Is It Macros Or Total Calories
- 08-04-2008, 04:19 PM
Is It Macros Or Total Calories
hey guys this is the problem i have. I have no idea if it depends on the total amount of calories you take in or the breakdown of protein carbs fat. I understand that calories will dictate weight so is it carbs protein and fat that change body composition??
any help is much appreciated
- 08-04-2008, 09:02 PM
Both, If only Macros mattered, you could eat 17 calories a day and bulk and if only calories mattered you could eat 1,600 calories a day of pure dextrose and lose weight.
Experimentation is the only way to find the best nutritional approach for yourself, along with hours of research too.
- 08-04-2008, 09:47 PM
08-04-2008, 10:06 PM
I think it is totally dependant on your goals. When your cutting or trying to lose weight watching your total calories is very important. If your bulking on the other hand it is more important to watch and count macros to make sure your giving your body everything it needs to grow(enough protein carbs and fats), and the total calories at the end when on a bulk isnt as important as long as your macro goal is high.
08-05-2008, 05:33 PM
it is a combination of both. Any calories eaton above caloric maintanence level will result in weight gain, calories below caloric maintanence result in weight loss, obviously. once you figure out your goals and amount of calories you should take in, then begin adjusting your macro's. different approaches work for different people (low fat, high carb; high fat, low carb; high carb, high fat, etc) it all comes down to what works for you and what you're trying to accomplish. trial and error is the only way to figure it out
08-06-2008, 07:03 PM
It is energy in vs. energy out. If you ingest sufficient protein and get fats primarily from Essential Fatty Acids and Polyunsaturated fats, and don't go overboard on fat intake, the carb choices and timing will be secondary.
08-06-2008, 09:10 PM
08-07-2008, 12:56 PM
How did you arrive at 2500 cals/day based on the above numbers? And, how do you know 2500 cals/day is the correct number for cutting? What is your level of maintenance, based on current activity level?
I'm assuming, based on your above macros, that you are currently around 10% BF. Grams of PRO should be mimimum Lean Body Mass (LBM) * 1.5. So in your case, assuming 10% BF (or above), 250g ((185 * .9) * 1.5).
What are you using for your sources of fat? Once PRO and FAT are dialed in, the total macro count can be driven by adjusting CHO.
08-07-2008, 05:15 PM
thanks for the help so far guys
08-08-2008, 02:23 PM
the macros only matter to the extent that you get sufficient protein and fats, and then the carb sources (if any) become significant after that. But as others have said, total caloric intake defines whether your weight goes up or down, the macros somewhat effect composition. A diet of 3500 cals a day of twinkies would have you end up with quite a different body than 3500 cals a day of salmon. Overall quality proteins and fats, and minimally processed complex carbs are what you should look at. Remember, there are essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, and no such thing as an essential carb.
08-08-2008, 04:20 PM
08-08-2008, 04:24 PM
Yeah, it may take some time, or even a few tries to get used to it, but it works well. i've been carbless for the last 4 days now other than trace from veggies and a little bit of matoldextrin in a couple of shakes (maybe 15g a day tops from shakes)
08-08-2008, 04:27 PM
I actually feel better without carbohydrates because I do not have to deal with my blood sugar being all over the place. I have constant energy and it does not effect my performance in the gym. Trace carbs from veggies and shakes have little to no impact on blood sugar so I do not even worry about them.
Forgot to mention also that when i do take in carbs, anabolic pump and neovar come in verrry handy! I use them on refeed days only.
08-08-2008, 05:04 PM
Total calories for weight loss or weight gain, macros are what those calories should be comprised of.
08-09-2008, 01:37 PM
First and formost, total calories affects both weight change and composition. A small calorie surplus will give lean gains, A large calorie surplus will give fatty gains. Conversely, a small deficit will promote mostly fat loss while a large deficit will also burn muscle.
The next biggest influence comes from meal sizes and frequency. More frequent, smaller meals provides a steadier more consistent supply of nutrients and will encourage leaner gains and less muscle catabolism during cutting.
Macros come third. Fat is a concentrated slow burning fuel whereas carbs (whole food) are less concentrated and burn faster. Because of this fat is better suited as a steady energy supply but it is not as suitable for repetitive, intensive exercise. Carbs can supply energy like fat if consumed incrementally.
08-09-2008, 01:42 PM
Performance nutrition is not the same as meeting basic nutritional needs.
Although not required for basic metabolism, carbohydrates do have beneficial properties. Additionally, there has been no mention of micronutrition; food is more than just energy.
Your last comment about no-carb diets will keep people from gaining bodyfat regardless of calorie intake is just wrong.
08-10-2008, 12:04 AM
You criticize SureShot, yet you give out misinformed advice. Perhaps you should review your own responses and the nutritional garbage that occupies your brain.Originally Posted by Nitrox
08-10-2008, 12:12 AM
If you want to dispute something, do it with some counter-info, not garbage.
08-10-2008, 12:13 AM
I'll add to this as some other posters have commented already on, but lets summarize.
Total calories (surplus (weight gain), restriction (weight loss)) --> Macro prescription (Typically protein first, then carb, then fat left over. Some people do protein first, then fat (to allow for more variety in their protein foods), then carbs) --> adjust based on results.
Generally, training volume can increase during surplus of calories. Lower the volume during deficits. Always keep intensity up since load is the primary mechanism for hypertrophy.
Do cardio if you want. Add some if you need to increase your energy expenditure. If you want to do some HIIT, be smart about where you do it so it doesn't interfere with your weight work. Generally people will do some cardio in some fashion during surplus calorie and restriction calorie phases. These are not rules, but just some generalizations. Generalizations suck still.
Worry about the damn details after you figure out and master the basics regardless of goals. Set up your diet, train hard, record progress (load records, rep records, body fat readings, weight readings, pictures, etc), and then make adjustments.
Supplements are included in "details".
I can't wait to see the hate from this post. DUDE, you need to do high reps to tone! Mind/muscle contraction theory bro. *sigh*
08-10-2008, 12:16 AM
1- The cost
2-It puts me in a more aggressive, "clearer" state of mind if that makes sense, which is a good thing, but not in everyday life within the city.
The only carbs I get now are from Bananas and sweet potatoes, nothing else.
08-10-2008, 12:22 AM
Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. [email protected]
PM me if you want me to email you the entire PDF
Meal frequency, TEF craps, etc ... I'll just point you to this:
Leangains: Excerpt from my upcoming book
I'm not necessarily and IF student, nor do I practice it as the LeanGains system does, but the excerpt from Martin's book dispells MF very well.
08-10-2008, 12:30 AM
I'm not JUST disagreeing with your posts, I agree with some points, but it's mainly the way you put them.
Sharing knowledge and arguing all day is a lot better than ending the thread and having it locked due to flaming, that's all.
08-10-2008, 12:46 AM
I sometimes sit on here just on occasion just to read some of the crap that still gets thrown around here that has been proven over and over to be false. The 6 meals / day, small meals, always lift between 8-12 reps, lift to failure, not lift to failure, don't combine certain foods with others, you need a post workout shake dude!, etc, etc, etc.
I just wish people would learn to think critically a bit more, and reestablish their bull**** filter when they read stuff and call people out when they are wrong.
Yes, I came off harsh, my apologies again.
08-10-2008, 01:06 AM
08-10-2008, 02:37 AM
TEF and boosting metabolism has little or nothing to do with the advantages of meal frequency. It has to do with the body's limit to the rate at which it can build lean tissue and the fact that it does not discard food energy. Any energy supplied at a rate greater than what is required for basic metabolism, activity, and lean tissue growth will be stored (e.g. fat). Greater MF keeps the energy surplus (or deficit) for a longer duration at a less 'fattening' rate.
Another perspective: I take insulin to manage diabetes. If I were to eat a single 2500 calorie meal I would have to take 2-3 times more TOTAL insulin than if I broke those calories down into 5 or 6 meals. If you subscribe to the view that lower to moderate insulin levels promote lean anabolism and progressively higher insulin levels promote higher rates of fat storage given the same nutrient profiles, then low MF will bias towards a longer period of high insulin levels followed by an extended period of catabolism to tap into the recent stored energy to fuel ongoing metabolic activity.
08-10-2008, 03:01 AM
Macro proportions are rather important IMO when it comes to seeing results in the smallest time-frame. The more on point your diet is, especially in regards to macronutrient allowances, the speedier your fat loss or muscle gain will be.
Total calorie count is very important, and cannot be separated from marconutrient proportions IMHO.
08-10-2008, 05:34 AM
Meal frequency and energy balance.
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
Please don't use your diabetes situation with healthy individuals. Different context my friend. You can't apply that universally. It's not physiologically the same.
Also if you think insulin is the major culprit for fat storage, then stay put in 1990 bodybuilding magazines and hang out with the Scivation crew. It is a COMPONENT, but it's not the CULPRIT.
Perhaps you should read this:
You have a lot to read! I'll post more studies if you want. Your call.
08-10-2008, 05:37 AM
08-10-2008, 10:17 AM
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life. Lao Tse 6th century BC
08-10-2008, 10:26 AM
Where in my points did I mention that upping meal frequency is a way to control obesity? Scroll way back up and you will that number one is total calories. Within that, all things equal, upping meal frequency will have a bias towards less fat gain during a bulk and less muscle loss during a cut.
Also, since we are talking frequency, which has a time component, your position suggests that there is no value in meal timings whatsoever. If you think that fasting all day long and having one giant meal at the end of the day is just as effective as spacing smaller ones throughout, including pre, post, and if you are an endurance athlete, during WO then great. Good luck with that.
Again, go back and read it. I did not say elevated insulin is the culprit for fat gain. I said that all things equal, progressively higher levels lead to progressively more fat gain.
Even if you don't believe in its value, you should try throwing some snacks into your regimen. I think you are experiencing some serious blood glucose, causing your irritability...
Similar Forum Threads
- By bigzach1234 in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 1Last Post: 03-13-2009, 12:58 AM
- By stfdkd37 in forum Weight LossReplies: 3Last Post: 10-02-2008, 07:48 PM
- By RoberG623 in forum Male Anti-Aging MedicineReplies: 8Last Post: 06-28-2007, 10:02 PM
- By xaktsaroth in forum BulkingReplies: 15Last Post: 03-24-2006, 11:01 AM
- By Goat in forum Weight LossReplies: 0Last Post: 05-18-2005, 01:19 AM