Macros for Abs?
Options
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »It's what works best for your body and how your body responds to certain diets. No size fits all when it comes to diets.
From research I have done Macros would look like Jack said 40/40/20.
Also timing of when you have your Carbs could impact on losing body fat.
Having the majority of your carbs throughout the day could hinder your fat loss, instead having the majority of your carbs after you have just trained.
You could also research carb cycling. two days of low carbs then a day of high carbs and the cycle continues.
Getting some fasted HIT training in would be ideal also protein breakfast and leave the carbs until later in the day.
Nope. Fat loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, no matter when you eat carbs.
Did i ever mention not going into a calorie deficit?
Sorry research I have done has said timing of certain foods can impact on overall body fat.
I'd like to see those studies. Because, unless you are an elite athlete training for a specific sport, I don't believe that is correct.
I will leave the research up to you knowledgeable bunch of sours.
A quick google of carb timing for fat loss will bring up many pages.
This was the first page that came up when I googled carb timing for fat loss:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing0 -
I post one link
"You have only posted one link"
Post two links
"those are not credible sources"
And so on....
Like I said different methods can work for different people its all about how your body responds to a diet. I was just sharing an Idea that could be worth looking into.
Again, you stated "research you've done." Have you done research? If yes, please share it. We'd all love to see it, I'm sure.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »It's what works best for your body and how your body responds to certain diets. No size fits all when it comes to diets.
From research I have done Macros would look like Jack said 40/40/20.
Also timing of when you have your Carbs could impact on losing body fat.
Having the majority of your carbs throughout the day could hinder your fat loss, instead having the majority of your carbs after you have just trained.
You could also research carb cycling. two days of low carbs then a day of high carbs and the cycle continues.
Getting some fasted HIT training in would be ideal also protein breakfast and leave the carbs until later in the day.
Nope. Fat loss comes from being in a calorie deficit, no matter when you eat carbs.
Did i ever mention not going into a calorie deficit?
Sorry research I have done has said timing of certain foods can impact on overall body fat.
I'd like to see those studies. Because, unless you are an elite athlete training for a specific sport, I don't believe that is correct.
I will leave the research up to you knowledgeable bunch of sours.
A quick google of carb timing for fat loss will bring up many pages.
This was the first page that came up when I googled carb timing for fat loss:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing
Nice!
"...nutrient timing isn’t particularly important for most people trying to look and feel better."4 -
To the OP - the closest I've come to seeing abs is when I am regularly lifting HEAVY (for me), using compound lifts with some accessories. I'm talking 5 days a week, at least 1.5 hours per session.0
-
-
-
-
Like I have said it's an idea, I am not saying this is what you should do. Just an idea....
Last time I ever contribute to any forum
I have forgotten, what type of people use them.
Anyway time for my Oats just getting some of those needed carbs in before hitting the gym
0 -
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")2 -
This was a 4yo thread FYI.1
-
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.1 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.0 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.
Point out something I said that is not basic physiology.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.
Point out something I said that is not basic physiology.
Let's start with this bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense:The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Then maybe you could define what you consider "perfect" meal timing, and what evidence led you to that definition. And how it's relevant to the vast majority of people.
Maybe we could start by looking at Alan Aragon's definitions of when meal timing is or isn't important. He's reputed to maybe know a thing or two about nutrition and may have done a bit of study in his time:
3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
The link I posted was written after this article (did you miss this part at the top? "Note to readers: We wrote this article in 2009. Since then, based on the latest scientific research and lots of client experience, we’ve updated and refined our position on nutrient timing. To read our most recent thoughts on this topic, check out: Is nutrient timing dead? And does “when” you eat really matter?")
Ok so the article and link further supports my idea that their is no size that fits all and that studies have shown people who time their food did see a greater response in dropping fat loss. It could be a case of finding which your body responds well to.
Again ITS JUST AN IDEA ITS NOT THE HOLY GRAIL
It does also say that for the average person it may not matter, but its not hard to give it a go and see how a body responds to it.
People who time their food at breakfast.... Or at dinner... Pretty sure it explains that its fairly irrelevant when you eat.
It is not fairly irrelevant. It either makes a difference or not. It 100% does, our bodies don't work on some set schedule (daily, weekly, monthly, yearly) to say "okay, I have burned X calories and I have consumed Y calories, so I will gain/lose this much weight". Our bodies work on a moment by moment basis, you are either catabolic or anabolic in any given moment, and by feeding your body at appropriate times, and in the right amounts, you will see a benefit in performance, fat loss, muscle gain.
I am not saying this is an end all be all, but it does make a difference. Just because you've lost weight and fat or put on weight and muscle doesn't mean you did it most efficiently and could have gotten there faster. I agree, for a good majority of people on here, it doesn't really matter when you eat because you have a ton of weight to lose and it's not worth the effort to lose a bit more. But to say that meal timing is irrelevant is just not true. The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Not using this example as exact numbers for a specific person, just trying to explain what I mean by my point that the efficiency of your weight loss/ weight gain is effected by the timing of your meals.
It's not "fairly irrelevant" It's totally irrelevant.
The rest of that is broscience and woo.
What part of that is untrue?
The complete misunderstanding of metabolism and basic physiology, for starters.
Point out something I said that is not basic physiology.
Let's start with this bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense:The quality of the weight loss/weight gain will be different depending on your nutrient timing. Yes if you eat at a (lets just say) PERFECT 500 calorie deficit, you would lose 1lb of pure fat a week if you only lost fat. But if your meal timing is off of perfect, you may only be in a 450 calorie deficit from fat, and 50 from muscle mass. In 2 weeks you will have lost 1.8lbs of fat and about 0.45lbs of muscle. The scale will show you're down 2.2lbs but you've also not been as efficient with your fat loss.
Then maybe you could define what you consider "perfect" meal timing, and what evidence led you to that definition. And how it's relevant to the vast majority of people.
Maybe we could start by looking at Alan Aragon's definitions of when meal timing is or isn't important. He's reputed to maybe know a thing or two about nutrition and may have done a bit of study in his time:
Lets take it one at a time here. What did I say in that quote you posted that went against basic physiology?
I said at the end of it that I wasn't trying to relate it to a specific instance, I was trying to explain what I meant with my point that meal timing can be more efficient.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 994 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions