PDA

View Full Version : what ratios is best for you? (everyone look!)



frankm007
05-18-2003, 03:53 PM
at what macronutrion breakdown do you guys feel your best (able to maintain your muscle, not add any fat)?

im gonna give 40/40/20 a try...

GhettoSmurf
05-18-2003, 04:03 PM
right now im trying somthing around 35/40/25

frankm007
05-18-2003, 04:04 PM
35 protein im guessing... whats your current goal?

GhettoSmurf
05-18-2003, 04:07 PM
bulking

bryancore
05-18-2003, 04:10 PM
P/F/C
60/39/1

CKD. =)

as0l0
05-18-2003, 04:16 PM
40/40/20 all the way.

make sure your protien is always 40 or more though...

Ironman8
05-18-2003, 04:47 PM
40/40/30 when maintaining. And looks like you got a new avatar Ghetto :) I like it.

bradley
05-18-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
40/40/30 when maintaining. And looks like you got a new avatar Ghetto :) I like it.

110:confused:

bradley
05-18-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by as0l0
40/40/20 all the way.

make sure your protien is always 40 or more though...

Why is this?

bradley
05-18-2003, 05:10 PM
I don't really think macronutrient ratios are all that important as long as you are getting in adequate protein and EFA's.

I make sure that I get at least 1g or protein per lb. of bw and usually about 25-30% of cals from fat (mostly from healthy fats). The rest of my cals are usually made up of low GI carbs.

Some people seem to prefer a higher percentage of cals from carbs while other prefer a higher percentage from fat. I would recommend experimenting and see what works best for you.

Ironman8
05-18-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by bradley


110:confused:

Oops. I meant 40/30/30 (protein, carbs, fat) :D

SoulOfKoRea
05-18-2003, 06:41 PM
I've been doing 40/25/35(p/c/f)

restless
05-19-2003, 12:18 AM
I usually don't reach 40 % protein, it's more like isocaloric or sometimes 30% pro, 30% carb, 40 % fat.

as0l0
05-19-2003, 12:35 AM
bradley, I misread the original post, thought it was for cutting. 40% protien on cutting since it's so satisfying and kills hunger.

bradley
05-19-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by as0l0
bradley, I misread the original post, thought it was for cutting. 40% protien on cutting since it's so satisfying and kills hunger.

I mean either way I was still curious. I can understand where you are coming from when you say that protein keeps you full longer but I don't think that it is a necessity to have your protein levels at 40%, whether you are cutting or bulking. Although if this works for you then by all means stick with it:)

Ironman8
05-19-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by restless
I usually don't reach 40 % protein

It's easy getting in protein. Just add cheese to stuff. Snack on some beef jerky. Add extra turkey to that sandwich. See, easy :)

GhettoSmurf
05-19-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8


It's easy getting in protein. Just add cheese to stuff. Snack on some beef jerky. Add extra turkey to that sandwich. See, easy :)

i'd maybe shy away from the cheese. cheese has quite a bit of fat (at least most types). but yeah, adding a bit more meat here and there is all you really need 2 do. for me protein is the easy part to get enough of

aka23
05-19-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by frankm007
at what macronutrion breakdown do you guys feel your best (able to maintain your muscle, not add any fat)?

im gonna give 40/40/20 a try...

I eat about 60% carb / 25% protein / 15% fat. I agree with bradley that the ratios are not that important so long as you get adaquate protein for building muscle (~1g/lb fat free mass), sufficient carbs to fuel and recover from your workouts, and sufficient essential fatty acids. There may be minor hormonal advantages to keeping fat ~25-35% and keeping a high carb/protein ratio. And some persons may do better with more of one macronutrient than other persons. I think much more important factors in maintaining your muscle without adding fat are your calorie balance and your workouts/activity.

restless
05-19-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by aka23


I eat about 60% carb / 25% protein / 15% fat. I agree with bradley that the ratios are not that important so long as you get adaquate protein for building muscle (~1g/lb fat free mass), sufficient carbs to fuel and recover from your workouts, and sufficient essential fatty acids. There may be minor hormonal advantages to keeping fat >=25% and keeping a high carb/protein ratio. And some persons may do better with more of one macronutrient than other persons. I think much more important factors in maintaining your muscle without adding fat are your calorie balance and your workouts/activity.

A reduction of only 3%, from 30% to 27%, was shown to produced a measurable increase in injuries in trained female athlethes. So your low fat diet might also negate the protective effect of fats in joints. Why are you so afraid of fat? You think it will make you fat?


"Women runners who eat a relatively low-fat diet may face a greater risk of injury than women who include an average amount of fat in their diets, according to a study.

This goes against the general belief of some runners that a lighter body, which yields less weight on joints, protects against injury.

The one-year study involved 87 female runners who ran an average of 30 miles per week.

It was found that women who received 30 percent of their calories from fat were less likely to be injured than those who consumed 27 percent of their calories from fat.

This works out to an average consumption of 80 grams of fat per day among women who were not injured, compared to 63 grams per day among those who developed injuries.

Researchers pointed out that the women eating the lower quantity of fat were still eating an amount considered to be healthy for active women.

