My Diet Plan

Page 2 of 3 First 123 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Better be careful talkin bad about saturated fats, lol. There are about 6 guys on this board (who seem to know alot more than others in general) that will eat your lunch and spit it back in your face over making comments like that. I would know - I learned the hard way.
    Eat whatever works for you. Low fat, high carb high protein diet has kept me lean while giving me very slow gains in mass. As a rule, I'm honestly starting to believe that everything I read in Arnold's book is golden. He recommends 40/40/20 split. For most people, this is ideal. For me, it could work well for bulking, although I have been leaning toward 50% carbs, 30% proteins and 20% fats lately in trying to experiment with what works quickest for mass gains.

    I'm starting to think DBOL is what works quickest, lol. At my genetic level, things happen so slowly now. It sucks.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Actually the link between saturated fats and CVD is very poor. In fact some diets even advocate for huge comsumption of sat fats (Paleo) without any negitive consequence in LDL-p. LDL-C may increase, but LDL-C in not a good indicator of CVD, in fact; someone with low LDL-C may still be at risk if LDL-p is high.

    Of course there are outliers and whatnot, but there is a whole other side to the story. Next time you get blood tests done, ask for a more in-depth blood test detailing LDL-C and LDL-p rather than relying on just cholesterol numbers as these numbers vary under different circumstances. What you do not want is an increase in LDL-p so if this increases, find ways to lower this.

    Jim posted what should be considered minimums and altered based on preference (higher rather than lower) and whatever suits you.

    Detailed cholesterol numbers:
    overall - 329 - should be below 200
    triglycerides - 63 - should be below 150
    HDL - 37 - should be above 40 and desirable is above 60
    LDL - 279 - very high is considered above 190 and optimal is below 100

    I will be going on cholesterol med (statins) soon.

    Can someone please tell me what amounts of Sat fats are said to be healthy, in mg/grams please. The medical field is constantly learning but what it seems to know is that fats cause the body to produce cholesterol as part of the digesting process. Unsaturated fats hold on to these lipids and get passed; but the saturated fats bond to the lipids and settle in the arteries and create plaque buildup. That's my basic understanding. So if that's (remotely) correct, why should I not curb my sat fat intake? And, again, please give me some numbers/amounts of sat fats in diets of people who claim they feel good and who have blood-work to support its healthy and beneficial ingestion. Believe me, I'd love to up my sat fats - but only if I can do it while lowering my cholesterol.
    •   
       


  3. Good question about saturated fats increasing cholesterol. I'd like to know that answer myself.

    As for the macro percentages..the whole point I was making is that every diet has a percentage split. Even your 4000kcal diet, lol. Percentages only express something, they don't determine something.

    I never told the guy to follow my 40/40/20 split. I said I do it right now and that he should play with some numbers as he is trying to bulk up to figure out which works best. I know thats what I said because the OP fully understood me. Ratios do matter. A 2:1 ratio of carbs to protein will have a pretty drastic difference in body composition as compared to a 1:1 ratio. Guess what? Ratios can also be measured in...you guessed it...percentages.

    So you eat .75g fat per lb of body mass? And you weigh 165? Ok, that's 124g fat per day, or about 1114kcals. And you eat 4000kcals per day? Well then, your fat macro is 27-28%. Bingo! You have a percentage!

    The statement that was made to entice me to correct said statement is the one where cummins said, "^do not base your diet off of percentages"

    Where there is something or several things that make up a whole, there is also a percentage that mathematically expresses the association between those things.

  4. from a harvard review:
    One highly-publicized report analyzed the findings of 21 studies that followed 350,000 people for up to 23 years. Investigators looked at the relationship between saturated fat intake and coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Their controversial conclusion: “There is insufficient evidence from prospective epidemiologic studies to conclude that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD...

    My words: So it seems people would read that paragraph and leave thinking, "okay so I can eat more saturated fats."

