My Diet Plan

[jonpaulevans]

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.

I have cholesterol of 330+ so I have to watch my sat fats. But it's not like I don't eat them. Of my total fat intake they represent about 1/4-1/5. I've read the benefits of sat fats - but I also read the dangers of high cholesterol and high sat fats. Avoiding sat fats doesn't make my diet low fat though. I eat plenty of unsat fat options - almonds, almond milk, fish, eggs, olive oil... I'm about a 45/35/20.

thanks fuel

[jimbuick]

As a general rule, for most people what works better than percentages are:

1 gram Protein per lb BW(minimum)
.5 gram Fat per lb BW (minimum)
Rest of calorie total from Carbs


This can obviously be toyed with for your personal body type but is generally a better idea than a Percentage. His point is valid in that a 40/40/20 split will be very skewed based upon calorie goal.

4000 kCal at 40/40/20 will be high in protein while the same split at 2500 kCal will be ridiculously low in fats.

[jonpaulevans]

As a general rule, for most people what works better than percentages are:

1 gram Protein per lb BW(minimum)
.5 gram Fat per lb BW (minimum)
Rest of calorie total from Carbs


This can obviously be toyed with for your personal body type but is generally a better idea than a Percentage. His point is valid in that a 40/40/20 split will be very skewed based upon calorie goal.

4000 kCal at 40/40/20 will be high in protein while the same split at 2500 kCal will be ridiculously low in fats.

calories are fuel needed for energy output (we all know this) - if your overall calories are in line with "fuel needed" or energy consumption than you're ok (assuming your macros are in balance and in line with the same goals). The ratio should represent a balanced diet. perhaps a better and more valid point is to determine your ratios based on goals and purpose. If you want to lose weight ratio A, if you want to gain lean mass use ratio B. If you want to maintain use ratio 3. nonetheless, ratios are secondary (in planning) to caloric intake/energy needs. no one is going on a 6000 calorie diet to keep fat and protein in check - you cant scarf that many clean carbs so you boost fats (calorie dense foods). conversely no one cuts calories in half without cutting fat (calorie dense foods) first - so yeah, ratios adjust. Maybe we're all speaking the same language here but the thing I'm trying to point out is that the ratio is secondary to caloric intake which should be accurately and intelligently planned out. and once it is than the ratio should be adjusted with equal intelligence and sensibility. And using percentages is a way a lot of people plan their diet

[jonpaulevans]

maybe the best way to sum it up is to say this: Find an appropriate ratio scheme that fits your diet and exercise goals and that makes you feel good. If a 4000 cal diet is giving you too much protein then lower the calories.

[cumminslifter]

c'mon dude - you're killing me.

whys that

[cumminslifter]

As a general rule, for most people what works better than percentages are:

1 gram Protein per lb BW(minimum)
.5 gram Fat per lb BW (minimum)
Rest of calorie total from Carbs


This can obviously be toyed with for your personal body type but is generally a better idea than a Percentage. His point is valid in that a 40/40/20 split will be very skewed based upon calorie goal.

4000 kCal at 40/40/20 will be high in protein while the same split at 2500 kCal will be ridiculously low in fats.

this is exactly what i said

[fueledpassion]

I get what ya'll are saying. There is a problem with the argument though.

Someone who needs 2000 calories a day doesn't need as much fats, carbs or protein in general to maintain health as a person who needs 6000 calories per day. If 20% fats is healthy for a 250lb guy, it should also be healthy for a 150lb guy. If eating 40% protein is adequate for a 250lb guy on any given diet, then 40% protein should also be adequate for a 150lb guy.

Does not everyone in the room understand that percentages are a type of measurement that is not tied to a specific unit of measure? Percentaged translate to any size person...

Just because my 20% fat intake is 1000kcals less in per day compared to some other guy doesn't mean that I'm "knocking my macros out of wack". They are very much the same exact macros. I am not following what you guys are trying to say. The whole point of using percentages is so that it never gets knocked out of wack. I can't go around telling people to eat 250g protein daily to build muscle, because in some cases that is true and some it isn't. Yet I can say, eat 40% in protein. That applies every where.

