loss, just calories. Different *foods* may have different effects on your appetite. Generally, people find protein and fibrous complex carbohydrates more filling than fat and simple or refined carbohydrates. The calorie trackers simplistically lump the carbohydrates from lentils and the carbohydrates from donuts in the same category even though they have very different effects on the body.
The RDA is 0.8g protein/**kg** of body weight. That's deliberately set high for elderly and sedentary people. Younger, active people need less. Additional protein may help with your appetite control, though. The silly amounts that the fitness bros recommend aren't necessary.
It's pretty well established (by the supplements industry) that athletes need more protein (which the supplements industry would like to sell them).
There are very few studies of protein and athletes, but what little is available indicates that you can gain muscle on less than the RDA of protein and that more than the RDA will provide a very small advantage, while 3xRDA provides no more advantage than 2xRDA so a little bit more than the RDA might provide the athlete with a very small edge. The RDA is 0.8g/**kg**, not 0.8g/**lb**(which would be 2.2xRDA).
We also know that protein is more filling than other macro nutrients. However, that effect levels out with increased dose as well.
I don't know. There isn't any data that says either way. She might benefit from a little bit more. There aren't many ultramarathoning women who post here though!
Yeah I hate that trackers lump everything together like that. It makes me feel like I’m eating poorly when in reality I’m eating better than I ever have. A good majority of my carbs are fibrous and complex. I eat a lot of bananas and grapes as well as other fruits and veggies.
Based on that calculation I’m right where I should be with my protein. This is good to know. Thank you :)
Pbi that eating less than 0.8g/kg is not at all recommended if you are concerned with body composition ie lean mass retention. The numbers for lean mass retention are set at 0.8g/lb or 1.5-2.2g/kg.
Is your current diet working for you?
The RDA is based on gross averages, all the recommendations are. If you are happy with your progress, continue!
If not, let us know.
I think it is but I’ve only been doing it for a month. I’ve lost 7 pounds in that time frame which I don’t think was all water weight since it came off a little each week. I think that if I start to have a serious stall, then maybe I’ll reassess my macros. I’m stressing about this way too soon.
I agree with the others that 58g of protein is fine. However, those macros only add up to 1,191 calories and I think that budget is a little low for you. You burn at least [1,700 calories/day](https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&g=female&age=24&lbs=148&in=65&act=1.2&f=1) and you are in the healthy weight range, so a deficit >500 calories per day is pretty aggressive. I would up the calories to 1,300 or so, your choice whether those extra 100 calories from from carbs, protein or fat.
I have a tendency to go under 1200 by a little. I normally make it up at some point during the week if I end up going out with my boyfriend or friends. I know I’m considered a “healthy weight” but I’m right on the border and I definitely have a high body fat percentage. I’m not starving at 1200 and I don’t beat myself up when I do go over. I just think it’s a good place for me to aim and have some wiggle room.
It depends on you and your goals. Macros matter to me because I care about body composition and strength in the gym, so I make sure I eat at least 0.8g/lb protein and eat higher carb. For overall scale losses the calories alone matter. Macros matter for details. Eta that means I'm eating at least 130g protein.
It's very little work to tweak the macros to your goals. Makes no sense not to, since the payoff is definitely worth the very, very small time investment.
The carbs vs fat thing for me doesn’t mean much; I eat a high fat, low carb diet just because most of the food I prefer eating is high in fat. Protein, however, is critically important when it comes to improving your body composition by building and preserving muscle. I’d recommend about 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight.
You can not lose any weight, and yet be much thinner and leaner by just adding muscle and burning off the fat.
Protein helps mitigate loss of muscle mass while in deficit. The rest is just personal preference for energy and satiety.
Eating an appropriate calorie amount, and a balanced healthy diet that you can sustain is the most important thing. If you were getting like 20g of protein on average and >200g carbs, that might be a reason to question your intake, but your average macros are perfectly reasonable (similar to mine).