    Next paragraph in article:
    With headlines like “Saturated Fat is Not Your Heart’s Enemy,” and “NOT GUILTY: The Long-Standing Vilification of Saturated Fat Finally Turning to Vindication,” some of the media and blog coverage of these studies would have you believe that scientists had given a green light to eating bacon, butter, and cheese. But that’s an oversimplified and erroneous interpretation. Read the study and subsequent studies more closely, and the message is more nuanced: Cutting back on saturated fat can be good for health if people replace saturated fat with good fats, especially, polyunsaturated fats. Eating good fats in place of saturated fat lowers the “bad” LDL cholesterol, and it improves the ratio of total cholesterol to “good” HDL cholesterol, lowering the risk of heart disease. Eating good fats in place of saturated fat can also help prevent insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

    next para
    Cutting back on saturated fat will likely have no benefit, however, if people replace saturated fat with refined carbohydrates—white bread, white rice, mashed potatoes, sugary drinks, and the like. Eating refined carbs in place of saturated fat does lower “bad” LDL cholesterol—but it also lowers the “good” HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides. The net effect is as bad for the heart as eating too much saturated fat—and perhaps even worse for people who have insulin resistance because they are overweight or inactive

    my words: so cut sat fats (to a degree) and avoid high-glycemic carbs (as my earliest conversation with a poster discussed 'about bread')

    final point from the article:
    The latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends getting less than 10 percent of calories each day from saturated fat. The American Heart Association goes even further, recommending limiting saturated fat to no more than 7 percent of calories. But framing diet recommendations in terms of “percentage of daily calories” is not terribly useful for the average consumer. That’s because people eat foods—not isolated nutrients.

    my words: So I seem to have the AHA recommendations of sat fat intake that I asked about previously. And before those two guys say "see, don't use percentages" notice the article says "average consumers" yet points out the percentage to aim for. Average consumers don't break down diets like us lifters and fitness freaks. If you are serious about monitoring your diet, learning where you operate at your best you need to know your macro count and have a good idea of the ratio/% it represents to your overall caloric intake. As a lifter I indeed look at my diet as isolated nutrients - that come in the form of chicken, lima beans, eggs, etc; which are packed full of nutrients to account for.
    my diet is 45/35/20 and total cals of 2992 based on my target body weight of 220 at 15% bf
    that makes my fat intake: of 66 grams (20%) so 10% would be 33 g of sat fat - I may go on the lower recommendation and cap off at 25 g of sat fats ( I think my math is right - it's from memory and in my head)

    Since this is a diet advice post - please advise
  5. Re: My Diet Plan


    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1592335217/

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  6. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Good question about saturated fats increasing cholesterol. I'd like to know that answer myself.

    As for the macro percentages..the whole point I was making is that every diet has a percentage split. Even your 4000kcal diet, lol. Percentages only express something, they don't determine something.

    I never told the guy to follow my 40/40/20 split. I said I do it right now and that he should play with some numbers as he is trying to bulk up to figure out which works best. I know thats what I said because the OP fully understood me. Ratios do matter. A 2:1 ratio of carbs to protein will have a pretty drastic difference in body composition as compared to a 1:1 ratio. Guess what? Ratios can also be measured in...you guessed it...percentages.

    So you eat .75g fat per lb of body mass? And you weigh 165? Ok, that's 124g fat per day, or about 1114kcals. And you eat 4000kcals per day? Well then, your fat macro is 27-28%. Bingo! You have a percentage!

    The statement that was made to entice me to correct said statement is the one where cummins said, "^do not base your diet off of percentages"

    Where there is something or several things that make up a whole, there is also a percentage that mathematically expresses the association between those things.
    I understand math, thank you for the elementary math class.

    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post

    As a rule, I'm honestly starting to believe that everything I read in Arnold's book is golden. He recommends 40/40/20 split. For most people, this is ideal.
    You said for most people 40/40/20 is ideal for MOST people.

    I disagree with that, especially if you are the type who needs more calories. I used myself as an example as I know what I eat daily, there are many others that eat 3500+ and also wouldn't require that amount of protein and could end up low on fat (depending on bodyweight)

    You are apparently missing my point so I will spell it out for you again.


    Instead of telling someone to eat a 40/40/20 split and having them stick to that even as the calories they consume increases/decreases could lead to them over/underrating certain macronutrients.

    Me, for example:

    400kCal at 40/40/20 would be 400g Protein, 400g Carbs, and 89g Fat. This is obnoxiously high in protein.

