Is It Macros Or Total Calories

[mcneil0303]

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

 

[Omen]

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.

 

[mcneil0303]

bumpp

 

[Timmo]

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.

 

[BeafSteak]

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

 

[t-bone2]

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.

 

[mcneil0303]

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.

so more so worry about protein and fat im cutting right now im 6' 185 taking in around 2500 cal a day with 250 protein 150-180 carbs 70 grams of fat

 

[t-bone2]

so more so worry about protein and fat im cutting right now im 6' 185 taking in around 2500 cal a day with 250 protein 150-180 carbs 70 grams of fat

Based on your macro breakdown above you are getting between 2230 and 2350 cals/day.

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.

 

[mcneil0303]

Based on your macro breakdown above you are getting between 2230 and 2350 cals/day.

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.

my maintenance is 3000 i mean i have gone to different websites and that is around what are all the answers im getting are. And for the 2500 calories i am right around there every day with my fat coming from eggs peanut butter milk nuts and efa. i believe im higher than 10%bf so i need to up the protein alittle more

thanks for the help so far guys

 

[EasyEJL]

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.

 

[SureShot]

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.

Thank you! I am sick of having the argument with people that you NEED carbohydrates. I RARELY eat carbs. (when i do its on a cheat day, michelob ultra maybe a cheeseburger or hot dog w/ bun at a ball game, or a vpx bar if I do not have time for a meal.) Ground turkey, cheese, eggs, some bacon, fish oil caps, MCT oil, steak make up the bulk of my diet. This also keeps me from gaining bodyfat regardless of caloric intake, which probably fluctuates between 2200 on the low end to 4500 on the high.

 

[EasyEJL]

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)

 

[SureShot]

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.

 

[Rugger]

Both.

Total calories for weight loss or weight gain, macros are what those calories should be comprised of.

 

[Nitrox]

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.

 

[Nitrox]

Thank you! I am sick of having the argument with people that you NEED carbohydrates. I RARELY eat carbs. (when i do its on a cheat day, michelob ultra maybe a cheeseburger or hot dog w/ bun at a ball game, or a vpx bar if I do not have time for a meal.) Ground turkey, cheese, eggs, some bacon, fish oil caps, MCT oil, steak make up the bulk of my diet. This also keeps me from gaining bodyfat regardless of caloric intake, which probably fluctuates between 2200 on the low end to 4500 on the high.

This is a moot argument.

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.

 

[Cerberus]

Thank you! I am sick of having the argument with people that you NEED carbohydrates. I RARELY eat carbs. (when i do its on a cheat day, michelob ultra maybe a cheeseburger or hot dog w/ bun at a ball game, or a vpx bar if I do not have time for a meal.) Ground turkey, cheese, eggs, some bacon, fish oil caps, MCT oil, steak make up the bulk of my diet. This also keeps me from gaining bodyfat regardless of caloric intake, which probably fluctuates between 2200 on the low end to 4500 on the high.

You're an idiot. Caloric surplus = weight gain, Caloric restriction = weight loss. Don't try to rationalize and educate people with your brotelligence.

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.

You criticize SureShot, yet you give out misinformed advice. Perhaps you should review your own responses and the nutritional garbage that occupies your brain.

 

[Omen]

You're an idiot. Caloric surplus = weight gain, Caloric restriction = weight loss. Don't try to rationalize and educate people with your brotelligence.

Gary Taubes' New book shows certain incidents where people are severely under fed or in some instances eating 1,000 calories over on a zero carb diet than their maintenance and don't gain any weight, yes those are most likely extremes, BUT, they are proven in medical studies.

If you want to dispute something, do it with some counter-info, not garbage.

You criticize SureShot, yet you give out misinformed advice. Perhaps you should review your own responses and the nutritional garbage that occupies your brain.

Perhaps you should point out the false info and tell the truth yourself?

:FUfinger:

 

[Cerberus]

Both.

Total calories for weight loss or weight gain, macros are what those calories should be comprised of.

Wow, some fresh air.

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*

 

[Omen]

Thank you! I am sick of having the argument with people that you NEED carbohydrates. I RARELY eat carbs. (when i do its on a cheat day, michelob ultra maybe a cheeseburger or hot dog w/ bun at a ball game, or a vpx bar if I do not have time for a meal.) Ground turkey, cheese, eggs, some bacon, fish oil caps, MCT oil, steak make up the bulk of my diet. This also keeps me from gaining bodyfat regardless of caloric intake, which probably fluctuates between 2200 on the low end to 4500 on the high.

