PDA

View Full Version : How do my cal, fat, carb, prot levels look?



BrewCrew06
05-10-2006, 06:39 PM
I am 19, 6'4'' 220 lbs. BULKING

Today I got...
4662 Calories
145 fat
621 Carbs
250 protein

Today was a bad day for protein, I need to be up near 350. But how do the others look for a bulk?

Unreal
05-10-2006, 07:45 PM
Looks fine. Just stick to it for a week or two and see how much weight your putting on, and adjust cals to gain more or less. On a bulk it is pretty easy to hit all your needed macros.

WORLD
05-10-2006, 09:25 PM
Are you an ectomorph mesomorph of endomorpth.. They all vary.
-Ecto should be about 25% from fat, 25 from protein and the rest from carbs.
-Meso should be the same as ecto
-Endomorph should be about 40% from quality protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% from fat.

ddegroff
05-11-2006, 02:21 PM
I think they look good as well. If you feel you need to up the protein then do it.

Built
05-11-2006, 02:46 PM
Are you an ectomorph mesomorph of endomorpth.. They all vary.
-Ecto should be about 25% from fat, 25 from protein and the rest from carbs.
-Meso should be the same as ecto
-Endomorph should be about 40% from quality protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% from fat.
And that would be because the body knows how to calculate ratios?

Davidelmo
05-11-2006, 02:58 PM
Are you an ectomorph mesomorph of endomorpth.. They all vary.
-Ecto should be about 25% from fat, 25 from protein and the rest from carbs.
-Meso should be the same as ecto
-Endomorph should be about 40% from quality protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% from fat.

why? :micro:

WORLD
05-13-2006, 07:23 PM
And that would be because the body knows how to calculate ratios?

Thats not out of my own knowledge I took it straight out of an article. But don't you think that different body types respond differently to carbs protein and fats?

Built
05-13-2006, 07:26 PM
I think different PEOPLE respond to their own levels of protein, carb and fat. You have to find your mix. But the percentages are really meaningless. Set your protein and fat minimums as LBM-dependent doses and fill the rest of your calories from whatever combination of protein, carb and fat suits YOU.

WORLD
05-14-2006, 11:18 AM
I think different PEOPLE respond to their own levels of protein, carb and fat. You have to find your mix. But the percentages are really meaningless. Set your protein and fat minimums as LBM-dependent doses and fill the rest of your calories from whatever combination of protein, carb and fat suits YOU.

I think that what you said summed up my original post in a different way. What that article was assuming is that those combinations would be ideal for each of those body types. Like you mentioned, everyone has to find their own mix, which I completely agree with, and those ratios are an estimate of what each body type should be aiming for.
As long as you stay in your specific calorie intake range, then why do you think those ratios wouldn't work?

Built
05-14-2006, 11:38 AM
It's not that I don't think THESE ratios wouldn't work - it's that I don't think ratios are a meaningful way of setting up a diet - for bb, our calories are all over the map. There's no reason to increase protein on a bulk, and CERTAINLY no reason to try to hold it back, along with fat, on a cut.

That's why targeting these essential macronutrients to LBM makes more sense.

WORLD
05-14-2006, 01:01 PM
I think that these estimates could give someone a good idea of what they should be aiming for, but when it comes down to making a specific diet they won't benefit you. Agreed.
Why is it not a good idea to increase protein on a bulk? If you meet your body's protein needs, and carb and fat needs for that matter, than why wouldn't one just fill in the rest of their diet with whatever they wanted. That being said, if someone by the end of the day needed more calories to meet their goal, why wouldn't protein be a good choice?

Built
05-14-2006, 02:11 PM
It's not that it's not a good idea to increase protein on a bulk, but if you're already eating 1+g per pound lean mass, you may not need to increase it. You may do just as well to increase carbs, or if you're having a hard time stuffing it all in, fat as a caloric ballast.

And continuing with your thought, why do you think it might be a good idea to DECREASE protein and fat on a cut?

Not so great, hey?

LBM-dependent dosings make good sense, because you're feeding the muscle what it needs. Ratios are geared to total calories, which is hardly relevant for BB because we manipulate them high and low by so much.

WORLD
05-14-2006, 05:34 PM
It would be a good idea to decrease protein and fats during a cut to lower overall calories..as well as reducing your carb intake. But of course you need a healthy amount of protein during a cut to prevent muscle breakdown.

LBM-dependant dosings make perfect sense, but in the end, isn't it the calorie that determines whether you gain or lose weight? Which brings me to believe that ratios can actually benefit somebody looking to adjust their diet based on their goals.

I took my bulking calories, and multiplied them by 25%. Then devided that number by 4 (calories per gr of protein of course). The number I got is the same as if I were to multiply 1.25g of protein per lb of my body weight. That also makes me think that these ratios are more accurate than we think they could be.

JustLost
05-15-2006, 07:06 AM
That being said, if someone by the end of the day needed more calories to meet their goal, why wouldn't protein be a good choice?

One reason would be that protein is a relatively expensive way to obtain calories. But the real point isn't that a person could use protein to fill out calories; it's that the percentage approach pretty much requires them to.


LBM-dependant dosings make perfect sense, but in the end, isn't it the calorie that determines whether you gain or lose weight? Which brings me to believe that ratios can actually benefit somebody looking to adjust their diet based on their goals.

That doesn't follow. The fact that calories are the primary determinant of gain/loss actually is a point against the ratio approach. Look at it this way: any given body requires X amount of protein and Y amount of fat to function and stay healthy, regardless of caloric status. So the ratio approach jsut adds a needless constraint.


I took my bulking calories, and multiplied them by 25%. Then devided that number by 4 (calories per gr of protein of course). The number I got is the same as if I were to multiply 1.25g of protein per lb of my body weight.

And what happens when you apply the same equation to your cutting calories? For me, the answer works out to "not enough":

bw = 218 bf%=15

cutting cals = bw*10 = 2180
25% protein = 2180 * 25 / 4 = 136.25
1.25 * bw = 218 * 1.25 = 272.5

136 grams of protein + a calorie deficit would mean LBM loss for me. Not so good. To be fair, though, I think it's a bad idea to base protein on BW rather than LBM, so the numbers really should be

185.3 * 1 (duh) = 185.3 1 gram protein/pound lbm
[ edit: I consider 1 gm/pound lbm as a minimum; usually I end up with about 1.25 for the day. ]

Still 50 grams more than the ratio approach would allow me.

I'm much rather calculate protein and fat needs, then modulate total calories than to go by some arbitrary ratio.

WORLD
05-15-2006, 09:32 AM
One reason would be that protein is a relatively expensive way to obtain calories. But the real point isn't that a person could use protein to fill out calories; it's that the percentage approach pretty much requires them to.

I like your point about how the percentage approach requires them to use protein to fill up calories, but like I said before, when I tried multiplying 0.25 by my bulking calories, it ended up being just enough for my body type. Those ratios say that you should fill in the rest of the calories with the proper amount of fats, and the rest carbs....when bulking.


And what happens when you apply the same equation to your cutting calories? For me, the answer works out to "not enough":

bw = 218 bf%=15

cutting cals = bw*10 = 2180
25% protein = 2180 * 25 / 4 = 136.25
1.25 * bw = 218 * 1.25 = 272.5

136 grams of protein + a calorie deficit would mean LBM mass for me. Not so good. To be fair, though, I think it's a bad idea to base protein on BW rather than LBM, so the numbers really should be

185.3 * 1 (duh) = 185.3 1 gram protein/pound lbm
[ edit: I consider 1 gm/pound lbm as a minimum; usually I end up with about 1.25 for the day. ]

Still 50 grams more than the ratio approach would allow me.

I'm much rather calculate protein and fat needs, then modulate total calories than to go by some arbitrary ratio.

Your right, it wouldnt work for anyone cutting, but I dont think they're meant for that. BTW, what body type does your fit in to?

**Just to clear things up, I dont use these ratios myself. I just found it interesting when I read about them, and I'm trying to determine through this debate whether or not they could actually be useful in the future. There are good points against these ratios so far, but at the same time I see good points for them.

JustLost
05-15-2006, 01:34 PM
I like your point about how the percentage approach requires them to use protein to fill up calories, but like I said before, when I tried multiplying 0.25 by my bulking calories, it ended up being just enough for my body type. Those ratios say that you should fill in the rest of the calories with the proper amount of fats, and the rest carbs....when bulking.




Your right, it wouldnt work for anyone cutting, but I dont think they're meant for that. BTW, what body type does your fit in to?


I'm closer to endo than anything, but I pretty much reject somotyping as oversimplifed BS (kinda like the ratios). People don't usually fit neatly into one of three bins, so why bother? It's just more crap to think about, while not really helping.

Just for grins, though, let's see what the ratios give me for bulking protien:

218 * 18 * .4 /4 = 392.4 grams protein per day. Experience has shown that I put on muscle nicely about about 200 grams/day, and I start having frequent stinky farts at about 270. ;)

WORLD
05-15-2006, 03:04 PM
It's true, no one does fit completely into one of the three categories. I guess they were created to give people rough estimates with training and diet, rather than exact numbers.

I calculated your bulking calories by 0.25 and it came to 245g of protein. Anyways, I'm going to drop my side of this argument. In the end it looks like ratios aren't the best way to adjust your diet.

Thanks to Built and JustLost for your input.

JustLost
05-15-2006, 06:56 PM
In the end, we all learn from discussions like this, and it's always a good idea to re-examine one's own assumptions now and then.

Built
05-15-2006, 07:02 PM
If your weight and caloric intake are stable, a ratio approach makes as much sense as any other - hell, fix the ratios on your hat size. But for those of us who deliberatly manipulate intake, we need something fixed as an anchor for the essential macronutrients - hence LBM-dependent dosings of protein and fat rather than ratios of total calories.

But it's a very hard model to break - the "ratio of total calories" approach is EVERYWHERE.