    Now lets say I go to cut at 3000 (for arguments sake, I don't need to cut) 300g Protein, 300g Carbs, 67g Fat. Its the same percentages but now I'm not eating anything close to enough fats and still have an obnoxious amount of Protein.

    So in layman's terms (because apparently you need that) 40/40/20 = not optimal for most people.

    If you enjoy it then good for you but do not preach it to others as if it were Gospel.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    I understand math, thank you for the elementary math class.



    You said for most people 40/40/20 is ideal for MOST people.

    I disagree with that, especially if you are the type who needs more calories. I used myself as an example as I know what I eat daily, there are many others that eat 3500+ and also wouldn't require that amount of protein and could end up low on fat (depending on bodyweight)

    You are apparently missing my point so I will spell it out for you again.


    Instead of telling someone to eat a 40/40/20 split and having them stick to that even as the calories they consume increases/decreases could lead to them over/underrating certain macronutrients.

    Me, for example:

    400kCal at 40/40/20 would be 400g Protein, 400g Carbs, and 89g Fat. This is obnoxiously high in protein.

    Now lets say I go to cut at 3000 (for arguments sake, I don't need to cut) 300g Protein, 300g Carbs, 67g Fat. Its the same percentages but now I'm not eating anything close to enough fats and still have an obnoxious amount of Protein.

    So in layman's terms (because apparently you need that) 40/40/20 = not optimal for most people.

    If you enjoy it then good for you but do not preach it to others as if it were Gospel.

    How many times do you need to point out "most" people before you realize the diet you're on is far from "normal"? In a regular maintenance, cutting or bulking diet splits from 55/30/15 to 40/40/20 are common. If you break down your nutrients and you find that your ratios are way out of whack or that these ratios greatly throw off your particular nutrient needs than you should rethink why you are taking in so many calories.

    so if a 40/40/20 (or whatever split) is giving you WAY too much fat or protein then you are likely taking in too many calories - or you are on a high calorie diet that should only be short-lived.

    So explain why you need 4000 daily calorie diet at 165 pounds but shutter to think about getting too much protein or fat? you think high carbs are harmless? And if you tell us you're only using it for a short while then you go to a 1800 cal daily diet - tell us your breakdown when you drop cals. Or instead of sarcastic and misguided replies - add to the thread by telling us what works for you so we may learn something from your experience and wisdom.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post

    How many times do you need to point out "most" people before you realize the diet you're on is far from "normal"? In a regular maintenance, cutting or bulking diet splits from 55/30/15 to 40/40/20 are common. If you break down your nutrients and you find that your ratios are way out of whack or that these ratios greatly throw off your particular nutrient needs than you should rethink why you are taking in so many calories.

    so if a 40/40/20 (or whatever split) is giving you WAY too much fat or protein then you are likely taking in too many calories - or you are on a high calorie diet that should only be short-lived.

    So explain why you need 4000 daily calorie diet at 165 pounds but shutter to think about getting too much protein or fat? you think high carbs are harmless? And if you tell us you're only using it for a short while then you go to a 1800 cal daily diet - tell us your breakdown when you drop cals. Or instead of sarcastic and misguided replies - add to the thread by telling us what works for you so we may learn something from your experience and wisdom.
    Too much fat? You don't read well do you? My point was that it is to high in protein and too low in fat. Which I've said many times.

    I haven't added sarcastic it misguided replies, I have put snide remarks as a part of my posts only when they are in retaliation to certain posts.

    All of my replies have been me sharing my knowledge and have had many explanations as to why a 40/40/20 split is not ideal. Have you read anything I've posted? (Rhetorical)

    I have to eat that amount for a variety of reasons. (High metabolism, genetics, activity level, etc.) And unfortunately it isn't short lived, I generally have to near 4500-5000 (historically) to see significant gains as far as weight is concerned but as I age that number drops and soon my activity level should drop as well.

    I don't shudder at the idea of too much protein as ultimately it will be deaminated and used for energy. But, meat is expensive and your body can't really synthesize much more than that into muscle.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Too much fat? You don't read well do you? My point was that it is to high in protein and too low in fat. Which I've said many times.