I remember eating nothing but fatty meat for months, it's great and I wouldn't mind doing it, except :

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.

 

[Cerberus]

Gary Taubes' New book shows certain incidents where people are severely under fed or in some instances eating 1,000 calories over on a zero carb diet than their maintenance and don't gain any weight, yes those are most likely extremes, BUT, they are proven in medical studies.

If you want to dispute something, do it with some counter-info, not garbage.





Perhaps you should point out the false info and tell the truth yourself?

:FUfinger:

Perhaps you should read:
Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.

Bray GA.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. [email protected]

PM me if you want me to email you the entire PDF


False info?
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.

 

[Omen]

Perhaps you should read:
Obes Rev. 2008 May;9(3):251-63.

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes; New York: AA Knopf.

Bray GA.

Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA. [email protected]

PM me if you want me to email you the entire PDF


False info?
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.

Could you have said that before? instead of calling the due a ****ing idiot and the other one full of garbage?

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.

 

[Cerberus]

Could you have said that before? instead of calling the due a ****ing idiot and the other one full of garbage?

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.

My apologies.

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 bullshit filter when they read stuff and call people out when they are wrong.

Yes, I came off harsh, my apologies again.

 

[Omen]

My apologies.

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 bullshit filter when they read stuff and call people out when they are wrong.

Yes, I came off harsh, my apologies again.

Fully agreed :thumbsup:, there's a lot of **** circulating in the fitness/bodybuilding community being handed down by newbies and amateur lifters to other newbies, you can't get to everyone, those who think critically will get to the right info, those who don't never will even after presenting it to them, not everyone can be helped.

 

[Nitrox]

You criticize SureShot, yet you give out misinformed advice. Perhaps you should review your own responses and the nutritional garbage that occupies your brain.

False info?
Meal frequency, TEF craps, etc ... I'll just point you to this:
Leangains: Excerpt from my upcoming book

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

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.

 

[ozarkaBRAND]

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.

 

[Cerberus]

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

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.

Oh no. It keeps getting better. Please tell me you read and interpreted the link I posted before I take more time telling you are wrong (but in a nice way this time) and why.

ahhhhhh ....

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:
http://www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

You have a lot to read! I'll post more studies if you want. Your call.

 

[Cerberus]

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.

Of course macro proprotions are important. I think ten thousand other people here said they were.

Order of importance:
1) Calories
2) Macro prescriptions

Done.

 

[jonny21]

Of course macro proprotions are important. I think ten thousand other people here said they were.

Order of importance:
1) Calories
2) Macro prescriptions

Done.

Agreed. :thumbsup:

Although, it may have been easier to see your point for some, as well as more harmonious, if you didn't start out calling someone an idiot for their knowledge deficit.

 

[Nitrox]

Oh no. It keeps getting better. Please tell me you read and interpreted the link I posted before I take more time telling you are wrong (but in a nice way this time) and why.

ahhhhhh ....

Do you have any independent thought or do you just throw up any study that happens to have some similar words in it?

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.

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.

My diabetes example is just personal testimony that how the body metoblizes food energy is path dependent (e.g. how much and when it is consumed). You choose to shoe-horn studies into the context of your argument while I try to use info that I have some experience with.

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... :food:

 

[EasyEJL]

I remember eating nothing but fatty meat for months, it's great and I wouldn't mind doing it, except :

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.

You know what your side effect #2 is from? Higher testosterone.

 

[B5150]

Ketones tend to be a most potent form of energy for me too. It can almost produce a manic state at times. I used to love to run keto diets for that reason and the tremendous appetite blunting effect after about the second week..

There's a lot of urban legend of folk lore around carbs and carb phobia but anecdotally, my energy levels tend to be higher and more steady and I sleep much better when carbs are eliminated from my diet. Unfortunately its not the most anabolic or social convenient diet to maintain.

No science here just speaking my mind...

 

[Rugger]

Some people in here remind me of my parents. I put them both on low-zero carb diets. My dad wasn't losing weight and asked me why. I watched him eat for a few days and it was because he was eating like 4k calories somehow. LOL. CALORIES DO MATTER!

 

[Cerberus]

Do you have any independent thought or do you just throw up any study that happens to have some similar words in it?

Your own "independent" thoughts seem to be governed by the old mythological ways of doing things. Mine are governed by people who know what the hell they are talking about. I could spew out supposely independent thoughts, but why not enforce them with people again .... who know what the hell is going on that actually can filter out the bullshit. Your choice.

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.

Prove it ... give me some hard data that shows this in humans. Otherwise your foundational support on that fact is nothing but bro-talk.

pubmed.com ... scholar.google.com ... search up my friend.

