quick question about diet. [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

quick question about diet.

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Lacey12

Hey guys, Im 180 pounds, currently working out 4-6 times a week. I do quite a bit of cardio and weights. My question is how much calories, grams of fat and carbs should i be eating everyday? I currently started tracking my diet on fitday and im wondering where my numbers should be. Thanks for your time

- Chris

Posted by: Snarff

I believe (Well, eductated on this very site by a certain lady with killer abs, I listened) you should aim for around 1g of protein / lb of bodyweight & 0.5g of fats / lb of bodyweight as a minimum, the rest can be made up of however you like, if you go low on the carbs, target them around your workout.

I also personally find (as suggested might happen

) that a slightly higher protein, higher fat diet with plenty of vegetables and water keeps me full. sometimes gets to the stage where I dread eating, as I dont want to go too low on the cals

Posted by: Lacey12

so 180 grams of protein and 90 grams of fat?

Posted by: Snarff

yeah, as a bare minimum, but I personally shoot higher

Posted by: Lacey12

90 grams of fat seems high to me since im trying to cut fat, but im new to this whole thing so i dont know

Posted by: Built

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Eating more calories than you require makes you fat. Dietary fat is satiating.

What is your maintenance?

PS LOL at Snarff!

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Eating more calories than you require makes you fat. Dietary fat is satiating.

What is your maintenance?

PS LOL at Snarff!

sorry, built, im new to all of this! Define maintenance please

Posted by: tucker01

maintenance is a level of calories where you neither gain nor lose weight.

Posted by: Lacey12

Lately ive been consuming around 1900 cals a day and seem to be at a solid 180 for about a month and a half now

Posted by: Dodge

Fats still give you cholesterol though dont they? Atleast the bad ones.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey12

Lately ive been consuming around 1900 cals a day and seem to be at a solid 180 for about a month and a half now

Those are some low-assed calories. You may need to take a diet break, creep the calories up a little and try to increase your maintenance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Fats still give you cholesterol though dont they? Atleast the bad ones.

Not really. We make most of our cholesterol in our own bodies.

The only fats that make me nervous are trans fats. That stuff's not food.

Posted by: Skib

is she back???

i was starting to wonder if you fell off the face of the earth? :P

Posted by: Biggly

"Im 180 pounds"

What's your body fat level?

What's your goal, gain muscle or lose fat?

Hard to give directions without knowing where you are or where you're going.

B.

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

"Im 180 pounds"

What's your body fat level?

What's your goal, gain muscle or lose fat?

Hard to give directions without knowing where you are or where you're going.

B.

My body fat % is 18,(Id love be like 12 %) I want to cut the fat and gain muscle. Sorry for not saying that earlier

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Those are some low-assed calories. You may need to take a diet break, creep the calories up a little and try to increase your maintenance.

What should I aim for? Like 2100 cals a day?

Posted by: Biggly

If you want to cut fat and gain muscle at the same time you'll need to balance very carefully. For that there is no substitute for measuring what you currently eat and tracking the results, then increase gradually to the point fat gain occurs, then back off.

All the while you need to be doing resistance workouts with fairly high reps, with my preference being all-body rather than a split routine (to get growth hormones going).

For most people I'd say aim for the fat loss or the muscle, ie make a choice. If you're using Fitday you probably have the committment though, so go for it

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

All the while you need to be doing resistance workouts with fairly high reps,

Care to explain how high-rep training along with a slight caloric surplus will lead to fat loss with concurrent muscle gain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

with my preference being all-body rather than a split routine (to get growth hormones going).

I'm interested to know how "all-body" training effects increased GH better than split training.

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a transient increase of endogenous GH within normal physiologic levels will influence partitioning under this setup.

Posted by: WorkForIt

Weight?
Height?
Age?
Daily activity?

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

If you want to cut fat and gain muscle at the same time you'll need to balance very carefully. For that there is no substitute for measuring what you currently eat and tracking the results, then increase gradually to the point fat gain occurs, then back off.

All the while you need to be doing resistance workouts with fairly high reps, with my preference being all-body rather than a split routine (to get growth hormones going).

For most people I'd say aim for the fat loss or the muscle, ie make a choice. If you're using Fitday you probably have the committment though, so go for it

Id like to cut off some more fat id say at the moment then bulk up with muscle later on.

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by WorkForIt

Weight?
Height?
Age?
Daily activity?