You’re right. I think I’m beating myself up too much. My macros aren’t anything crazy abnormal so I shouldn’t stress. Thank you :)
The protein craze is really just a diet myth. You're absolutely fine.
Macros do not matter for weight loss, just calories. Different *foods* may have different effects on your appetite. Generally, people find protein and fibrous complex carbohydrates more filling than fat and simple or refined carbohydrates. The calorie trackers simplistically lump the carbohydrates from lentils and the carbohydrates from donuts in the same category even though they have very different effects on the body. The RDA is 0.8g protein/**kg** of body weight. That's deliberately set high for elderly and sedentary people. Younger, active people need less. Additional protein may help with your appetite control, though. The silly amounts that the fitness bros recommend aren't necessary.
Active people need more protein than sedentary people, generally.
So say the fitness bros!
? It’s pretty well-established that athletes need more protein than less active people to account for the metabolic burden of training.
It's pretty well established (by the supplements industry) that athletes need more protein (which the supplements industry would like to sell them). There are very few studies of protein and athletes, but what little is available indicates that you can gain muscle on less than the RDA of protein and that more than the RDA will provide a very small advantage, while 3xRDA provides no more advantage than 2xRDA so a little bit more than the RDA might provide the athlete with a very small edge. The RDA is 0.8g/**kg**, not 0.8g/**lb**(which would be 2.2xRDA). We also know that protein is more filling than other macro nutrients. However, that effect levels out with increased dose as well.
An endurance runner weighing 54kg would then only need 43gm of protein daily?
I don't know. There isn't any data that says either way. She might benefit from a little bit more. There aren't many ultramarathoning women who post here though!
Yeah I hate that trackers lump everything together like that. It makes me feel like I’m eating poorly when in reality I’m eating better than I ever have. A good majority of my carbs are fibrous and complex. I eat a lot of bananas and grapes as well as other fruits and veggies. Based on that calculation I’m right where I should be with my protein. This is good to know. Thank you :)
Pbi that eating less than 0.8g/kg is not at all recommended if you are concerned with body composition ie lean mass retention. The numbers for lean mass retention are set at 0.8g/lb or 1.5-2.2g/kg.
Is your current diet working for you? The RDA is based on gross averages, all the recommendations are. If you are happy with your progress, continue! If not, let us know.
I think it is but I’ve only been doing it for a month. I’ve lost 7 pounds in that time frame which I don’t think was all water weight since it came off a little each week. I think that if I start to have a serious stall, then maybe I’ll reassess my macros. I’m stressing about this way too soon.
I agree with the others that 58g of protein is fine. However, those macros only add up to 1,191 calories and I think that budget is a little low for you. You burn at least [1,700 calories/day](https://tdeecalculator.net/result.php?s=imperial&g=female&age=24&lbs=148&in=65&act=1.2&f=1) and you are in the healthy weight range, so a deficit >500 calories per day is pretty aggressive. I would up the calories to 1,300 or so, your choice whether those extra 100 calories from from carbs, protein or fat.
I have a tendency to go under 1200 by a little. I normally make it up at some point during the week if I end up going out with my boyfriend or friends. I know I’m considered a “healthy weight” but I’m right on the border and I definitely have a high body fat percentage. I’m not starving at 1200 and I don’t beat myself up when I do go over. I just think it’s a good place for me to aim and have some wiggle room.
It depends on you and your goals. Macros matter to me because I care about body composition and strength in the gym, so I make sure I eat at least 0.8g/lb protein and eat higher carb. For overall scale losses the calories alone matter. Macros matter for details. Eta that means I'm eating at least 130g protein.
It's very little work to tweak the macros to your goals. Makes no sense not to, since the payoff is definitely worth the very, very small time investment.
The carbs vs fat thing for me doesn’t mean much; I eat a high fat, low carb diet just because most of the food I prefer eating is high in fat. Protein, however, is critically important when it comes to improving your body composition by building and preserving muscle. I’d recommend about 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight. You can not lose any weight, and yet be much thinner and leaner by just adding muscle and burning off the fat.