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.

Did I mention TIME in any of my arguments? Never ... so stop assuming what I said, since this is obviously your way of defending yourself by making false claims. Another brilliant move.

I am a HUGE proponent of timing of nutrients ... especially around workout periods.

Sure, frequency has a time component, but it gives you no argumentative stance against me assuming I do NOT take it into consideration. Applaud your efforts.

My diabetes example is just personal testimony that how the body metoblizes food energy is path dependent (e.g. how much and when it is consumed). You choose to shoe-horn studies into the context of your argument while I try to use info that I have some experience with.

Well, use your experiences with other diabetes patients. Not us.

Please, I'm not trying pressuring anyone into a corner by providing studies. I suppose we can't supply scientifically performed studies to validate what we are saying to hopefully bring some insight to the argument? This is where the "broz" get all pissy. You show them research and they cry about it always using a statement just like yourself. "Dude, it works for me and I'm jakt'd!" Carry on with that if you wish.

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... :food:

You are still jumping on the high-gi-to-much-insulin-makes-me-obese-broz stance.

I'm not irritable, but rather trying to help people (hopefully 1 or more here) to simply go out and question everything you know regarding your nutritional beliefs, and try to validate them with concrete data that is available to you. We all have access to this data, its just how we interpret that ****s people.

And the sad thing is that if people do 10 meals / day, or 3 meals / day. All people who setup their calories and macros correctly, train hard, recover hard ... etc will get results. Thus, the 10 meal / day guy has already affirmed to himself that 10 meals / day is the way to go since it worked. The 3 meals / day guy has results too and he affirms that 3 is the way to go. Then we have the 10 guy and the 3 guy on these internet forums spewing out bullshit that their way is the best way because they got jakt and have visable abs.

So essentially just study up on figuring out what things truly matter, then study the hell out of that. Then come up with your own conclusions. Just make sure you can validate your points when asked.

 

[Cerberus]

You know what your side effect #2 is from? Higher testosterone.

This has been shown if you have low fat levels (I believe <10-15% of daily kcals) your testosterone can be affected negatively. You raise fat, your test goes up ... yes.

But don't give a simple answer like this. There could many other possible reasons why this happens for him.

 

[Cerberus]

Ketones tend to be a most potent form of energy for me too. It can almost produce a manic state at times. I used to love to run keto diets for that reason and the tremendous appetite blunting effect after about the second week..

No science here just speaking my mind...

There are lot of people that feel the same way. Lyle talks about this in his Ketogenic Diet book. I've experienced this as well. I've also experienced an increase libido when I'm < 50g carbs. Some people it gets crushed.

 

[Rugger]

You guys all need to chill. Same side, same team.

 

[B5150]

There are lot of people that feel the same way. Lyle talks about this in his Ketogenic Diet book. I've experienced this as well. I've also experienced an increase libido when I'm < 50g carbs. Some people it gets crushed.

I have been at this for quite a while myself. I am a "study" of as much physiology as I am capable of understanding. I am also a study of several different diet types as well. I am very familiar with Lyle and Duchaines work and the Ketogenic/LowCarb diets.

I am also very much a "study" of my own physiology and my own phenotype. There are certain generalities that are superceded by phenotypes. Generalities such as calories in calories out are superceded by phenotype IMHO and IMPE.

I have had discussion with several credible individuals who have corroborated much of my anecdotal physiological self studies. Just one excerpt.

There are several things physiologically that point you in the right direction on which approach is optimal, so if you pay attention to these, it can sharpen your learning curve.

Sporto

I know Layne (not personally but in cyber) and have followed (more like watched) him and Derrek (Beast) for a long time now. I remember on your video with Layne you discussed some things about your nutrition profile regarding carbs. I don't recall the detail but I know you guys discussed it.

I know that physiology plays a huge part in how we process nutrients as well as our setpoint. How have you and or others (Layne and his clients) been able to determine what is ideal nutrition for your phenotype?

I know there is some science behind phenotype dieting but am unsure, without the help of a physiologist, to determine my true physiology and or phenotype. I as surely an endo but (but who knows, may lean to meso somewhat too) but how does one know for sure?

Obviously starving myself or running myself to death on a treadmill is not the answer.

Just curious.

We very briefly touched on this, but you are right...there are several things to take into consideration (and not all physiological either) when setting up the most optimal diet for someone.