They suggest that the lower fat diet may not have provided the women with enough nutrients to repair the microscopic muscle damage that can occur during workouts.

Along these lines, previous studies have found that extremely low-fat diets may reduce endurance and moderately low-fat diets may also reduce endurance and increase the risk of injury.

Previous injury, difference in leg length and poor flexibility also increased the risk of injury among women runners.

Researchers suggested that the association between fat intake and injury might not be as strong in men.

Experimental Biology 2003, April 11-15, 2003, San Diego, California
"

aka23
05-19-2003, 12:21 PM
It is my understanding that the study analyzed female runners on a low calorie/low fat diet. Perhaps they ate so few calories that they did not get optimal amounts of essential fatty acids or other nutrients found in higher fat foods. The low fat group may have been eating less meat than the higher fat group, resulting in less protein, iron, etc. This type of change may have led to more injuries in a high impact, injury-prone sport like running. I would have to analyze the study in more detail to draw conclusions. In any case, it does not seem to apply well to the original poster's question.

aka23
05-19-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by restless
It was found that women who received 30 percent of their calories from fat were less likely to be injured than those who consumed 27 percent of their calories from fat.

This works out to an average consumption of 80 grams of fat per day among women who were not injured, compared to 63 grams per day among those who developed injuries.


Looking at the numbers in more detail:

Group 1: 80g of fat, 30% of calories from fat
Group 2: 63g of fat, 27% of calories from fat

Group 1: 80g fat * 9 calories/g *100%calories/30%fat calories = 2400 calories
Group 2: 63g fat * 9 calories/g *100%calories/27%fat calories = 2100 calories

How do you know that the injuries were caused by the lower fat diet and not the reduced calories? It was well known that injuries increase as calories get too low.

as0l0
05-19-2003, 03:57 PM
yep, 40% protien (or more) is what "works for me", since it actually makes it an effort to eat 10x in cals. Even at 50% carbs I find that I'm hungry...not starving....but more likely to have a bigger serve (or an extra serve) later in the day.

restless
05-19-2003, 05:18 PM
Well Aka, I don't consider 2400 or 2100 low calories for women, even at 30 miles a week.

If you chose to dismiss this study then go ahead. Any research can be dismissed, after all a simple "who funded it" can be enough for that. If they concluded that the fat intake was responsable then I'd like to think that they were smart enough to analize whether or not all other nutrition variables were similar.

I'm just curious why a smart individual like you seem to be still choses to follow a low fat diet in this day and age when most of the arguments that gave fat a bad rep have long ago fallen to the ground.

Ironman8
05-19-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by GhettoSmurf
i'd maybe shy away from the cheese. cheese has quite a bit of fat (at least most types).

Then, you can get the fat free or soy type ;)

aka23
05-19-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by restless
Well Aka, I don't consider 2400 or 2100 low calories for women, even at 30 miles a week.

I consider 2100 calories low for competitive distance runners, like the partcipants in the study. The lead researcher also felt this way. She was quoted as saying that the injured runners "probably weren't taking in enough calories and nutrients to recover from a difficult workout."


Originally posted by restless
If you chose to dismiss this study then go ahead. Any research can be dismissed, after all a simple "who funded it" can be enough for that. If they concluded that the fat intake was responsable then I'd like to think that they were smart enough to analize whether or not all other nutrition variables were similar.

The article you quoted emphasises the low-fat aspect of the research because low fat diets make popular media stories. However, the article does not give an accurate representation of the study.

The study was not analyzing the effects of low fat diets. Instead researchers had competitive runners fill out a food-frequency questionnaire, take an Eating Attitudes Test, and take various other body/fitness measures. The researchers tried to figure which habits and characteristics were linked to injuries. They basically found that the women who had more restrictive eating patterns were more likely to have injuries. The restrictive eaters who were likely to be injured ate fewer calories, ate less fat, had less caffiene, had fewer soft drinks, and had less chocolate. There is not enough information to isolate any one of these aspects as the cause of the injuries. I doubt that soft drinks or caffiene prevents injuries even though the runners who had more of these drinks had fewer injuries.

One of the researchers made a comment that low levels of dietary fat may have resulted in low supplies of energy, which could contribute to fatigue while running, increasing the chance of injury. Her conclusion is debatable. Fatigue in endurance atheletics is a complex issue that is often more associated with low carb intake than low fat intake. In depends a great deal on the type of event, state of training, and specific diet. I will accept that burning less fat is associated with earlier fatigue.


Originally posted by restless
I'm just curious why a smart individual like you seem to be still choses to follow a low fat diet in this day and age when most of the arguments that gave fat a bad rep have long ago fallen to the ground.

I do not want to make this a personal issue about my diet. I will say that there are plenty of knowledgable persons who consider my fat level acceptable. For example my fat intake fits in the range Lyle Mcdonald advocates in the article at http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/mcdonald/baseline-diet-02.htm

ryan1117
05-19-2003, 07:24 PM
My guess for me would be 60% carbs, 25% protein, and 15% fat.
*This is under the assumption the breakdown is "calories from" and not "grams from"

I really wonder if some people really get the protein they claim. For me even to hit 40% protein, that would be 300 grams per day. (which would be great if I wanted to live in a restroom all day) I don't think I have ever went over 250 grams of protein for any of the days I have kept track.

