PDA

View Full Version : Round table discussion Proper macronutrient ratio for strength and lean muscle



lennyspero
03-25-2012, 11:51 AM
If you have no idea what your macronutrient ratio is or what a macronutrient is then please don't chime in.. I've been using 30f 30c 40 for quite a while now and just drop the carbs slightly to create a caloric deficit on non training days.. I've also been keeping all my meals in a 8 hour period this was originally so I could eat more macros post workout. But as I experimented with it I noticed I was leaning out with the same caloric intake that I was spreading out all day. So I'm kind of using a I.F. Protocol also...
I had been keeping my overall calories pretty low and this was working out well but after weeks and weeks of being on low cal your mind starts to go crazy. I'm going to try to keep my overall calories slightly higher and just throw in a few 30 minute sessions on non training days and a 10-15 minute very light cardio warmup on all my training days.
Whats your nutritional strategy? If you have no idea then your missing out on the missing link in your training. Your nutrition is more important then the supplements or drugs you take .. Anyone who disagrees is wrong

Behemoth
03-25-2012, 12:08 PM
Going off a ratio is a little backwards. As total calories change, more often than not so should the ratio. If you lock yourself into a set ratio regardless of how many calories youre eating then you're really stifling your room to tweak things.

RhodeHouse
03-25-2012, 12:30 PM
If you have no idea what your macronutrient ratio is or what a macronutrient is then please don't chime in.. I've been using 30f 30c 40 for quite a while now and just drop the carbs slightly to create a caloric deficit on non training days.. I've also been keeping all my meals in a 8 hour period this was originally so I could eat more macros post workout. But as I experimented with it I noticed I was leaning out with the same caloric intake that I was spreading out all day. So I'm kind of using a I.F. Protocol also...
I had been keeping my overall calories pretty low and this was working out well but after weeks and weeks of being on low cal your mind starts to go crazy. I'm going to try to keep my overall calories slightly higher and just throw in a few 30 minute sessions on non training days and a 10-15 minute very light cardio warmup on all my training days.
Whats your nutritional strategy? If you have no idea then your missing out on the missing link in your training. Your nutrition is more important then the supplements or drugs you take .. Anyone who disagrees is wrong

I agree that nutrition is important, but it's not the be all and end all for MOST of the people who train. Very simple nutritional ideas can make worlds of difference without counting and calculating and making sure not to eat when the big hand is on the little hand...

And, if you have good drugs, food don't matter much. Find a better drug dealer.

If this works for you, then go with it. I would listen to Behemoth that thjings should and always will change, though. There's no perfect meal plan. It's always dynamic. You can have your basic strategy, but in 5 years, I bet it will look very different, except for a few basic constants. Those are the things that are important.

lennyspero
03-25-2012, 12:30 PM
I agree that my strategy will change from year to year. I lift in a few different weight classes and only pay attention to my macro ratio while lifting in the lower 2 classes. I can basically eat whatever I want if I want to lift at 220 or 198 as long as my protien is high I don't notice much of a difference. But since I've dropped to 181 I hit some all time pr's and just generally feel better. I would rather lift the same at 181 and look lean then lift at 198 or 220 and eat whatever I want. Being "big" isn't really important to me at 30 like it was when I was 20. I'm always trying to gain muscle but bulking and then cutting. I'm not interested in that anymore

RhodeHouse
03-25-2012, 12:33 PM
When I didn't use any ratio my overall protein intake was way too high
The ratio is rough on training days all my macros do fit into the ratio but on non training days when I cut carbs the ratio is actually very different It's probably more like 30f 20c 50 p on a non training day. I think the ratio is very important and most people consume too much protien and too little fat. By using a ratio at least you can punch I'm your caloric goal for the day and see what macro's you should be consuming to stay under that #. I know a lot of guys like to eat extra macro's and then do tons of cardio to create the caloric deficit to loose fat. I don't like to do much cardio

I'd rather have high protein than high carbs. How can you have "too much" protein? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I also don't agree that people get too little fat. they get way too much bad fat and too little good fats, if that's what you meant?

lennyspero
03-25-2012, 02:23 PM
If your taking a dump and it's like giving birth your probably taking in too much protein and not enough fat. Lol. A lot of people think they need 1.5 grams of protien per lb of bw. That's defiantly not what I have found works best for me. At a certain point if your not ingesting enough carbs your body will convert the protien into glucose. This is why I find macro ratio's helpful. Why bother taking in a huge excess of protien when it's going to be converted into glucose anyway. I'd rather eat more carbs and fats. Some people may disagree.