There are some things just within our own bodies that sort of "point" to the right direction for us. For instance, there is a fairly strong correlation between the "endo" phenotype and those particular people having better mood and energy on low carb/ketogenic diets - obvisouly because of the role insulin is playing within their bodies. That, to me, is an obvious sign right there. There needs to be a low carb/ketogenic approach to their dieting methods for cutting/maintaining/bulking. Cutting would involve more refeeds (think CKD, TKD, etc...), maintaining and bulking might be something more along the lines of low carb or iso-caloric. The point being, that you would NOT put someone like this on moderate to high carb approach. They will feel like crap all the time, their energy levels will be a roller coaster with lots of crashes, and they will ultimately just end up quitting.

Take me for instance. I'm extremely insulin sensitive (obvisouly if you've seen my journal and saw how high my carbs were even 1 week out from contest). But, in years past I tried the low carb approach. I was downright miserable. Now? I'm a little lethargic at times just from low calories, but I have excellent mood and energy most of the time. That tells me I'm using the more optimal approach for my body. Incidentally, my body before was telling me to stop the low carb approach LOL

There is more than one way to skin a cat. With some trial and error, paying attention to your body, and some basic common sense, you'll be able to quickly see what route to start with (and then tweak beyond that) to make things optimal for you and whatever your goals are.

Hope this helps...

Sporto

It did. It is an affirmation and refresher.

You reminded me how damn good I have felt being ketogenic

Psychology and physiology often play cat and mouse with you. I love the carbs but they don't love me.

Thanks.

Yep...that right there is your answer (whether it's the one you wanted to hear or not)

Sporto

Now I am not saying that ketogenic is the best for me. I am also not saying it isn't. But I will say that I take what everyone says with a grain of salt. I consider the science, the theory, the supporting data and apply it to myself to see if the evidence presents itself as viable to me, my phenotype and my goals.

 

[EasyEJL]

remember that the best dieticians of the 70s and 80s thought that dietary cholesterol affected serum cholesterol, and that low fat diets (below 10%) were better for you... So what todays best dieticians say I also take with a grain (maybe a few grains) of salt. But to inject some comedy

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[jonny21]

remember that the best dieticians of the 70s and 80s thought that dietary cholesterol affected serum cholesterol, and that low fat diets (below 10%) were better for you... So what todays best dieticians say I also take with a grain (maybe a few grains) of salt. But to inject some comedy

Let's not blame the Dietitians. They were basing their information on current medical practice. Try to keep in mind that most of their practice was based on what physicians were writing and prescribing. I think it was Dean Ornish, MD that came up with the <10%fat diet


Also, don't forget that most dieitians back in the 70's and 80's were not as well informed and in the informational loop as they are now. Thanks to the world wide web. Now they can do their own independant research, have access to thousands of studies, and most importantly they can draw their own conclusions.

 

[Rugger]

remember that the best dieticians of the 70s and 80s thought that dietary cholesterol affected serum cholesterol, and that low fat diets (below 10%) were better for you... So what todays best dieticians say I also take with a grain (maybe a few grains) of salt. But to inject some comedy

Was that quote from Independence Day? LOL

 

[EasyEJL]

close, men in black

 

[Sxhawnn]

hmmm damn thats lot of info to digest in this thread. If I was the OP i'd be confused as hell by now. LOL I think a little personal experimentation is in order. Just stick to the basics and some common sense and adjust if you don't like to results your getting.

Eat lean proteins
Eat good fats
Watch your carbs
Don't gorge yourself
and excersize

I tried the "scientific route" with the bmi and all the crazy caloric calculations. But at the end of the day, I ended up just eating

chickenbreast/broccoli/oatmeal/protein shakes

LOL I am admittedly a noob so maybe this is "noob advice" but so far i'm down 23 pounds and 3 inches on my waist in 6 weeks while i've added 15 pounds to my bench and a 1/2 inch to both my arms. IN MY OPINION, I don't think weight loss is that complicated. Just eat lean and work hard.

 

[B5150]

Sxhawnn,

You're absolutely right. BMI/BMR are worthless IMO. One does not need to count calories but tracking food intake is at least required. If you are not losing weight, eat less or exercise more or both. If you are losing weight you're doing fine. But that is for weight loss. For those who are over weight and or obese it is indeed very simple.

The thing with bodybuilding is that nutrition optimizes fat loss as opposed to just weight loss. The idea is to lose only body fat and retain LBM. Calories, macro nutrition, carbohydrates, nutrient timing are critical in the optimization of losing body fat and retaining LMB.

At the end of the day if I am not a pro or a competitive bodybuilder it is obsessive compulsive behavior...

...hence we body build anyway