View Single Post
Old 03-30-2012, 03:55 PM   #2 (permalink)
bamazav
bamazav
Dog House Training, home of the Walker Dips!Geezers Rule!
Bigger, Stronger, BAMA!
Max Brawn
Points: 20,127, Level: 89 Points: 20,127, Level: 89 Points: 20,127, Level: 89
Activity: 19% Activity: 19% Activity: 19%
 
bamazav's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 3,635
Training Exp: 3
Training Type: ARGH!!!
Fav Exercise: Squats
Fav Supp: Lunges
My Mood: Amazed
Reputation: 137878
bamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master memberbamazav is a master member


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Knapp View Post
Just as a example on why I feel its better to track Macro's then calories.

Yesterday my cutting meal of

190 Pro, 114 Carb, 34 Fat, the calories were 1434.

Today the 100% same macro's but different food choices the cals are 1449.

So if you track cals your ratio of your macro's can end up way off.
I appreciate what you are trying to teach us, but not sure I understand.

190 g x 4 =760
114 g x 4 = 456
34 g x 9 = 306
total calories = 1522

If the macros are 100% identical, how can the calories be different? I am not trying to cause trouble, I am just not understanding. How you are arriving at your conclusion?
__________________
David, Husband, Father, Pastor

Seeking to be transformed, not conformed!

Become a disciple of the bar. - glwanabe

The Official Get Fit For The King Website

Yasen Miroslav Zavadil

Last edited by bamazav; 03-30-2012 at 03:59 PM. Reason: puncutation and spelling
bamazav is online now   Reply With Quote


Share with Facebook
Members of Muscle and Brawn Forums have rated post 228983 as the most helpful. Skip right to it!