Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Best macro ratio
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Everyone has different ideas because there is no right answer. Speaking very generally, recommended macros should be viewed as a range, not as specific numbers. Where any one person falls within that range can vary based on goals, preferences, etc.
Here is the cheat sheet I keep for myself. I tend to get bogged down in the finer details that don't really matter all that much, so this is a helpful reminder for me. It tells me 2 things: (1) what my range is for each macro, and (2) what my min/max cals are for cutting and bulking. You can use the same recommendations, but use your own weight/body fat to figure out your specific macros/cals.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
Does it work if you use goal weight or a healthy BMI weight? [Oh, I see I wasn't the first to suggest that! Should read to the end.]
Anyway, that is what I've typically seen for protein gram calculations, and it makes sense for carbs, since carbs would be more variable if cutting calories.
The minimums for me are below 1200, but the ranges seem right on.
Yes, the minimum really is treated as an absolute minimum. Same with the max. If I were to cut and drop to 1800 or lower, I would probably see some negative side effects (excessive loss of muscle, lower than acceptable energy levels, etc).
Similarly, if I were to bulk at over 3600, there would be negligible benefit, and mostly I'd just gain fat faster than necessary.
The min and max numbers are really just sanity checks.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »itsthehumidity wrote: »
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.
Why does protein depend on bodyweight but fat on the number of calories you're eating?
This seems wrong to me too.
The Kenyan marathoners are often reported as eating an 80-10-10 diet, which means something quite different when eating the number of calories they need to in order to maintain bodyweight at their level of training. Fat percentage is low, but total grams per bodyweight less so.
What is their caloric intake 3500-4000 cals/day I would assume, based on their training. 10% of 3500 is 350 cals or 39 grams of fat 39/.35 (0.35 grams per lb) would have their body weight at about 112 lbs, They may weigh a little more than that but that would not be way off. From looking at stats they tend to range from 115-145lbs (male runners)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »itsthehumidity wrote: »
Don't get too caught up in the numbers out of the gate. First get your calorie needs in order then worry about macros and so on and so forth...
I haven't read all the posts but this is a very good chart. When you do get to the macros step, you have some flexibility. That said, here is what a lot of lifters/bodybuilders tend to go with:
1g of protein per pound of bodyweight. If you weigh 150 pounds, that's 150g of protein per day. In my case, that makes protein 40% of my calories
20%-30% of your calories from fat. Don't go below that 20% number; fat is a very important nutrient.
Carbohydrates are the most flexible, and are what should be ramped up and down depending on your goals/situation (cutting, bulking, maintaining, lifting performance, sensitivity to carbohydrates, etc.).
For me, I eat about 1600-1700 calories per day, as I'm cutting. 160g of protein, 30% of my calories from fat, so ~500 calories or ~55g of fat. That leaves me with about 460 calories left, which lets me eat about 116g of carbohydrates. If I was bulking, at say 2500 calories, I'd pretty much keep protein and fat the same, but raise my carbohydrates to about 270g or so.
Why does protein depend on bodyweight but fat on the number of calories you're eating?
This seems wrong to me too.
The Kenyan marathoners are often reported as eating an 80-10-10 diet, which means something quite different when eating the number of calories they need to in order to maintain bodyweight at their level of training. Fat percentage is low, but total grams per bodyweight less so.
What is their caloric intake 3500-4000 cals/day I would assume, based on their training. 10% of 3500 is 350 cals or 39 grams of fat 39/.35 (0.35 grams per lb) would have their body weight at about 112 lbs, They may weigh a little more than that but that would not be way off. From looking at stats they tend to range from 115-145lbs (male runners)
http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2010/04/19/marathon_runners_food_requirements_are_a_lot_to_take_in/
Looks like they "can expend roughly 2,500 to 4,500 calories per day."
The 4,500 calories makes it even more reasonable.0 -
Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)0 -
Yes.amusedmonkey wrote: »Everyone has different ideas because there is no right answer. Speaking very generally, recommended macros should be viewed as a range, not as specific numbers. Where any one person falls within that range can vary based on goals, preferences, etc.
Here is the cheat sheet I keep for myself. I tend to get bogged down in the finer details that don't really matter all that much, so this is a helpful reminder for me. It tells me 2 things: (1) what my range is for each macro, and (2) what my min/max cals are for cutting and bulking. You can use the same recommendations, but use your own weight/body fat to figure out your specific macros/cals.