    I haven't added sarcastic it misguided replies, I have put snide remarks as a part of my posts only when they are in retaliation to certain posts.

    All of my replies have been me sharing my knowledge and have had many explanations as to why a 40/40/20 split is not ideal. Have you read anything I've posted? (Rhetorical)

    I have to eat that amount for a variety of reasons. (High metabolism, genetics, activity level, etc.) And unfortunately it isn't short lived, I generally have to near 4500-5000 (historically) to see significant gains as far as weight is concerned but as I age that number drops and soon my activity level should drop as well.

    I don't shudder at the idea of too much protein as ultimately it will be deaminated and used for energy. But, meat is expensive and your body can't really synthesize much more than that into muscle.
    I read just fine and I've read your replies. I was also speaking in general terms to include any argument against any ratio - you complain about one thing others may complain about others (i.e. fats, proteins, carbs...)

    Anyway you're arguing semantics - he did say "most."

    but I am curious about your macro numbers since I like to go a week or two of high cal diets (anabolic burst cycle diet). So let me/us know what works well for you. As someone who has to eat that many calories regularly I am sure you've dialed it in to work well. what foods choices do you make and what is your timing of meals. Please for God's sake add something to this instead of a counter-point/objection.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post

    I read just fine and I've read your replies. I was also speaking in general terms to include any argument against any ratio - you complain about one thing others may complain about others (i.e. fats, proteins, carbs...)

    Anyway you're arguing semantics - he did say "most."

    but I am curious about your macro numbers since I like to go a week or two of high cal diets (anabolic burst cycle diet). So let me/us know what works well for you. As someone who has to eat that many calories regularly I am sure you've dialed it in to work well. what foods choices do you make and what is your timing of meals. Please for God's sake add something to this instead of a counter-point/objection.
    180g Protein
    356g Carbs
    198g Fat

    Those are my daily goals. Sometimes I get a little higher in protein and lower in carbs. This will be upped by another 3-500 kCal when I come back from the field and I will get most of the additional kCal from Carbs.

    My food choices vary but my staples are:

    Chicken (thighs + breasts)
    Ground beef
    White rice
    Pasta
    EVOO
    Steak
    Whole Milk
    Potatoes (sometimes sweet but normally regular potatoes do fine)
    Eggs

    As long as I hit my macros I don't stress the sources as much. From a general health perspective I realize that the sources are more important than I care to stress but I don't have any noticeable lactose/gluten issues yet and I try to enjoy my food. As far as a physique/performance aspect goes, I don't notice much of a difference as long as the macros are hit but I'm also not a physique competitor (or trainee for that matter)

    Meal timing is mostly irrelevant. I eat 4-5 times a day, mostly out of convenience. I'm allowed a certain time for breakfast and lunch so those are the same everyday, all other meals are based upon the time I get off work/time I get out of the gym.
    •   
       


  11. they just dont get it. i give up

  12. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post
    Detailed cholesterol numbers:
    overall - 329 - should be below 200
    triglycerides - 63 - should be below 150
    HDL - 37 - should be above 40 and desirable is above 60
    LDL - 279 - very high is considered above 190 and optimal is below 100

    I will be going on cholesterol med (statins) soon.

    Can someone please tell me what amounts of Sat fats are said to be healthy, in mg/grams please. The medical field is constantly learning but what it seems to know is that fats cause the body to produce cholesterol as part of the digesting process. Unsaturated fats hold on to these lipids and get passed; but the saturated fats bond to the lipids and settle in the arteries and create plaque buildup. That's my basic understanding. So if that's (remotely) correct, why should I not curb my sat fat intake? And, again, please give me some numbers/amounts of sat fats in diets of people who claim they feel good and who have blood-work to support its healthy and beneficial ingestion. Believe me, I'd love to up my sat fats - but only if I can do it while lowering my cholesterol.
    LDL-C and LDL-p are better measures. Theres little correlation between high cholestrol numbers and an associated CVD risk. In fact, because your TG's are low, i'd say LDL-p would be low (at a glance).