Alex.V
03-25-2012, 05:29 PM
Very simple nutritional ideas can make worlds of difference without counting and calculating and making sure not to eat when the big hand is on the little hand...

And, if you have good drugs, food don't matter much. Find a better drug dealer.

That and that.

Reading some of this crap about nutrient ratios on these boards is sort of like watching a monkey try to ride a motorcycle. At best it's a waste of time, at worst someone will end up hurting themselves. But that doesn't mean it's not hilarious.

RhodeHouse
03-25-2012, 07:30 PM
That and that.

Reading some of this crap about nutrient ratios on these boards is sort of like watching a monkey try to ride a motorcycle. At best it's a waste of time, at worst someone will end up hurting themselves. But that doesn't mean it's not hilarious.

Good, cuz that's what I really think. i just didn't want to be too much of a dick.

Alex.V
03-26-2012, 07:11 AM
i just didn't want to be too much of a dick.

You feeling ok, man?

RhodeHouse
03-28-2012, 04:42 PM
You feeling ok, man?

I'm hanging in there. Thanks. HAHAHAHAHA!

Alex.V
03-30-2012, 11:54 AM
I think this topic died before it started.

lennyspero
03-30-2012, 02:47 PM
It didn't die I just respectfully disagree that macronutrient ratio's don't matter
They defiantly matter less depending on your goals and if your on gear or not.

chevelle2291
03-30-2012, 02:55 PM
It didn't die I just respectfully disagree that macronutrient ratio's don't matter
They defiantly matter less depending on your goals and if your on gear or not.


no. they dont. gross macro numbers matter in terms of how many grams of f/p/c you are taking in. Sticking to a specific ratio doesn't matter one bit.

ZAR-FIT
03-30-2012, 02:56 PM
len.. its definitely... not defiantly... i only say it cause you did it in two separate posts..

and i agree with the majority of the board.. just make sure you consume a protein, carb, and possibly healthy fat with every meal.

lennyspero
03-30-2012, 03:45 PM
You guys must be right....sorry for my grammar errors English is my 2 nd language.

chevelle2291
03-30-2012, 03:46 PM
You guys must be right....sorry for my grammar errors English is my 2 nd language.

no issues man. can't even tell.

Alex.V
04-03-2012, 10:14 AM
It didn't die I just respectfully disagree that macronutrient ratio's don't matter
They defiantly matter less depending on your goals and if your on gear or not.

It's not that they don't matter, it's that they matter much LESS than other factors.

And on top of that, the chances of correctly guessing what your body needs every day is pretty slim, especially when most recommendations out there are based on pure speculation.

Beast
04-03-2012, 02:46 PM
and i agree with the majority of the board.. just make sure you consume a protein, carb, and possibly healthy fat with every meal.

This, although I feel some fat and not carbs need to be part of every meal. All three have their places, though, and everyone responds to them a bit differently. If they didn't then we'd all be on the same diet...

Rileigh
04-03-2012, 04:46 PM
This, although I feel some fat and not carbs need to be part of every meal. All three have their places, though, and everyone responds to them a bit differently. If they didn't then we'd all be on the same diet...

I agree, carbs tend to be very "time-sensitive" from what I understand. If you eat carbs in conjunction with periods of time where you're active you'll see them have a more positive impact vs eating them when you're sitting around watching TV.

IE: if you work out first thing in the morning, have some carbs pre-workout, then have some more within a few hours of your workout. If the rest of your day is fairly sedentary then you should probably go with high protein meals and minimal carbs.

The ratio of macros really depends on how active you are imo. Someone who's only physical activity is lifting for an hour 3-4 days a week is probably better served by a high protein and lower carb ratio, where as someone who works at a physically demanding job or does a lot of cardio will probably have equal or higher carbs then protein.