Im 6 foot, 17 years of age and My daily activity is im at school from 8am to 3 pm then I go to the gym about 5-6 times a week. During the day is nothing much since im just sitting in classes all day

Posted by: Biggly

Quote:

Care to explain how high-rep training along with a slight caloric surplus will lead to fat loss with concurrent muscle gain?

Same as low rep training but quicker.

Quote:

I'm interested to know how "all-body" training effects increased GH better than split training.

He's a newby, "all-body" is easier to understand than "compound" or "work hard enough to get your juices going so that you grow instead of putting on fat". Want me to explain that?

Quote:

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a transient increase of endogenous GH within normal physiologic levels will influence partitioning under this setup.

I'll translate that for you, for the benefit of the newby/s.

"While I'm trying to be a smart arse, explain how short-term boost in your own hormone levels within levels possible without steroids will push energy towards muscle tissue instead of fat cells"

Because his calorie count will be only barely sufficent, forcing the body to use energy for growth but without enough spare for fat cells. You agreed in the first paragraph and now you're asking me to explain how it works? Would you like it in pig Latin or should I just point out no-one, not even you Built, really knows HOW these things work, we just know they do?

Hormones are just the body's form of non-neural communication with itself (and I was primarily referring to testosterone rather than HGH but you know how loaded that word tends to be with newbys).

I've told you before, I'm not interested in some Latin-throwing or reference-throwing contest. We could bring 3 different expert nutritionists here and get 3 different answers. Bottom line I talk about what works with real people leading real lifestyles, not the latest article in PubMed OR what worked for me personally.

I get 2 or 3 emails every freaking DAY from people sending me screenshots of their graphs or user files or just trying to explain their situation and asking various questions. If I've learnt anything it's that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone but I can certainly see trends, patterns and common occurences. I can say what's LIKELY to work but always stress experimentation.

What I won't do is get into some pissing contest with big words to "prove" anything. I don't need to, I don't want to and it sure as hell won't help the newby.

B.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Agreed.

Care to explain how high-rep training along with a slight caloric surplus will lead to fat loss with concurrent muscle gain?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Same as low rep training but quicker.

Really? So the body retains and grows muscle just as well from lifting heavy as it does lifting a light weight lifted over and over and over? Why would anyone train heavy if this were the case?

The one time I managed to get at least reasonably shredded (my avatar and profile pix), I performed low-rep training. Worked a charm, in a way that high-rep training never did.

The way I'm seeing it, in a caloric deficit, you'll have an easier time convincing the body to hang onto a big muscle by lifting a big weight, even if only a few times. Lifting a weight that's light enough to lift in a higher rep-range means you don't need a big muscle - just a lot of endurance. No need for a calorie-draining big muscle when a small, light one that burns very few calories will suffice, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

I'm interested to know how "all-body" training effects increased GH better than split training.

He's a newby, "all-body" is easier to understand than "compound" or "work hard enough to get your juices going so that you grow instead of putting on fat". Want me to explain that?

No no no - that's not what I was getting at. I'm a fan of compound movements, and I'm a fan of whole-body workouts, especially during a deficit. This sounded like you were implying that training the whole body in a single workout somehow stimulated more growth hormone than split training does. I don't know that it doesn't - that's why I asked. I thought this was interesting, since it was in accordance with what I had long understood anyway. But it appears I didn't understand your post, so it's a moot point now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

WHOAH - I was at least partially agreeing with you. I just wanted to understand your reasoning. By the way, steroids don't increase growth hormone. HGH does that, and it's not a steroid - it's a peptide hormone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain how a transient increase of endogenous GH within normal physiologic levels will influence partitioning under this setup.

Because his calorie count will be only barely sufficent, forcing the body to use energy for growth but without enough spare for fat cells. You agreed in the first paragraph and now you're asking me to explain how it works?

You see, you WILL get a transient endogenous GH spike from a lot of things that you do - including starving and sitting in a sauna while dehydrated. This transient spike is sadly nowhere near sufficient to compensate for the activities we may perform in order to stimulate it.

If it were, we'd all simply train this way and be shredded.

Bottom line: it might look interesting on paper, but I have yet to see evidence - in a journal or on a human - that supports this. Actually, even the guys who run metric asstons of GH will tell you they don't get big from it - they use it to lean out, and they take it at levels so beyond anything physiologically possible it's in a different universe.

