Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Carbs

2»

Replies

  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,850Member Member Posts: 4,850Member Member
    JJS1979 wrote: »
    There are a few reasons I suggested 40% protein. The first one you mentioned, appetite control. Protein generally keeps you feeling fuller longer. The second is that in terms of volume, eating say 300 calories worth of protein will provide a lot more food than 300 calories of carbs or fat, which when you are dieting the volume of food will help.

    If one is hungry, upping protein is one thing to try (there are others), but I would not assume a diet that already had 20-30% protein (especially if that was also 0.8 g/lb of a healthy goal weight) would be inadequate for satiety. Certainly many of us demonstrate that it is not.

    As for volume, it depends. I personally find mixed and balanced meals (veg, protein, starch, with some fat as accent) to be optimally sating for me. One way to up volume if that is a concern is to add more vegetables. I would not typically rely on protein for volume. (Fruits and potatoes also have decent volume for the cals, IME.) Lean meats of course can too, but I would still find a diet that was 40% protein to be inadequately varied for my taste and not inherently of a greater volume than what I ate when losing.
    Third, the thermic effect of food is critical when putting together a diet. By far, protein has the highest thermic effect of any of the 3 marco nutrients at about 20-25% where carbs are 8-10% and fat is about 2%. Perhaps when you get to the point of maintaining you could go to 25-30% but starting at only 25% of your calories from protein, I think would be too low.

    Thermic value shouldn't make much difference. In my example, I was aiming for 96g of protein, and you claim I should have started at 160 g. Under your plan (if I subbed protein for carbs), the difference in cals from digestion would be at most around 35-40. And that's ignoring the fact that there probably is a thermic benefit to more fiber that is not considered here (and that US labels and nutrition information tends to include more cals from fiber than likely absorbed).

    Even beyond this, the question becomes whether it is somehow a benefit to me to eat a diet that is harder for me to manage and enjoy that is essentially 1638 cals vs. one that is 1600? I doubt it. For just one example, I find chicken breast roasted bone-in, skin on (eaten with potatoes and lots of non starchy veg) on more overall satisfying than plain chicken breast. There is a benefit to satiety to the extra fat (or to ending the meal with a pear) than exceeds being able to eat a few more cals (hypothetically) of boneless, skinless chicken breast and forgoing the skin and the pear or eating fewer potatoes, etc. Satiety is more than grams of protein or being able to eat the most cals on paper.
    edited February 19
  • bmeadows380bmeadows380 Posts: 1,839Member Member Posts: 1,839Member Member
    I'm lucky to be getting 30% protein and it's a struggle a lot of the days and many times I have to use a protein shake to get close to that number (109g daily for me). And focusing on trying to hit that protein number often times means I'm eating more meat and dairy than I am vegetables, which I don't like to do.

    @mmapags Is that 0.35g fat per lb of ideal weight like the protein, or your current weight? Though truth be told, I have an even harder time getting in fats than I do protein. My natural way of eating is automatically low fat, high carb as the foods that primarily fill me up are carbs first, proteins a close second, with fats coming in a very distant third.
  • mmapagsmmapags Posts: 8,649Member Member Posts: 8,649Member Member
    I'm lucky to be getting 30% protein and it's a struggle a lot of the days and many times I have to use a protein shake to get close to that number (109g daily for me). And focusing on trying to hit that protein number often times means I'm eating more meat and dairy than I am vegetables, which I don't like to do.

    @mmapags Is that 0.35g fat per lb of ideal weight like the protein, or your current weight? Though truth be told, I have an even harder time getting in fats than I do protein. My natural way of eating is automatically low fat, high carb as the foods that primarily fill me up are carbs first, proteins a close second, with fats coming in a very distant third.

    That number for fat is generally stated as "per lb of body weight." Protein is stated differently because it is about supporting lean mass and someone who is not that active might be able to do ok on less. But muscle mass preservation is important while losing and protein is important for that as well as muscle growth.

    For protein, according to the research, there is a diminishing rate of return beyond 1 gram per lb of lean mass. If someone prefers more, no harm, but there is no need to force feed it. There is some evidence that Muscle Protein Synthesis may be reduced as people age, so a little more can be a good thing for one as they age.

    Eric Helms has published some really interesting summaries of the research on protein intake.
  • yirarayirara Posts: 4,369Member Member Posts: 4,369Member Member
  • jlhalley7835jlhalley7835 Posts: 187Member Member Posts: 187Member Member
    What’s been working for me is eating 1g-1.3g/lb of lean mass of protein. Which for me is 170-225g of protein which will come out to approx 700-900 calories (at 900 cals that = 40% of my daily cals). I try to stay around 20% of my calories from fat and make the rest up in carbs. Some days I do great some days the balance gets off. Some days I noticed that my workouts have lacked energy and I’ll drop a little protein and add more carbs for the next days workout to give me a boost.

    At the end of the day you got to find what works for you and your body. You got to find what you can sustain and be consistent with that also gives you the results you are looking for.
  • jimsessions8jimsessions8 Posts: 20Member Member Posts: 20Member Member
    Thank you all for your comments.im a bit overwhelmed by so much advice.but I'll try and understand it and apply as much as I can.
  • jimsessions8jimsessions8 Posts: 20Member Member Posts: 20Member Member
    Well I'm now just working on my weight .I switched from a jimmy dean sandwich to a bagel which is a 100 calories less .I noticed I got hungry at 11 instead of 12. And I lost a few pounds.maybe I was eating to much for breakfast
Sign In or Register to comment.