My Diet Plan

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.
 
02sixxer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fueledpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow when I have the energy, I will address the facts / and/or bunk behind these statements. For now, good night.
 
NeighbourMike said:
Tomorrow when I have the energy, I will address the facts / and/or bunk behind these statements. For now, good night.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fueledpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :D Nice thinking fueled.
 
Jiigzz said:
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 :D Nice thinking fueled.
Click to expand...


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.
:toofunny:
 
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
 
JudoJosh said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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
 
jonpaulevans said:
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
Click to expand...

Well you've done it now. Just had to introduce application, didn't you?




* f@ck me running, just couldn't hold the snark.
 
JudoJosh said:
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
Click to expand...

Of course; the muscle fibers will only be activated dependant on the type of activity being performed, and type II are not likely to be activated whilist at rest etc. etc. hence why I stated that.

Forgive me :D
 
TexasGuy said:
Well you've done it now. Just had to introduce application, didn't you?




* f@ck me running, just couldn't hold the snark.
Click to expand...

Oh, never mind. Lol.
 
Jiigzz said:
Oh, never mind. Lol.
Click to expand...

I just can't help myself.

FWIW, I eat lots of saturated fats. Steak is as important as water in Texas. I still understand OP however.

OP, consider pears, peaches, quinoa, shrimp, scallops, clams, plums, kale, cauliflower and lean pork cuts to your various categories.
 
jonpaulevans said:
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
Click to expand...

Please post either the link, PMID or title of the paper.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
Please post either the link, PMID or title of the paper.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Anabolic minds wont let me post links until I have 150 posts but I'll see if I can find the paper again and post it somehow.

EDIT: www(dot)hsph(dot)harvard(dot)edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/
 
Harvard study

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D.
Source

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. [email protected]

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships.
CONCLUSIONS:

Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.
Click to expand...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh - That's good news to me bc as someone with High cholesterol I was convinced I had to cut saturated fats - and that mainly meant I'd have to drastically reduce my beef intake. Jiigzz recommended a book about the cholesterol myth which I'm happy to say I received the other day and started reading it last night. I learning it's more about the TRANS-FATS than saturated. Bc of the input I've received on this thread I have upped my saturated fats by re-introducing beef into my regular diet and I gotta say I feel pretty good. It's only been a few days but I think I feel a huge relief with the new permission of steaks and ground beef in my meals. So thank you to everyone who is contributing and to everyone who will continue to contribute.
 
JudoJosh said:
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
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're following the discussion on CS, but a high fat, low carb diet induces PCF-1Alpha. So I guess diet can be manipulated in this scenario for oxidative fibers. Not too sure about type II though. Be interesting to see
 
jonpaulevans said:
JudoJosh - That's good news to me bc as someone with High cholesterol I was convinced I had to cut saturated fats - and that mainly meant I'd have to drastically reduce my beef intake. Jiigzz recommended a book about the cholesterol myth which I'm happy to say I received the other day and started reading it last night. I learning it's more about the TRANS-FATS than saturated. Bc of the input I've received on this thread I have upped my saturated fats by re-introducing beef into my regular diet and I gotta say I feel pretty good. It's only been a few days but I think I feel a huge relief with the new permission of steaks and ground beef in my meals. So thank you to everyone who is contributing and to everyone who will continue to contribute.
Click to expand...

One thing is for certain, regardless of saturated fats being good or bad, you get lots of high-quality iron from your red meats. I usually eat deer/venison in place of beef which has less fat, less cholesterol (doesn't really matter though) and high in protein...and it's cheaper too since I pay about 50 bucks for an entire deer (30-60lbs of meat).
 
Jiigzz said:
Not sure if you're following the discussion on CS, but a high fat, low carb diet induces PCF-1Alpha. So I guess diet can be manipulated in this scenario for oxidative fibers. Not too sure about type II though. Be interesting to see
Click to expand...

Now I have also read that you can convert a Type IIb into a Type IIa fast twitch with enough higher intensity cardio. As in, you can increase mitochondria to a point that the muscle evolves into a muscle that has some characteristics of both TI and TII's.

Is there currently any studies looking into this? The long-term effects of muscle fiber adaptation to cardio?
 
fueledpassion said:
Now I have also read that you can convert a Type IIb into a Type IIa fast twitch with enough higher intensity cardio. As in, you can increase mitochondria to a point that the muscle evolves into a muscle that has some characteristics of both TI and TII's.

Is there currently any studies looking into this? The long-term effects of muscle fiber adaptation to cardio?
Click to expand...

Type I will never really transition to type II fibers, you can only shift the balance slightly. Type IIb can transition to type IIx under the right circumstances
 
fueledpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Percentage of the overall calorie intake.
 
fueledpassion said:
One thing is for certain, regardless of saturated fats being good or bad, you get lots of high-quality iron from your red meats. I usually eat deer/venison in place of beef which has less fat, less cholesterol (doesn't really matter though) and high in protein...and it's cheaper too since I pay about 50 bucks for an entire deer (30-60lbs of meat).
Click to expand...

What???!!! you can buy a whole deer for $50??? Damn thats good.
 
cumminslifter said:
your lucky. iowa is alot more expensive
Click to expand...

Well, I do at least field dress the deer and quarter em up before dropping them off. Granted, I usually only get the basics - ground/burger, a few various steaks and maybe a few pounds of sausage.


My family bagged 4 of them this past fall so we're stocked up til next season!
 
fueledpassion said:
Well, I do at least field dress the deer and quarter em up before dropping them off. Granted, I usually only get the basics - ground/burger, a few various steaks and maybe a few pounds of sausage.


My family bagged 4 of them this past fall so we're stocked up til next season!
Click to expand...
me and my dad always have to process our own. we have our own grinder, mixer, stuffer, ect... we usually make hamburgers, sausages and sticks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top