The rest of your post is rather insulting as you misunderstood the tone of my questions, so I'll leave it unaddressed.

Peace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Would you like it in pig Latin or should I just point out no-one, not even you Built, really knows HOW these things work, we just know they do?

Hormones are just the body's form of non-neural communication with itself (and I was primarily referring to testosterone rather than HGH but you know how loaded that word tends to be with newbys).

I've told you before, I'm not interested in some Latin-throwing or reference-throwing contest. We could bring 3 different expert nutritionists here and get 3 different answers. Bottom line I talk about what works with real people leading real lifestyles, not the latest article in PubMed OR what worked for me personally.

I get 2 or 3 emails every freaking DAY from people sending me screenshots of their graphs or user files or just trying to explain their situation and asking various questions. If I've learnt anything it's that there's no one-size-fits-all solution for everyone but I can certainly see trends, patterns and common occurences. I can say what's LIKELY to work but always stress experimentation.

What I won't do is get into some pissing contest with big words to "prove" anything. I don't need to, I don't want to and it sure as hell won't help the newby.
B.

Posted by: Biggly

Well I misunderstood due to the fact I get the impression every time I post you leap on me demanding proof.

And I was talking about testosterone more than HGH.

I'd agree that for testosterone production heavy lifting is the way to go for overall mass. For fast visible results people tend to be more delighted with the higher reps and I DO see a pattern of growth and fat loss at the same time, at least in terms of happy shiny faces because they like the effect in the mirror.

If he said he was skinny and his main aim was gaining weight then yes, go heavy but he said he wants to lose weight. In my experience when someone wants to do both, push them into a corner and they'll admit they want to lose the fat first. As such I was pushing him more towards definition than sheer mass.

Sorry if you felt insulted, I was being defensive.

Peace too.

B.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Well I misunderstood due to the fact I get the impression every time I post you leap on me demanding proof.

And I was talking about testosterone more than HGH.

As steep as the learning curve is for newbies, you might as well tell 'em facts, or at least warn 'em when you give 'em the "lies we tell to children".
There's enough bs out there. That's my feeling on this, anyway.

Low rep heavy compounds stimulate a transient but significant increase in systemic testosterone in response to the damage caused - the body sets in place a cascade of events to repair the microtrauma caused by the heavy lifts. This has anabolic benefits throughout the body - but it doesn't happen from high-rep training. Not to any appreciable extent. At least if my reading is current. You may have something I have not read?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

I'd agree that for testosterone production heavy lifting is the way to go for overall mass.

Not in a deficit - in a deficit, heavy lifting PROTECTS mass. High reps convinces the body to drop mass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

For fast visible results people tend to be more delighted with the higher reps and I DO see a pattern of growth and fat loss at the same time, at least in terms of happy shiny faces because they like the effect in the mirror.

They get smaller, and because they are dropping muscle along with fat, they drop weight a lot faster.

In a deficit, heavy lifting slows WEIGHT loss but accelerates FAT loss.

Why? Well, a 3500-calorie deficit burns off a single pound of bodyfat, but about 5 or 6 pounds of muscle, at least if a pound of lean sirloin and a pound of lean mass hold roughly the same calories. (I checked the USDA nutrient database, oddly they don't list the calories in a pound of lean human so I made a quick substitution with lean sirloin...)

So for all you kids out there in TV land, you want to drop weight fast?

Run a caloric deficit, drop your protein as you drop your calories (the dietary ratio approach to dieting deems this is the case unless you choose "bulking", "cutting" and "maintenance" ratios for your setup)
Train in high reps with short rest breaks to burn more calories and to convince the body that there is in fact no need for big muscles. That way you'll drop less fat and more muscle than you would have if, on the same deficit, you consumed more protein and performed low-rep heavy compounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

If he said he was skinny and his main aim was gaining weight then yes, go heavy but he said he wants to lose weight. In my experience when someone wants to do both, push them into a corner and they'll admit they want to lose the fat first. As such I was pushing him more towards definition than sheer mass.

More definition is a product of FAT loss, not WEIGHT loss. YOu were pushing him toward old-school dogma that works best on steroids. He's natty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biggly

Sorry if you felt insulted, I was being defensive.

Peace too.

B.

Thank you for the apology.

Posted by: Lacey12

So in order for me to cut the fat i should just do lighter and more reps of excerise?

Posted by: Snarff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

So for all you kids out there in TV land, you want to drop weight fast? [LIST]

Posted by: Lacey12

thanks for the info built

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey12

So in order for me to cut the fat i should just do lighter and more reps of excerise?

Only if you want to drop muscle.

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

Only if you want to drop muscle.

See, I wouldnt like to drop muscle at all, i want to maintain what i have at the moment and cut the fat. How abouts would i do that

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Calorie Intake to Lose Weight

Do the BMR calculator, then the Harris Benedict calculator. That will show you your maintenance intake. If you are stuck at a certain weight, and find that you are below your maintenance, it means that your body has slowed down your metabolism to use up exactly what your eating. Slowly increase your calorie intake up to your maintenance, and keep it there for some time.. maybe a couple weeks. If you maintain weight, and feel comfortable, drop 300 calories, start doing some cardio and continue lifting weights. Do compound movements (squats deadlifts bench ect ect). Try a few weeks heavy weight low rep. If you like it role with it, if you don't try lighter weight higher rep. Remember its always good to change it up either way. Lift heavy for 3 or 4 weeks, try a weak of lighter weight higher rep.

Personally I have found that muscles get bigger with heavy weight lower rep, but everyone is different. Remember, don't let your form slip to lift a heavier weight than you can handle.

Posted by: Lacey12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorcycled00d

Calorie Intake to Lose Weight

Do the BMR calculator, then the Harris Benedict calculator. That will show you your maintenance intake. If you are stuck at a certain weight, and find that you are below your maintenance, it means that your body has slowed down your metabolism to use up exactly what your eating. Slowly increase your calorie intake up to your maintenance, and keep it there for some time.. maybe a couple weeks. If you maintain weight, and feel comfortable, drop 300 calories, start doing some cardio and continue lifting weights. Do compound movements (squats deadlifts bench ect ect). Try a few weeks heavy weight low rep. If you like it role with it, if you don't try lighter weight higher rep. Remember its always good to change it up either way. Lift heavy for 3 or 4 weeks, try a weak of lighter weight higher rep.

Personally I have found that muscles get bigger with heavy weight lower rep, but everyone is different. Remember, don't let your form slip to lift a heavier weight than you can handle.

I did the tests and i got my maintenance level. Ill try out what you suggested. Thanks

Posted by: Merkaba

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

So for all you kids out there in TV land, you want to drop weight fast?

Run a caloric deficit, drop your protein as you drop your calories (the dietary ratio approach to dieting deems this is the case unless you choose "bulking", "cutting" and "maintenance" ratios for your setup)
Train in high reps with short rest breaks to burn more calories and to convince the body that there is in fact no need for big muscles. That way you'll drop less fat and more muscle than you would have if, on the same deficit, you consumed more protein and performed low-rep heavy compounds.

More definition is a product of FAT loss, not WEIGHT loss. YOu were pushing him toward old-school dogma that works best on steroids. He's natty.

Thank you for the apology.

God I have to tell people this every fucking day in the gym! AKA The Biggest Loser show.

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

So for all you kids out there in TV land, you want to drop weight fast?

Run a caloric deficit, drop your protein as you drop your calories (the dietary ratio approach to dieting deems this is the case unless you choose "bulking", "cutting" and "maintenance" ratios for your setup)
Train in high reps with short rest breaks to burn more calories and to convince the body that there is in fact no need for big muscles. That way you'll drop less fat and more muscle than you would have if, on the same deficit, you consumed more protein and performed low-rep heavy compounds.

More definition is a product of FAT loss, not WEIGHT loss. YOu were pushing him toward old-school dogma that works best on steroids. He's natty.

Thank you for the apology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merkaba

God I have to tell people this every fucking day in the gym! AKA The Biggest Loser show.

I find that show so beyond offensive it's excruciating. I hate it that people are encouraged to believe it's supposed to be ridiculously hard to achieve the extremely modest results most people are after.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorcycled00d

Good advice on the cutting - train heavy most of the time, do a backoff week once in a while to deload so you don't get injured. Figure out your maintenance, drop calories slowly. To the OP, you may find it simpler to simply assume your maintenance is about 14 or 15 times your bodyweight. Personally, I prefer to track = then you KNOW. But ultimately, you're going to have to drop from somewhere, monitor your results and adjust accordingly.

With regard to the lifting - muscles DO get larger when challenged with heavy weight, but that's with extra calories. The OP here is cutting. He's not going to grow big muscles on a cut - but if he's smart and trains heavy, he might be able to KEEP 'em this way!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacey12

See, I wouldnt like to drop muscle at all, i want to maintain what i have at the moment and cut the fat. How abouts would i do that

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I told you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

...in a deficit, heavy lifting PROTECTS mass.

<snip>

In a deficit, heavy lifting slows WEIGHT loss but accelerates FAT loss.

<snip>

More definition is a product of FAT loss, not WEIGHT loss.

Here's what I would suggest: figure out your maintenance using any of the estimation methods suggested above, and drop your calories by about twenty percent.

Train in a full-body split three days a week:
Squats
Cleans, clean and press or push press
Deads
Chins
Bench

Three sets of 5-8 reps for each movement, then do twenty minutes on any cardio modality you like. Ease into interval work as your cut progresses, and when you stall out, bump this thread for suggestions.

Happy cutting!

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Yeah, I meant in regard to keeping his muscle mass, not gaining more.

Just make sure to change it up every few weeks. Your body acclimates itself to workouts quickly, and wants to stay in a state of homeostasis, so it will adapt accordingly.

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Ahhhh cleans. A dreaded lift by many, loved by me

Posted by: Built

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorcycled00d

Yeah, I meant in regard to keeping his muscle mass, not gaining more.

Just make sure to change it up every few weeks. Your body acclimates itself to workouts quickly, and wants to stay in a state of homeostasis, so it will adapt accordingly.

Note that the changes can be very subtle - changing the workout order or rep range can be sufficient. There is no need to overhaul your workouts every few weeks - although it can be helpful to have two or three workout plans among which to alternate.

Posted by: Skib

Quote:

Originally Posted by Built

so true, I never really thought of it that way.

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Yep, small changes work wonders.

One week ill do 8 sets of 3, the next 4 sets of 6, the next 5 sets of 8, the next 3 sets of 12. And usually if I'm doing 4 workouts, ill do two exercises with one rep range, and 2 with another.

Some people will hate it, some will love it. It'll hit your fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, so you'll be working your muscle in various ways.

You will find what you like, and what works best for you though, just try something for a month, if you don't like it change it. Just don't completely change your routine every week.

Posted by: HCG Diet

So Far I have heard only about the diet which will help us to lose weight but can you recommend me a diet which can help me to gain muscles.

Posted by: Merkaba

Quote:

Originally Posted by HCG Diet

So Far I have heard only about the diet which will help us to lose weight but can you recommend me a diet which can help me to gain muscles.

you just do the opposite of losing wieght! Add about 20 to 25% more calories over your maintenance and workout heavy.

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Simplest, least technical way to think about diet:

Your body needs a certain amount of calories to get you through your day and maintain weight, size, energy, health. (Maintenance caloric amount)

Take away a couple hundred calories and your body needs to find another source of energy to compensate, so it uses your bodies energy reserves and source of insulation (fat)

Add a few hundred calories and lift heavy weights properly, and the excess calories will be used to repair the muscles you used to lift the weight. I guess you could think of the muscle like a callus. You damage the muscle(good damage), your body repairs it, and during the repair makes it a little bigger. By lifting the heavy weight, your muscles are forces to be used, damaged, and repaired (with the energy from excess calories) so it can get bigger and stronger to lift the heavier weight.

Genes obviously play a huge role in how big and what your muscle looks like, but thats a whole other topic.

P.S. Don't think that by eating 2000 calories less than your maintenance you will lose weight super fast, it will just make your body use less calories and function poorly. Your metabolism will slow down, and it will get you no where. And if bulking, you'll gain fat. Gradually lower or raise your intakes until you get the desired effect.

GL

Posted by: Merkaba

ok but its not all about damage and repair though and I think this is why people do a massive amount of overtraining.

Its also about steering and partitioning and the body's desire to overcompensate in order to NOT damage and need to repair.

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Well, I was addressing the diet aspect of it. The OP has already received good lifting routine advice.

Posted by: Merkaba

I was referring to the diet aspect also!

Posted by: Motorcycled00d

Ah, maybe overtraining threw me off. I wasn't going to sit here and type pages explaining nutrient functions and how the body works, I was just giving him a very basic break down of maintain, cut, and bulk.

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

quick question about diet.

Article Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60