So basically, like everyone said, get your protein and the rest will fall into place because it's different for every person. :)

chevelle2291
04-03-2012, 05:27 PM
I agree, carbs tend to be very "time-sensitive" from what I understand. If you eat carbs in conjunction with periods of time where you're active you'll see them have a more positive impact vs eating them when you're sitting around watching TV.

IE: if you work out first thing in the morning, have some carbs pre-workout, then have some more within a few hours of your workout. If the rest of your day is fairly sedentary then you should probably go with high protein meals and minimal carbs.

The ratio of macros really depends on how active you are imo. Someone who's only physical activity is lifting for an hour 3-4 days a week is probably better served by a high protein and lower carb ratio, where as someone who works at a physically demanding job or does a lot of cardio will probably have equal or higher carbs then protein.

So basically, like everyone said, get your protein and the rest will fall into place because it's different for every person. :)

broscience/10.

Jonathan E
04-03-2012, 09:06 PM
I agree, carbs tend to be very "time-sensitive" from what I understand. If you eat carbs in conjunction with periods of time where you're active you'll see them have a more positive impact vs eating them when you're sitting around watching TV.


I am no master of any sort of nutritional, and /or workout information. However...

I believe carbs being time-sensitive isn't really true. It's like saying you have a fire pit going, and putting a bundle of twigs in it now will be more effective verses throwing them in later. Same result. Your body will call upon 'carb energy' when it's needed, using it whether it was consumed recently or stored up from last time.

Alex.V
04-04-2012, 06:20 AM
I am no master of any sort of nutritional, and /or workout information. However...

I believe carbs being time-sensitive isn't really true. It's like saying you have a fire pit going, and putting a bundle of twigs in it now will be more effective verses throwing them in later. Same result. Your body will call upon 'carb energy' when it's needed, using it whether it was consumed recently or stored up from last time.

Exactly.

The only exceptions to this are when you are very low in calories overall (and plan on being in a sloth-inducing deficit most of the day, but want just enough energy to get you through workouts), or you're engaged in strenuous, long term physical activity where you're depleting your glycogen and need glucose in the bloodstream.

If you're roughly isocaloric or hypercaloric, you would be perfectly fine eating one massive meal right before bedtime as opposed to carefully portioning out those meals depending on hourly activity level. Your end body composition would be all but identical.

FearFactory
04-04-2012, 09:41 AM
Exactly.

The only exceptions to this are when you are very low in calories overall (and plan on being in a sloth-inducing deficit most of the day, but want just enough energy to get you through workouts), or you're engaged in strenuous, long term physical activity where you're depleting your glycogen and need glucose in the bloodstream.

If you're roughly isocaloric or hypercaloric, you would be perfectly fine eating one massive meal right before bedtime as opposed to carefully portioning out those meals depending on hourly activity level. Your end body composition would be all but identical.

Man I love when you post about diet. It always reassures me that my "laziness" in terms of nutrition is not hurting me :). I am cutting right now and am simply just eating less and dictating my carb requirement by how my body is feeling.

Rileigh
04-04-2012, 11:58 AM
I am no master of any sort of nutritional, and /or workout information. However...

I believe carbs being time-sensitive isn't really true. It's like saying you have a fire pit going, and putting a bundle of twigs in it now will be more effective verses throwing them in later. Same result. Your body will call upon 'carb energy' when it's needed, using it whether it was consumed recently or stored up from last time.


Exactly.

The only exceptions to this are when you are very low in calories overall (and plan on being in a sloth-inducing deficit most of the day, but want just enough energy to get you through workouts), or you're engaged in strenuous, long term physical activity where you're depleting your glycogen and need glucose in the bloodstream.

If you're roughly isocaloric or hypercaloric, you would be perfectly fine eating one massive meal right before bedtime as opposed to carefully portioning out those meals depending on hourly activity level. Your end body composition would be all but identical.

I apologize if I was mistaken on that that. Where I gathered that information was from an article that's actually posted on this site:

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-science-of-nutrient-timing-part-i/

Maybe if it's incorrect it should be removed? Or I just misunderstood it?

Would love some clarification here.

Alex.V
04-04-2012, 12:19 PM
I apologize if I was mistaken on that that. Where I gathered that information was from an article that's actually posted on this site:

http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-science-of-nutrient-timing-part-i/

Maybe if it's incorrect it should be removed? Or I just misunderstood it?

Would love some clarification here.

No, you understood it well. The problem is, the author says it right the first time: "Although this might be a bit of an oversimplification of a very complex topic"

It is. My primary issue with this sort of writing is that it makes incorrect logical leaps from the biochemistry (and primary research) to actual real world application without controlling for real world variables.

None of his claims are demonstrably false- "energy phase", "anabolic phase", etc. etc. are all reasonable labels for the various states the body finds itself in during the day based on stress, stimulus, activity level, etc. And nothing in his ratios (what amounts of what nutrients the body needs at various points) are technically incorrect either.

The PRIMARY PROBLEM with the overall line of reasoning is that it fails to take into account that the body is not a machine capable of instant nutrient assimilation-many meals take upwards of 10-12 hours to finish their transit through the small intestine, and even the stomach will still contain undigested food matter 4-5 hours after a medium-sized meal. (Ever had too much to drink and puked at 2 in the morning, only to find chunks of the dinner you ate at 6? Yeah, I went there).

Clinical studies along these lines tend to work with fasted subjects, and/or those on a carefully controlled diet (often hypo- or isocaloric). This is rarely the case for the majority of individuals. (Notice I did state that nutrient timing may be important for dieting individuals or those requiring replenishment mid-activity).

There ARE some demonstrably false (or poorly backed) claims in those articles. For example:

" In using this strategy, carbs are fed when they’ll best be converted into muscle glycogen and when they’ll best stimulate muscle growth and/or repair. If muscle gain is your goal, you’ll get more muscle per gram of carbohydrate ingested. If fat loss is your goal, you’ll get more muscle glycogen and a pronounced muscle sparing effect with fewer daily carbs ingested. And if athletic performance/recovery is your goal, your recovery will improve dramatically."

More muscle per gram of carbohydrate ingested... This is simply a spurious claim. The body does not somehow end the process of adaptation simply because there is not an immediate source of carbohydrates in an optimal ratio. And please do tell me how a sugar drink post workout is in any way different from a sandwich pre-workout. Both cases will result in glucose in the bloodstream around the same time.

Overall, these sorts of articles are like discussing the application of high performance spark plugs in your ten year old honda accord. Sure, they're perhaps optimal for the engine, but are they going to make a shit of difference given the numerous other factors affecting your time if you decide to take it around for a hot lap at a race track? Crap no. Unless you're a top level athlete who can simply not afford an extra calorie because you're loathe to carry around an extra ounce of weight, and you're on a carefully controlled daily diet with zero room for error (and you've accurately calculated transit time between mouth and colon by pulling timestamped markers out of your crap), then you're wasting your time, no matter what Dr. John Berardi insists.

chevelle2291
04-04-2012, 02:18 PM
in b4 Berardi.

Alex.V
04-04-2012, 02:20 PM
That would be interesting. Far better to have an actual discussion than simply picking apart another's words (written eight years ago.)

chevelle2291
04-04-2012, 02:31 PM
I never thought gaining size or losing fat needed to get much more complicated than:

Gaining: eat in a surplus, eat 1-1.5g/lb of bw in protein (I know you'll pick me apart for the 1.5g rec, Alex :p), fill in the rest of your cals with carbs or fats, depending on what you seem to respond best to.

Cutting: Eat in a deficit. Same protein recs, keep carbs relatively high in relation to fat. When stalling, refeed.


eh?

Alex.V
04-04-2012, 02:42 PM
I never thought gaining size or losing fat needed to get much more complicated than:

Gaining: eat in a surplus, eat 1-1.5g/lb of bw in protein (I know you'll pick me apart for the 1.5g rec, Alex :p), fill in the rest of your cals with carbs or fats, depending on what you seem to respond best to.

Cutting: Eat in a deficit. Same protein recs, keep carbs relatively high in relation to fat. When stalling, refeed.


eh?

Yeah, but try building a brand off that level of simplicity.

f=ma
04-04-2012, 05:07 PM
Yeah, but try building a brand off that level of simplicity.

i call it p91x

what do you think?

Behemoth
04-04-2012, 07:13 PM
b90rex. bulimia anorexia bw exercise

Rileigh
04-05-2012, 05:59 AM
Your point about the meals taking time to process and studies being done in a fasted state makes a lot of sense to me.

I believe this was the primary statement that lead me to believe that it would help if carbs were digested at certain parts of the day:


Remember, the Growth Phase, like the Energy and Anabolic Phases, is still marked by increased fat oxidation (even in the presence of some dietary carbohydrate) and increased glycogen synthesis (especially in the presence of some dietary carbohydrate). So take advantage of this by ingesting most of your daily carbs during these three phases.

I guess I just want to understand why someone would write something like this with, what I would think, were obvious flaws in it.

I suppose I was looking at things from my perspective. Since I generally don't eat breakfast (I haven't in years) and I work out around noon, I find I'm much more energetic in the gym if I mix a shake up and drink it as I get changed/start working out (then use the cup for water when I finish the shake!) then if I wait and have food post-workout. So from my point of view (and I believe this would be a situation where you said nutrient timing is applicable?) the statement above made perfect sense.

Alex, I can honestly say you are probably one of the biggest reasons I come on this site. You have a way of making more sense in a few paragraphs then most multi-page'd articles I've read on working out and nutrition haha.

Alex.V
04-05-2012, 11:07 AM
I suppose I was looking at things from my perspective. Since I generally don't eat breakfast (I haven't in years) and I work out around noon, I find I'm much more energetic in the gym if I mix a shake up and drink it as I get changed/start working out (then use the cup for water when I finish the shake!) then if I wait and have food post-workout. So from my point of view (and I believe this would be a situation where you said nutrient timing is applicable?) the statement above made perfect sense.


Yes indeed- given that, if you're having dinner around 8:00 the night before, it's safe to say you're in a situation where your system is more or less nutrient-dry- so this actually does apply in your case. Though again, truthfully, I wouldn't much worry about the contents of the shake- the best meal is anything that doesn't upset your stomach!



I guess I just want to understand why someone would write something like this with, what I would think, were obvious flaws in it.



1) None of the information is technically "wrong". There is no single item you can point to and say "You can't back this up", because chances are, there's a study that concluded exactly that. However, the issue becomes in duplicating study conditions to the real world, where "ideal conditions" represent the minute minority of situations.

2) Simplicity doesn't sell product or elevate one's status.

3) Chances are, nobody's bothered to contest these assertions because, quite frankly, the other "experts" out in the field lack the background in clinical trials or research to poke holes in the conclusions. There is ZERO peer review to this sort of writing, which is why the majority of people who actually WOULD question the claims are rarely even aware that these claims are being made. Exercise science, nutrition, and supplementation are still fields that are woefully underpopulated by qualified individuals- there's simply no money in them for these folks. When you can make just as much money slapping a label on some garbage that you found out about on wikipedia as you could putting together a solid product and spending millions or tens of millions on R&D, why would you do the latter?

And this is no slam against Berardi. But even the most intelligent, informed scientists and researchers NEED peer review. I can't tell you how many times I've thought I had an ironclad argument or proof, only to have someone else (an informed source) point out very obvious flaws. This is the essence of good science- the peer review. Otherwise it's like being the best tennis player in a very small town... you can only get so good before you simply run out of challenging competition, and get no better.

4) At the end of the day, people want to believe they have some "edge". Look at any sport, you'll have weekend warriors paying out the ass for the latest and greatest gear or supplements that really are making no difference in performance, but they want to believe they're doing SOMETHING. If you want to know the OPTIMAL ratio of foods to eat and best way to time things, then sure, you could follow this article. My philosophy is pretty much that even this "optimal" ratio is based on some pretty wild extrapolations and big assumptions, so following this plan precisely could still be no better than eating whatever the hell you want every day. Still, the article is raising something to think about, so it's an interesting piece to consider, but I'd never base a lifestyle off it.

Then again, you could follow another article saying something completely different. Only have time for one meal? Do IF. Get too hungry and need to eat every few hours? Plenty of diets that recommend that. Like steak and don't really care much for pasta? Go paleo. Chances are, no matter what your natural inclination is, there's a diet plan out there with plenty of evidence behind it that says it's the best.

And hey, means a lot that this is valuable. Really does. I know I can come across as curmudgeonly, but I'm really just trying to ask questions here myself. I figure, hey, question everything, and only the stuff really worth following will rise to the top. Life's complicated enough for most of us without stressing about the little things that don't matter.

JacobH
04-05-2012, 11:50 AM
That was beautiful.

Chris Rodgers
04-05-2012, 03:12 PM
Sometimes I start to think Alex is smart, but then I remember that he does like 75 hours of cardio per week and nobody with half a brain would do that.

Look at all this mess that bunghole Spero started. :alcoholic:

chevelle2291
04-06-2012, 01:28 PM
Yes indeed- given that, if you're having dinner around 8:00 the night before, it's safe to say you're in a situation where your system is more or less nutrient-dry- so this actually does apply in your case. Though again, truthfully, I wouldn't much worry about the contents of the shake- the best meal is anything that doesn't upset your stomach!




1) None of the information is technically "wrong". There is no single item you can point to and say "You can't back this up", because chances are, there's a study that concluded exactly that. However, the issue becomes in duplicating study conditions to the real world, where "ideal conditions" represent the minute minority of situations.

2) Simplicity doesn't sell product or elevate one's status.

3) Chances are, nobody's bothered to contest these assertions because, quite frankly, the other "experts" out in the field lack the background in clinical trials or research to poke holes in the conclusions. There is ZERO peer review to this sort of writing, which is why the majority of people who actually WOULD question the claims are rarely even aware that these claims are being made. Exercise science, nutrition, and supplementation are still fields that are woefully underpopulated by qualified individuals- there's simply no money in them for these folks. When you can make just as much money slapping a label on some garbage that you found out about on wikipedia as you could putting together a solid product and spending millions or tens of millions on R&D, why would you do the latter?

And this is no slam against Berardi. But even the most intelligent, informed scientists and researchers NEED peer review. I can't tell you how many times I've thought I had an ironclad argument or proof, only to have someone else (an informed source) point out very obvious flaws. This is the essence of good science- the peer review. Otherwise it's like being the best tennis player in a very small town... you can only get so good before you simply run out of challenging competition, and get no better.

4) At the end of the day, people want to believe they have some "edge". Look at any sport, you'll have weekend warriors paying out the ass for the latest and greatest gear or supplements that really are making no difference in performance, but they want to believe they're doing SOMETHING. If you want to know the OPTIMAL ratio of foods to eat and best way to time things, then sure, you could follow this article. My philosophy is pretty much that even this "optimal" ratio is based on some pretty wild extrapolations and big assumptions, so following this plan precisely could still be no better than eating whatever the hell you want every day. Still, the article is raising something to think about, so it's an interesting piece to consider, but I'd never base a lifestyle off it.

Then again, you could follow another article saying something completely different. Only have time for one meal? Do IF. Get too hungry and need to eat every few hours? Plenty of diets that recommend that. Like steak and don't really care much for pasta? Go paleo. Chances are, no matter what your natural inclination is, there's a diet plan out there with plenty of evidence behind it that says it's the best.

And hey, means a lot that this is valuable. Really does. I know I can come across as curmudgeonly, but I'm really just trying to ask questions here myself. I figure, hey, question everything, and only the stuff really worth following will rise to the top. Life's complicated enough for most of us without stressing about the little things that don't matter.


You were that douchebag in college that wrote 20 pages for a 3-5 page assignment, weren't you?

Alex.V
04-06-2012, 01:43 PM
You were that douchebag in college that wrote 20 pages for a 3-5 page assignment, weren't you?

I was definitely that douchebag, but NEVER did more than expected. Give me some credit here.

PS- GFY. TY.