This chart would only work for normal weight men. For the overweight or obese it doesn't work. I plugged in my info and it says I need to eat a total of 2700 calories using the minimum values. I'm pretty sure I would gain eating that. The premise is correct though, it is more of a range than a specific value.
Yes, there is some gray area based on weight and where you fall on the bell curve. The further away from average you get, the more tweaking you'll probably want to do with those numbers.
Admittedly, the carb ranges are higher than they need to be for many people as I am pretty active and do a lot of cardio work. My guess is the average MFPer looking to lose weight could probably get away with cutting the carb recommendations of that chart in half.
In the case of being out of range due to being overweight, do you think this could be used with a goal weight? Would that correct the discrepancy?
Do you mean using goal weight rather than current weight to calculate the ranges/numbers?
Yes, in most cases it probably will. As with any tool, some common sense needs to be used when considering the numbers. Calculations and generalizations always have limits.
0 -
Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?0 -
I'm trying to figure out the best way to lose weight. So far I have been trying to get my macros 35% protein 35% carbs and 30% fat. But I'm beginning to see that I need to learn how to figure it all out but everyone seems to have different opinions. Can anyone help?
I start with how much protein I need... 1 gram protein per lb of lean body mass. So I aim for 115g protein.
After that I want about 35g fiber, and 50g net carbs (carbs - fiber). This puts me at about 80g carbs.
The rest is in fat, which ends up being 45-50% of my diet, and is usually about the same in grams as my protein intake. The result is 1600-1800 calories, more if I exercise a lot and need more carbs.
make you macros and calories work for YOU.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
10% on a 3000 calorie diet (average per the linked study) would be 300 calories or 75 g
An average Kenyan distance runner is what? 130 lbs (guessing here)? So that equates to about 0.6g of protein per pound, which is in line with what many MFP'ers recommend.
Or are you suggesting that Kenyan distance runners have a significant amount of muscle mass, equivalent to that of your average MFP user?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
My point in bringing it up was that focusing on percentage isn't all that helpful in many cases, especially when someone is either at a deficit or has a huge energy burn. People often say that 10% of calories in fat is too low (and if I'm at a deficit of 1500, say, that would be something important to consider). But for the right person it's a perfectly appropriate amount of fat, measured in grams.
Same with protein.
Oddly enough, I think it's usually the people who seem to know most about the benefits of protein beyond RDA who also focus on grams being a superior consideration to percentage. I don't think the MFP 20% is inherently too low (it's just about right for me at maintenance), but given the number of people eating at 1200 (or 60), even when they are reasonably tall, and the benefits of protein (often for satiety, as well as preserving muscle mass), considering whether the goal is on the low side isn't a foolish thing to do at all.
To compare, the usual range given is .6-.8 (or .65-.85) for someone exercising and wanting to preserve muscle mass at a deficit. The Kenyans aren't at a deficit and wouldn't have muscle mass as a huge priority (leanness is, but so is being pretty light), and yet they come in around .6 g/lb -- just about the same range, although the low end.
Someone with a goal weight of 150 at 1200 calories and standard MFP goals would be eating only .4 g/lb. Fine, according to the RDA, but below the levels that have been found beneficial to protect muscle mass, from what I've read. If she's 300 lbs, maybe it doesn't matter so much (although 1200 calories would be an issue, and satiety, probably), but at 180 trying to lose 30 lbs, or as she gets closer, it's a sensible thing to think about.
But of course I agree that goals, body comp, and overall calories (my original point), are what matter most.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.0 -
I agree, but I think it's worth noting the realism here. Most people naturally carry more muscle mass than the marathoner example. So for them to work towards achieving that kind of body would seem counterproductive to me.robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
Now there are a select few of us that are in a position where both levels of muscle mass are achievable, since some of us naturally have less muscle mass.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
That's not fair, though. Most people are not aiming to be marginally underweight like many elite marathoners are. If you look at the posted picture, the marathoners is pretty lean in terms of body fat. Larger muscle mass would mean a heavier weight which nulls the comparison. A heavy lifter at that weight/height ratio (if there ever is such a thing) may have slightly more muscle definition but wouldn't look that much different.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
That's not fair, though. Most people are not aiming to be marginally underweight like many elite marathoners are. If you look at the posted picture, the marathoners is pretty lean in terms of body fat. Larger muscle mass would mean a heavier weight which nulls the comparison. A heavy lifter at that weight/height ratio (if there ever is such a thing) may have slightly more muscle definition but wouldn't look that much different.
I think that's the point...
Why was a study that showed that Kenyan marathon runners diets contained a fairly low level of protein intake (which even then isn't completely far off the typical MFP recommendation) proffered as some sort of definite "best macro ratio"? (Other than the obvious agenda-pushing)0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
That's not fair, though. Most people are not aiming to be marginally underweight like many elite marathoners are. If you look at the posted picture, the marathoners is pretty lean in terms of body fat. Larger muscle mass would mean a heavier weight which nulls the comparison. A heavy lifter at that weight/height ratio (if there ever is such a thing) may have slightly more muscle definition but wouldn't look that much different.
I think that's the point...
Why was a study that showed that Kenyan marathon runners diets contained a fairly low level of protein intake (which even then isn't completely far off the typical MFP recommendation) proffered as some sort of definite "best macro ratio"? (Other than the obvious agenda-pushing)
Yes. My post was meant to speak against the claim that low protein causes "the marathoner look" and if you want to look like this all you need to do is not eat too much protein when that particular look can be attributed to the low body weight for the most part.
Does protein help muscle retention and growth? It does. Will consuming a lot of protein make you bulked up and ripped? Not without appropriate training. Will consuming the lower end of normal make you look very thin? Not without an appropriate deficit. Similarly, a bodybuilder who opts for a lower protein diet for whatever reason would still gain mass, probably not as efficiently as the typical bodybuilder, but it's guaranteed that with the appropriate calorie budget he/she will NOT look like a marathoner.0 -
One interesting thing is that the marathoner seems to eat at the bottom range of the "beneficial for either athletic performance or to maintain muscle at a deficit" that is usually recommended and in the middle (higher end) of the range recommended for athletic performance when not at a deficit or trying to build muscle.
Which makes total sense, as he is not trying to build muscle or lose weight.
It does not support the idea that RDA is all we should be getting and looking for more is foolish or ridiculously high.
For example, here's my usual citation for people asking about protein (from Examine, with studies):If you are an athlete or highly active person currently attempting to lose body fat while preserving lean muscle mass, a daily intake of 1.5-2.2g/kg bodyweight (0.68-1g/lb bodyweight) would be a good target.
If you are an athlete or highly active person, OR you are attempting to lose body fat while preserving lean mass, then a daily intake of 1.0-1.5g/kg bodyweight (0.45-0.68g/lb bodyweight) would be a good target.
If you are sedentary and not looking to change body composition much, a daily target of 0.8g/kg bodyweight (0.36g/lb bodyweight) and upwards would be a good target.
I think a lot of people at MFP are both trying to lose weight and improve fitness/athletic performance, so the top one makes sense, and same for people trying to build muscle/improve body composition.
Later in the Examine discussion it explains:The US Recommended Daily Allowance for protein[1] ranges between 46-56g for adults, depending on gender. Sometimes this number is also defined as 0.8g/kg bodyweight, if relative to weight.[1]
This is usually the lowest recommended estimate as it does not assume any extraneous conditions. It may not be sufficient for elderly persons undergoing the process of muscle loss, as inadequate amino acid intake can result in muscle mass loss to mobilize those amino acids for other uses at this level of intake.[2]
And:According to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, protein intakes of 1.4-2.0 g/kg of bodyweight (0.6-0.9g/lb of bodyweight) for physically active individuals is not only safe, but may improve the training adaptations to exercise training. [7]. The American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada, and the American College of Sports Medicine also support high protein intake for active individuals[8] in the range of 1.2-1.7 g/kg of bodyweight (0.5-0.8 g/lb of bodyweight).
(Again, this is consistent even with the marathoner intake despite the fact that muscle building would not be a priority for them as it is with some other athletes, due to their concern for lightness.)