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23386699 This study shows that LDL-p (particles) are a much better predictor of increased CVD risk than those with just high LDL-C.
    So essentially all I am saying is that those numbers mean little to me.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  13. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    180g Protein
    356g Carbs
    198g Fat

    Those are my daily goals. Sometimes I get a little higher in protein and lower in carbs. This will be upped by another 3-500 kCal when I come back from the field and I will get most of the additional kCal from Carbs.

    My food choices vary but my staples are:

    Chicken (thighs + breasts)
    Ground beef
    White rice
    Pasta
    EVOO
    Steak
    Whole Milk
    Potatoes (sometimes sweet but normally regular potatoes do fine)
    Eggs

    As long as I hit my macros I don't stress the sources as much. From a general health perspective I realize that the sources are more important than I care to stress but I don't have any noticeable lactose/gluten issues yet and I try to enjoy my food. As far as a physique/performance aspect goes, I don't notice much of a difference as long as the macros are hit but I'm also not a physique competitor (or trainee for that matter)

    Meal timing is mostly irrelevant. I eat 4-5 times a day, mostly out of convenience. I'm allowed a certain time for breakfast and lunch so those are the same everyday, all other meals are based upon the time I get off work/time I get out of the gym.
    wow! I have dialed in my diet and I like how I feel with a 45 carb/35 pro/20 fat. Maybe I'll up my calories and'or go 45/30/25 after this phase to see if a boost in fat makes me feel any better. I may be switching to whole milk tomorrow tho.
    thanks for sharing

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    LDL-C and LDL-p are better measures. Theres little correlation between high cholestrol numbers and an associated CVD risk. In fact, because your TG's are low, i'd say LDL-p would be low (at a glance).

    This study shows that LDL-p (particles) are a much better predictor of increased CVD risk than those with just high LDL-C.
    So essentially all I am saying is that those numbers mean little to me.
    thanks for the link.
    This is all I think I have in my paperwork (unless I'm missing a section on my lipids). where can I get those additional numbers? Should I ask my doc for them next time (dumb question - of course I should)

  15. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post
    thanks for the link.
    This is all I think I have in my paperwork (unless I'm missing a section on my lipids). where can I get those additional numbers? Should I ask my doc for them next time (dumb question - of course I should)
    And further; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292264

    The problem I have is that studies and some articles blanket statement LDL-C and LDL-p dispite evidence showing that high LDL-C but low LDL-p are at a much reduced risk of CVD. In fact, even with low LDL-C (C= cholesterol mass within LDL particle) you are still at risk for CVD if LDL-p is high. Furthermore, a correlation between plasma measurements of different subtypes of fats or lipoproteins and the risk for heart disease, does not have to imply a causative relationship.

    LDL particles come in different sizes (indicated by -p), On one hand you have large cotton ball like particles and on the other, small dense particles. Studies show that the higher numbere of small dense particles you have, the higher the chance of developing CVD whereas more of the Fluffy type may actually be protective.

    There is an inverse correlation between blood levels of triglycerides and particle size. Thus, the higher your triglycerides, the higher the number of small LDL particles. Conversely, the lower your triglycerides, the higher the number of large, fluffy LDL particles.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657464
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  16. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post
    thanks for the link.
    This is all I think I have in my paperwork (unless I'm missing a section on my lipids). where can I get those additional numbers? Should I ask my doc for them next time (dumb question - of course I should)
    I ask my doctor to refer me to a lipidologist. Because i'm from NZ, the medical pathway may differ so i'm not sure how you would go about it.

    FWIW I follow the Perfect Health Diet, hence my belief in saturated fats and understanding the relationship between LDL-p, TG's and CVD.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    I ask my doctor to refer me to a lipidologist. Because i'm from NZ, the medical pathway may differ so i'm not sure how you would go about it.

    FWIW I follow the Perfect Health Diet, hence my belief in saturated fats and understanding the relationship between LDL-p, TG's and CVD.
    Ah a Kiwi eh? My girlfriend is from Australia. I appreciate the reply - I'll have to read it a few times over to get a good grasp on it. My cholesterol is something I am finally taking an interest in now that I am 33. History of heart disease and high chol on fathers side. I'll look into the diet and check out some books like the one you recommended.

    helpful as always jigzz

    I miss red meat so I look forward to justifying it in my diet

  18. Quote Originally Posted by jonpaulevans View Post
    Ah a Kiwi eh? My girlfriend is from Australia. I appreciate the reply - I'll have to read it a few times over to get a good grasp on it. My cholesterol is something I am finally taking an interest in now that I am 33. History of heart disease and high chol on fathers side. I'll look into the diet and check out some books like the one you recommended.

    helpful as always jigzz

    I miss red meat so I look forward to justifying it in my diet
    The thing to make sure is that you find a way to get LDL-C and LDL-p measured, then get them checked after a period of eating saturated fats. Because you have a family history of heart disease, you may have some confounders in there (including limited cholesterol transporters) and therefore may be susceptible to developing low dense LDL particles; in the mean time i'd recommend sticking to your current plan as there is nothing wrong with it, at least until you find somewhere to get a CAC or more comprehensive LDL blood work.

    Just showing you two sides to the LDL debate; its always interesting when things aren't quite as black and white as people make them seem.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  19. God damnit I agree.
    PTAG-CPT, TSCC, ViPR
    Functional Training Hell Workout (An Offday/Cardio Workout!)
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/223675-welcome-functional-training.html

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    And further; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292264

    The problem I have is that studies and some articles blanket statement LDL-C and LDL-p dispite evidence showing that high LDL-C but low LDL-p are at a much reduced risk of CVD. In fact, even with low LDL-C (C= cholesterol mass within LDL particle) you are still at risk for CVD if LDL-p is high. Furthermore, a correlation between plasma measurements of different subtypes of fats or lipoproteins and the risk for heart disease, does not have to imply a causative relationship.

    LDL particles come in different sizes (indicated by -p), On one hand you have large cotton ball like particles and on the other, small dense particles. Studies show that the higher numbere of small dense particles you have, the higher the chance of developing CVD whereas more of the Fluffy type may actually be protective.

    There is an inverse correlation between blood levels of triglycerides and particle size. Thus, the higher your triglycerides, the higher the number of small LDL particles. Conversely, the lower your triglycerides, the higher the number of large, fluffy LDL particles.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19657464
    Thanks for the info, Jigzz

  21. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Thanks for the info, Jigzz
    No problems
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  22. Wow, this has got into a battle.

    Diet differ from person to person and different people get different responses.

    My diet is approx: 1:1:.5 ratio or 40/40/20 meaning 300P/300C/60F approx 3000 cals

    On of my personal freinds who is a IFBB pro has a way different approach their diet is
    1:.5:1.5 ratio a= 150p/75C/100gF= 1800 cals

    Now the person I am speaking is quite smaller than I (it's a she) and both these are our lean bulking diets. She has been begging me to bulk with fats instead of carbs because of how well she does with it. I may next off season to try it out.

    I just wanted to post this because of the big arguments I see on here to show the differnt diet style that work eaqually as well.
    Formutech Nutrition Rep --------------Team IronClad Physiques!!!
    www.formutechnutrition.com------------------ NPC Competitor
    www.facebook.com/fnutrition

  23. Quote Originally Posted by 02sixxer View Post
    Wow, this has got into a battle.

    Diet differ from person to person and different people get different responses.

    My diet is approx: 1:1:.5 ratio or 40/40/20 meaning 300P/300C/60F approx 3000 cals

    On of my personal freinds who is a IFBB pro has a way different approach their diet is
    1:.5:1.5 ratio a= 150p/75C/100gF= 1800 cals

    Now the person I am speaking is quite smaller than I (it's a she) and both these are our lean bulking diets. She has been begging me to bulk with fats instead of carbs because of how well she does with it. I may next off season to try it out.

    I just wanted to post this because of the big arguments I see on here to show the differnt diet style that work eaqually as well.
    Something else I didn't consider either was that people have different percentages of Type I & Type II muscle fibers. Obviously, Type I's are good at burning fat and providing endurance while the faster twitch Type II's are better at using glucose for energy.

    I obviously have lots of Type IIb's (the far right side) since I can eat 400+ grams of carbs, and actually stay lean, if not actually lose some BF.

    And as a side note, I have come to the conclusion that a low fat, high carb, high protein diet is good for people who are already considerably lean, have a high tolerance for carbs and look to exclusively pack on lean muscle mass with minimal fat gain.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Something else I didn't consider either was that people have different percentages of Type I & Type II muscle fibers. Obviously, Type I's are good at burning fat and providing endurance while the faster twitch Type II's are better at using glucose for energy.

    I obviously have lots of Type IIb's (the far right side) since I can eat 400+ grams of carbs, and actually stay lean, if not actually lose some BF.

    And as a side note, I have come to the conclusion that a low fat, high carb, high protein diet is good for people who are already considerably lean, have a high tolerance for carbs and look to exclusively pack on lean muscle mass with minimal fat gain.
    Tomorrow when I have the energy, I will address the facts / and/or bunk behind these statements. For now, good night.
    PTAG-CPT, TSCC, ViPR
    Functional Training Hell Workout (An Offday/Cardio Workout!)
    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/223675-welcome-functional-training.html

  25. Quote Originally Posted by NeighbourMike View Post
    Tomorrow when I have the energy, I will address the facts / and/or bunk behind these statements. For now, good night.
    That sounds a little like a threat. But before you go on, perhaps in an unfriendly way, just know that I am not trying to start a fight here. I have observed over the years that some people are hardwired to do better with aerobics, while others are designed well in strength and mass. I also know (based on conventional research studies) that naturally-gifted endurance trainers have loads of Type I slow twitch fibers, where the fibers have a higher count of mitochondria than do the Fast Twitch Type IIb's. Type IIa's are in the middle and can potientially share both traits of slow & fast twitch fibers.

    I also know that everyone has all three of these types, just in different ratios. These ratios, IMO, is what determines our body's performance and what it is good at. Guys with more slow twitch fibers will tend to be great runners but generally struggle to pack on mass. While it is just the contrary for people like myself.

    Type I is ideal for endurance. Endurance training focuses on fat burning. Fat burning takes oxidation. Oxidation for energy takes lots of mitochondria. These characteristics are a consistent theme in runners. For me it's just the opposite - I have carppy cardio capabilities that I have to intentionally work on to see any improvement. Furthermore, I am naturally strong for my size and I cannot operate very well in a gym without being in a fully glycogen-saturated state. All this tells me that my muscles (while not all of them) are predominantly Type II's of some sort. Probably Type IIb's, which are the most inferior of the three. I'm great at sudden bursts of strength but suck at endurance training.

    Case in point: I weight around 162lbs as of right now @ 5'5". I can:

    Bench 225 X 10-12 on Incline Bench, or 245 X 6.

    Squat (so far) about 365lbs 1RM, doing deep.

    Dead-lift 405lbs 1RM w/ chalk

    Yet I can walk on a 15* incline @ 3.5 mph for 15 minutes and havea a heart rate of 160bpm. Cardio sucks. But this shouldn't surprise you at all. Look at all the strongest men in the world - most of them are huge but also very fat, too. Again, I realize they eat alot. But so does my friend down the street who is 6'0 and 145lbs. His body does a good job pulling from fat for energy while the powerlifters typically have a good body for utilizing glycogen for energy. Hence, the high carb diets you see these types of people on.

    But getting back to my point earlier, how it all ties to your "diet plan". What I was saying is that I do believe some people are predispositioned to get fat on high intake of carbs, while others can eat them all day long. Now assuming that neither of these examples has an autoimmune disorder like Type I Diabetes, my earlier post and the stuff ^^^ could be an indicator as to why people are different at handling certain macros.

    If I were an endurance trainee, as in I was super skinny, lean, struggled with packing on real mass given my frame, and was really good a running - I'd consider a not-so-extreme version of Keto dieting where I put more emphasis on protein and fats over carbs, since my body sucks at manufacturing energy from carbs anyways. Live off the fats, grow off the protein.

    However, I'm not like that at all lol. I'm just the opposite which is why a low fat, high carb & high protein diet has been working decently for me.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    Something else I didn't consider either was that people have different percentages of Type I & Type II muscle fibers. Obviously, Type I's are good at burning fat and providing endurance while the faster twitch Type II's are better at using glucose for energy.

    I obviously have lots of Type IIb's (the far right side) since I can eat 400+ grams of carbs, and actually stay lean, if not actually lose some BF.

    And as a side note, I have come to the conclusion that a low fat, high carb, high protein diet is good for people who are already considerably lean, have a high tolerance for carbs and look to exclusively pack on lean muscle mass with minimal fat gain.
    This I think, is a very valid argument. I haven't yet seen a study which draws a correlation between muscle fiber types and dietary intakes; what we do know is that muscle fiber activation is dependant on the intensity of exercise being performed but what i'm unsure of is if fiber types can alter nutrient requirements at rest or if it really makes any difference. I.e. sitting on a chair reading a book is no longer high intensity, therefore fatty acids are used as a fuel etc. Interesting to see if anyone else knows.

    The only thing i'd throw into the argument is that, although Marathon runners utilise predominatly fat for oxidation, their carb intakes can exceed 7-8g per KG of bodyweight.

    Research time Nice thinking fueled.
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Representative
    X-gels: Arachidonic Acid made affordable

  27. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    This I think, is a very valid argument. I haven't yet seen a study which draws a correlation between muscle fiber types and dietary intakes; what we do know is that muscle fiber activation is dependant on the intensity of exercise being performed but what i'm unsure of is if fiber types can alter nutrient requirements at rest or if it really makes any difference. I.e. sitting on a chair reading a book is no longer high intensity, therefore fatty acids are used as a fuel etc. Interesting to see if anyone else knows.

    The only thing i'd throw into the argument is that, although Marathon runners utilise predominatly fat for oxidation, their carb intakes can exceed 7-8g per KG of bodyweight.

    Research time Nice thinking fueled.

    Someone needs to get to the bottom of this within the next few years. We need an explanation as to why I rock the gym while others dont.
  28. Re: My Diet Plan


    Thinking muscle fiber type has an influence on dietary needs is just silly. Your activities has a much bigger influence. Such as a wrestler vs a long distance runner but take a group of people who all have different fiber dominance and have them workout and nutrient needs will be the same. I think what you guys are confusing is comparing metabolic efficient to metabolic inefficiency.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

  29. Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Thinking muscle fiber type has an influence on dietary needs is just silly. Your activities has a much bigger influence. Such as a wrestler vs a long distance runner but take a group of people who all have different fiber dominance and have them workout and nutrient needs will be the same. I think what you guys are confusing is comparing metabolic efficient to metabolic inefficiency.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    Not that I have any clue as to which point is right but... Let's assume the subjects are working out in a certain way that is best suited to their muscle fibers. For example a long distance runner is running at almost full effort and a powerlifter is lifting close to 1 RM and each are doing this for the same length of time. Is there a chance that the nutrient needs will be different or should be different. Or another way to think of it is to ask if each would benefit from a different amount of the various nutrients - or a different ratio or c/p/f? Not debating, Just curious. It's an interesting idea.

    Or are the nutrients or ratios the same (or similar) and it's just the calories or meal timing that sort of differ from one type of athlete to the other?

    If not - what then makes certain people respond better or worse to a particular ratio? The Met efficiency as Judo stated?
  30. Re: My Diet Plan


    Think of it this way. We know that across all sports a ketogenic diet (once fat adapted) has been shown to not significantly effect strength gains or performance.

    Now is it optimal? Would performance change with different ratios such as more carbs? This is going to be highly individualized and will vary depending on lots of factors and I don't believe muscle fiber types would be one of those factors but I suppose anything is possible.

    Ultimately anyone can go on a high fat/low carb or low fat/high carb or whatever type diet and make progress.



    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    PESCIENCE.COM

    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Critique my diet plan etc.
    By JordanYek in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2012, 11:13 AM
  2. hey i need help with my diet plan!!
    By HarleyPitts in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-27-2010, 06:06 PM
  3. What do you guys think about my Diet plan?
    By Changing in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-05-2005, 08:28 PM
  4. My diet Plan (rookie) please help
    By tommyboy in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-25-2004, 11:32 AM
  5. My diet plan...first time so any advice is welcomed.
    By tommy36p in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-01-2004, 04:42 AM
Log in
Log in