Percentages don't decide how big the pie is. They only decide how it is sliced.

[jimbuick]

I get what ya'll are saying. There is a problem with the argument though.

Someone who needs 2000 calories a day doesn't need as much fats, carbs or protein in general to maintain health as a person who needs 6000 calories per day. If 20% fats is healthy for a 250lb guy, it should also be healthy for a 150lb guy. If eating 40% protein is adequate for a 250lb guy on any given diet, then 40% protein should also be adequate for a 150lb guy.

Does not everyone in the room understand that percentages are a type of measurement that is not tied to a specific unit of measure? Percentaged translate to any size person...

Just because my 20% fat intake is 1000kcals less in per day compared to some other guy doesn't mean that I'm "knocking my macros out of wack". They are very much the same exact macros. I am not following what you guys are trying to say. The whole point of using percentages is so that it never gets knocked out of wack. I can't go around telling people to eat 250g protein daily to build muscle, because in some cases that is true and some it isn't. Yet I can say, eat 40% in protein. That applies every where.

Percentages don't decide how big the pie is. They only decide how it is sliced.

Apparently you are missing the point.

Percentages are not good for everyone. Especially 40/40/20.

I fairly regularly top 4000 kCal a day. For a 40/40/20 split it would have me eating 400g Protein at a bodyweight of 165-170. Which is WAY more than I could utilize for tissue repair.

While eating at 1-1.5g protein per lb I could have only 250g tops and eat more fats, and more importantly carbs (glycogen replenishment as I workout 2x a day)

40/40/20 = not adaptable in many situations.

[jonpaulevans]

the ratios are based on what many individuals have found to be healthy balances of macros - there are several splits. Some splits are radical such as in the case of an adkins diet while low fat diets are greatly different. Fueledpassion did a good job explaining what I tried to explain. No matter how you look at ratios, we have ratios in each meal every day. it is believed to be efficient and easiest on our system to keep the ratio in (regular) balance as well as to keep a regular eating cycle with good variety of healthy choices. Therefore, while variance will occur, to have a goal of xx/yy/zz ratio is important. The diets of "double" caloric needs:expenditure tend to be short term but still (by nature) have a ratio and that ratio needs to be thought out.

Fuel's example of 40/40/20 isn't the only example - he said it's what he uses now in his training. It may be what split his body uses best and he may not change it no matter the caloric intake.

So many people pick a total caloric intake arbitrarily...

Try building your diet around what your body needs. If a well known, healthy ratio leaves you with a massive intake of excess protein or fat then more than likely you are trying to consume way too many calories and it's not a problem with the ratio outlined.

Guys, there is too much evidence to support the ratio method as opposed to the meathead idea of "just f'in eat a ton of calories. While I'm not much more than a meathead, I at least know the value and importance in fine tuning my ratios to discover what allows me to feel and perform at my best.

If you don't believe me, just look up some well-known healthy diets and do the ratio splits. I bet you'll see a trend.

[Jiigzz]

the idea of "there is no such thing as 'bad' food" is fine if you're starving - but it loses merit in the scope of eating to be healthy (energetic/strong/focused). Sandwiches are typically high in sodium/preservatives, fat and high glycemic carbs.

As far as sodium: Sodium is fine up until a point. Too much sodium is unhealthy - high blood pressure/hypertension...among other things

Saturated Fats: I assume you know there are several types of fats that are broken into two categories for this point and they are "good" and "bad" fats. Unsat fats are good while all others are bad (generally speaking). I have high cholesterol so saturated fats are a huge no-no when possible.

So when looking at my two food lists, I hope you see the difference between the choices I've outlined and the importance of making the right choices.

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.

[Jiigzz]

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.

[jonpaulevans]

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.

[fueledpassion]

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.

[jonpaulevans]

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

[JudoJosh]

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

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2

[jimbuick]

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.

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.

[jonpaulevans]

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.

[jimbuick]

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.

[jonpaulevans]

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.

[jimbuick]

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.