And once again, there's a bigger concern if you have a deficit -- not losing muscle mass. Elite athletes actively in training generally don't run a deficit.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Does protein help muscle retention and growth? It does. Will consuming a lot of protein make you bulked up and ripped? Not without appropriate training. Will consuming the lower end of normal make you look very thin? Not without an appropriate deficit. Similarly, a bodybuilder who opts for a lower protein diet for whatever reason would still gain mass, probably not as efficiently as the typical bodybuilder, but it's guaranteed that with the appropriate calorie budget he/she will NOT look like a marathoner.
Agree with this.0 -
The type of training one does has a far greater impact on their physique then their macros. All the protein in the world will not build muscle if one does not lift...robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
That's not fair, though. Most people are not aiming to be marginally underweight like many elite marathoners are. If you look at the posted picture, the marathoners is pretty lean in terms of body fat. Larger muscle mass would mean a heavier weight which nulls the comparison. A heavy lifter at that weight/height ratio (if there ever is such a thing) may have slightly more muscle definition but wouldn't look that much different.
I think that's the point...
Why was a study that showed that Kenyan marathon runners diets contained a fairly low level of protein intake (which even then isn't completely far off the typical MFP recommendation) proffered as some sort of definite "best macro ratio"? (Other than the obvious agenda-pushing)
Yes. My post was meant to speak against the claim that low protein causes "the marathoner look" and if you want to look like this all you need to do is not eat too much protein when that particular look can be attributed to the low body weight for the most part.
Does protein help muscle retention and growth? It does. Will consuming a lot of protein make you bulked up and ripped? Not without appropriate training. Will consuming the lower end of normal make you look very thin? Not without an appropriate deficit. Similarly, a bodybuilder who opts for a lower protein diet for whatever reason would still gain mass, probably not as efficiently as the typical bodybuilder, but it's guaranteed that with the appropriate calorie budget he/she will NOT look like a marathoner.
Exactly, if you want to look like a marathoner then you must train like a marathoner. Your macros have far less to do with it...
0 -
That's exactly my point though. I'd personally prefer looking more like the guy on the right than the one on the left. So the protein requirements of the guy on the left isn't what I look to accomplish personally. Some of these elite marathoners are taller than me, but have less total body mass than I have lean body mass.amusedmonkey wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
That's not fair, though. Most people are not aiming to be marginally underweight like many elite marathoners are. If you look at the posted picture, the marathoners is pretty lean in terms of body fat. Larger muscle mass would mean a heavier weight which nulls the comparison. A heavy lifter at that weight/height ratio (if there ever is such a thing) may have slightly more muscle definition but wouldn't look that much different.0 -
The type of training one does has a far greater impact on their physique then their macros. All the protein in the world will not build muscle if one does not lift...robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
Well of course, but it isn't an either-or problem. I don't have to choose between training like a marathon with a sprinter's macros, or a sprinter with a marathoner's macros. I can choose to have a sprinter's macros and training if that reflects the composition I'm looking for. If I am looking to retain muscle mass, I'm probably better off having macros similar to someone who has more muscle mass, regardless of my specific training.0 -
The type of training one does has a far greater impact on their physique then their macros. All the protein in the world will not build muscle if one does not lift...robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
Well of course, but it isn't an either-or problem. I don't have to choose between training like a marathon with a sprinter's macros, or a sprinter with a marathoner's macros. I can choose to have a sprinter's macros and training if that reflects the composition I'm looking for. If I am looking to retain muscle mass, I'm probably better off having macros similar to someone who has more muscle mass, regardless of my specific training.
I agree the macros are important, I just think they are overemphasized...0 -
The type of training one does has a far greater impact on their physique then their macros. All the protein in the world will not build muscle if one does not lift...robertw486 wrote: »Kenyan runners in training - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15657475 - Protein intake 10.1 % of calories; 1.3 g/kg BM per day. BM (body mass) under 60 kg so about 130 lbs.
Estimated energy intake (EI: 2987 +/- 293 kcal; mean +/- standard deviation) was lower than energy expenditure (EE: 3605 +/- 119 kcal; P < 0.001)
An excellent example of how macros should be adjusted based on the overall body composition and sports performance desired from the diet. Many seem to claim that even the MFP standard macros will all but allow you to wither and die from lacking protein. Surely these elite distance runners somehow do this without muscle mass?