Does anyone else have digestive problems with lots of protein?

restless
05-20-2003, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by aka23






I do not want to make this a personal issue about my diet. I will say that there are plenty of knowledgable persons who consider my fat level acceptable. For example my fat intake fits in the range Lyle Mcdonald advocates in the article at http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/mcdonald/baseline-diet-02.htm

Man, this is not a personal issue. I usually hold no grudges against people who happen to have different viewpoints from mine as long as they don't go into personal attacks territory.

Acceptable? Sure, I can live with it, but is it optimal?

bradley
05-20-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by ryan1117
Does anyone else have digestive problems with lots of protein?

As long as I keep my fiber intake up then I don't have any problems.

BobbyRS
05-20-2003, 06:55 AM
Wow, allot of people going over the 1gr protein/pound....

Anyway, I usually figure in 1gr protein/pound first, then about 25-30% EFA's and what ever the remainder comes too, I add the rest as carbs. Whether I am bulking or cutting, there is not that much of a difference for me on the protein and fat. I mainly adjust my carbs according to my calorie intake I am shooting for, for bulking or cutting calories. Lately, it looks close to this:

Bulking = 25/50/25 p/c/f
Cutting = 25/45/30 p/c/f

...but I adjust it so often I can't really go by the macro breakdown anymore. Just as long as I reach my daily calories and it includes 1gr pro/lbs. and right amount of EFA's.


Does anyone else have digestive problems with lots of protein?

Just what bradley said, fiber intake should be high. I usually aim for about 30-50 grams a day, depending on my daily calorie intake. Anything less and my system has a hard time digesting the high amount of protein.

Ironman8
05-20-2003, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by ryan1117
Does anyone else have digestive problems with lots of protein?

Not really. But when I have alot of protein in one sitting (say 200 grams), I get a little bloated.

bradley
05-20-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8


Not really. But when I have alot of protein in one sitting (say 200 grams), I get a little bloated.


200 grams of protein in one sitting:eek: That is like 10 servings of the average whey powder, 23oz. of sirloin steak, 33oz. of extra lean ground beef. Needless to say that is a lot of food to be eating at one sitting, not to mention protein.

GhettoSmurf
05-20-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8


Not really. But when I have alot of protein in one sitting (say 200 grams), I get a little bloated.

i think i'd get sick to my stomach and puke...

Ironman8
05-20-2003, 05:18 PM
LOL! That example was a little high, wasn't it? :D

frankm007
05-21-2003, 11:54 AM
i sit around a lot...very sedentary... i don't require much carbs... 40/40/20 soudns good to me.. :)

AJ_11
05-22-2003, 12:34 AM
I just eat healthy:D

GhettoSmurf
05-22-2003, 04:30 AM
Originally posted by AJ_11
I just eat healthy:D

i agree, i think in the long run, as long as you are getting enough protein along with some carbs and fat, the main thing it comes down to is calories.

Ironman8
05-22-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by AJ_11
I just eat healthy:D

Heh heh, that's hard on cheat days :D

AJ_11
05-22-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Ironman8


Heh heh, that's hard on cheat days :D

Actually I have refeeds. Cheat days are a thing of the past. Refeeds are nescessary IMO.

frankm007
05-22-2003, 01:03 PM
refeeds...agreed! Boosting up ur carbs eh :) every, what, 3 days or so?

bradley
05-22-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by frankm007
refeeds...agreed! Boosting up ur carbs eh :) every, what, 3 days or so?

Depends on bf%.

http://www.theministryoffitness.com/mof/library/articles/article18.htm

Ironman8
05-22-2003, 05:45 PM
Also, I believe it depends how lean you are.

AJ_11
05-22-2003, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Ironman8
Also, I believe it depends how lean you are.

True. But It should also depend on what you are feeling, Refeeds don't set you back they push you forward, and when done properly should lead to your sucess. I can't stress the word reffeed enough and it is not a cheat day. Cheat days are for the weak.

NO2
05-22-2003, 06:42 PM
230/45/35???

does that make sence at all???

Ironman8
05-22-2003, 07:17 PM
No. It has to add up to 100%.

noraa
05-22-2003, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by restless
Well Aka, I don't consider 2400 or 2100 low calories for women, even at 30 miles a week.

While all of this can be utterly taken out of context, (as the paper hasnt been published so not really taken thru the peer review process)

2100kcal (avg) for people doing 30m/week (avg) is extremely low. Most would be taking in a lot more than this normally.
And female athletes tend to overestimate food intake (strange isnt it) especially carbs, so depending on how their data was collected, it could relate to no difference at all. How was an injury defined yada yada yada


the other thing that makes me wonder is this quote
"Gerlach said that previous research has suggested that a very low-fat diet -- more restrictive than the one adopted by injured runners in this study -- can reduce endurance."
Ya right High carb for endurance = good, just like high fat for endurance can = good.
The only way either of these situations go astray is when energy intake is too low.