If the left is one's goal more than the right, it is one's body to do with as they wish.
Well of course, but it isn't an either-or problem. I don't have to choose between training like a marathon with a sprinter's macros, or a sprinter with a marathoner's macros. I can choose to have a sprinter's macros and training if that reflects the composition I'm looking for. If I am looking to retain muscle mass, I'm probably better off having macros similar to someone who has more muscle mass, regardless of my specific training.
I agree the macros are important, I just think they are overemphasized...
Well I'd agree they aren't going to replace actual exercise in terms of composition and performance goals. I'd definitely agree that the marathoner's build has at least 75% to 95% to do with the exercise he's doing.0 -
In the case of the marathoners shown, very low protein levels, in a 600 calorie a day deficit during training, yet retaining the muscles that are trained through the deficit, and used for their particular sports.
There are studies on VLCDs, and even with very low intake, people that have the training levels up retain the majority of the trained muscle. I'd bet the Kenyans worry more about running and less about the perfect macro ratios myself.
Macros to fit the training make complete sense. Those choosing macros in hopes that it eliminates the need for hard training... well good luck with that. I'd venture to say that for many people, there is a lot of wiggle room in macro ratios that they wouldn't even notice.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »In the case of the marathoners shown, very low protein levels, in a 600 calorie a day deficit during training, yet retaining the muscles that are trained through the deficit, and used for their particular sports.
How are they at very low protein levels given actual calories consumed?0 -
Also, I disapprove of VLCD, but I've yet to see a study of them that permits muscle retention without high protein (I think a high protein VLCD has it's place, but should be rare).0
-
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »80% to 90% carbs, 5% to 12% protein, 5% to 8% fat. I achieve that easily without thinking by eating whole-plants food and avoiding animal products altogether. weight loss comes automatically on the long term and it is maintainable and sustainable long term as well.
if OP wants to preserve muscle mass than getting 12% protein is a horrible idea...
and avoiding animal foods has nothing to do with this topic...
I gained muscle mass and lost fat while going on a 60-30-10 Carb:Fat:protein plant based diet. Even our mother's milk is only like 7% protein meaning the fitness industry has fed us BS that protein is the most important macronutrient and we need 40% plus or our muscles won't recover from working out. Don't believe in the hype like I did.
0 -
How so? The eating plan my registered dietician and doctor recommends for my heart health and lifestyle falls within the chart you quoted. Unless my medical team is trying to kill me. Defend your claim.0 -
Quote your sources. Here's links to numerous studies which say otherwise: https://examine.com/faq/how-much-protein-do-i-need-every-day/
Excerpt:Two studies[3][4] indicated that 12-15% of calories from protein is sufficient for active individuals (60-75g of protein for an individual eating a 2000 calorie diet). While two more recent studies [5][6] argue for higher intake - the first study reports that greater than 1.6-1.8 g/kg of bodyweight (0.7-0.8 g/lb of bodyweight) may be necessary, while the second study indicates that up to 3.0 g/kg of bodyweight (1.4 g/lb of bodyweight) isn't harmful, and may have additional minor benefits.
According to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, protein intakes of 1.4-2.0 g/kg of bodyweight (0.6-0.9g/lb of bodyweight) for physically active individuals is not only safe, but may improve the training adaptations to exercise training. [7]. The American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada, and the American College of Sports Medicine also support high protein intake for active individuals[8] in the range of 1.2-1.7 g/kg of bodyweight (0.5-0.8 g/lb of bodyweight).
The reasons for the above tend to be increased leucine oxidation (a marker for amino acids being used for fuel, by being turned into glucose) that requires a higher intake of amino acids to negate and preserve nitrogen balance.[9][7] Additionally, increasing protein intake above the previously defined RDA 'daily allowance' will increase protein synthesis and, at levels higher than double this total, decrease protein breakdown.[10] Increased muscular hypertrophy is seen as beneficial to sports performance.
During Weight Loss
High protein diets have been found to preserve lean body mass when dieting in both obese people[11] and athletes [12] and has also been shown to improve overall body composition[13]. A doubling of protein intake from 0.9g/kg (near the daily recommended intake for the general population) to 1.8g/kg is able to preserve lean muscle mass during short-term and relatively drastic drops in calories.[14]0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions