eating copious amounts of fat...

[Built]

Because the nutritional value of potato chips is way different than nutritional value of oatmeal. Which is the healthier option and which ones going to provide better nutrients for the body? A calorie is a calorie either way but you are going to be healthier eating the oatmeal than the chips. This is why I feel like weight watchers point system is a joke.

I could not agree more on the ww front. But then, they donâ??????t ensure adequate protein and fat.
I did the ratio thing for a long time and it really didn't help me understand what was going on (much less successfully diet and keep the weight off like I have these last seven years), but once I read about the LBM-targeted "dosings" paradigm, the whole picture just jumped right out at me. SO MUCH EASIER - and a LOT more flexible!

Listen, try this sometime. Humour me. Pop into fitday or whatever plan you use, and set up a day for yourself or anybody with the guidelines I offered. Set it up at a small deficit, say 15% below maintenance.

Set for this imaginary client amounts that total up to whatever this calorie level is, but with at LEAST the protein and fat minimums (I strongly recommend 10g of fish oil, but I'll leave this to your discretion), at least 25g of fibre, and you can't use fibre supps for it - it HAS to come from food.

No matter what you come up with, you are almost certain to be more than adequately nourished. And from this baseline, it's very easy to fiddle with increases in protein and or fat to come up with a comfortable diet. For example, many overweight people, particularly women, would NOT do well on 30% or 40% of their diet coming from carbs. This way, they don't have to.

 

[Built]

Actually I was quoting someone else on that.

Ah, sorry. My bad.

I get all newbies to estimate their own lean mass the way I described. The beauty of the approach is they usually set far too modest goals for themselves, so they slightly overestimate their lean mass - and they eat more protein because of it. It's all good.

 

[Jodi]

I haven't used fitday in a long time. I actually don't count anymore. I eat what I know is healthy. If I'm not hungry I will skip a meal. I probably eat 4 times a day now. I have been down the road of ratios years ago just to be healthy. Then decided to compete and when I did that I became addicted and so I cut more and more and more. Totally screwed up my body from the constant dieting...thyroid, adrenals, digestion etc. Lots of fun, let me tell ya lol. I've been the excessive compulsive dieter and it nearly killed me (figuratively of course).

I know exactly where you are coming from and exactly how you figure it out and I DO agree (especially with the obese on lots of carbs). Very much so. I just still find it too complicated for a newbie because of the inaccurate LBM testing. I also find telling a person they can only have THIS number of G of carbs is a setup for failure. Most people that are trying to lose weight are not comfortable when you say THIS is it and you can't adjust where a ratio it gives a little more freedom to adjust on how they feel.

Women losing energy with lack of carbs - lower the fat add more carbs.. etc.....they may not lose as much as fast but there will still be progress.

 

[danzik17]

Sweet jesus Jodi is back.

Let the female nutrition expert battle begin (with possible mud wrestling? )

Anyway so where have you been?

 

[Built]

I haven't used fitday in a long time. I actually don't count anymore. I eat what I know is healthy. If I'm not hungry I will skip a meal. I probably eat 4 times a day now. I have been down the road of ratios years ago and then decided to compete and when I did that I became addicted and so I cut more and more and more. Totally screwed up my body from the constant dieting...thyroid, adrenals, digestion etc. Lots of fun, let me tell ya lol. I've been the excessive compulsive and it nearly killed me (figuratively of course).

I know exactly where you are coming from and exactly how you figure it out and I DO agree (especially with the obese on lots of carbs). Very much so. I just still find it too complicated for a newbie because of the inaccurate LBM testing. I also find telling a person they can only have THIS number of G of carbs is a setup for failure. Most people that are trying to lose weight are not comfortable when you say THIS is it and you can't adjust where a ratio it gives a little more freedom to adjust on how they feel.

Women losing energy with lack of carbs - lower the fat add more carbs.. etc.....

Jodi, I know it has long been done this way. But I have a whole board full of women who have converted, and they love how much clearer the process is for them, how much more control it gives them over their actual intake AND their comfort

Now, I know, I know, it's change, change is bad because it's changeâ???¦ <c'mon, drink the kool aid, drink the kool aidâ???¦>

I'm delighted you can do this by feel - especially from what you have overcome. I am SO sorry you went through this. It sounds GHASTLY.

I can almost maintain by feel, but I gain, slowly. I do this from time to time, to test it, but I know how to get it back under control when I've slowly gained the 5-10 lbs. I was fat for twenty years and if I don't track and preplan, I can't maintain my weight. Lots of us former-fatties are like this. The damned fat cells are all like "Feed me, Seymourâ???¦ ". Bastards.

Oh, and for what it's worth - when I was at the end of my rope, jogging 10k 3x a week on my low-fat ratio diet, the ONLY thing that worked for me was "you can only have this many g of carb". Atkins diet gave me my life back. It got me from obese to normal weight without hunger. I got off Metormin and avoided lipitor. It just didn't get me down to ripped. So I kept readingâ???¦

 

[Jodi]

Sweet jesus Jodi is back.

Let the female nutrition expert battle begin (with possible mud wrestling? )

Anyway so where have you been?

Hey there!

No battle. I believe we agree on the same thing just different approaches. This is a good discussion!

I've been away because I've been extremely busy, but good. How are you?

 

[danzik17]

Hey there!

No battle. I believe we agree on the same thing just different approaches. This is a good discussion!

I've been away because I've been extremely busy, but good. How are you?

Pretty good. Finally graduated and got a job, so now my schedule is normal enough where I can consistently hit the gym and have a decent diet.

Making more gains in the gym than I ever have thanks to a program that Gazhole and goob have been using, seems like I'm just consistently adding more and more weight to my lifts every time I go.

Other than that I'm working on a couple of small side projects (one of which you may be interested in helping out with!)

 

[Jodi]

Jodi, I know it has long been done this way. But I have a whole board full of women who have converted, and they love how much clearer the process is for them, how much more control it gives them over their actual intake AND their comfort

Now, I know, I know, it's change, change is bad because it's changeâ???¦ <c'mon, drink the kool aid, drink the kool aidâ???¦>

I'm delighted you can do this by feel - especially from what you have overcome. I am SO sorry you went through this. It sounds GHASTLY.

I can almost maintain by feel, but I gain, slowly. I do this from time to time, to test it, but I know how to get it back under control when I've slowly gained the 5-10 lbs. I was fat for twenty years and if I don't track and preplan, I can't maintain my weight. Lots of us former-fatties are like this. The damned fat cells are all like "Feed me, Seymourâ???¦ ". Bastards.

Oh, and for what it's worth - when I was at the end of my rope, jogging 10k 3x a week on my low-fat ratio diet, the ONLY thing that worked for me was "you can only have this many g of carb". Atkins diet gave me my life back. It got me from obese to normal weight without hunger. I got off Metormin and avoided lipitor. It just didn't get me down to ripped. So I kept readingâ???¦

No need to be sorry, it was a lesson well learned! My goal is to no longer be ripped but be healthy which took some time to achieve after my screw up and I don't plan on doing anything different now. So each of us having different goals is what makes us try different approaches.

I too was a chubster at one point and it was actually the ratios (lol) that got me to where I wanted to be. Then my goals changed and I tried different approaches to achieve the next level of leanness. We have to do and try new things or it becomes stale and old and monotonous.

I've been lucky to FINALLY find that happy medium and to finally be where I want to be. Its not not having to plan out meals and packing tons of food everyday. Granted if I was trying to lose weight I would do this but I'm not.

 

[Built]

Oh hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible to get your diet working with ratios - clearly, it is. Lots of people do it. But this is how I look at it - lots of things turn out to produce the right results, but for the wrong reasons.

I'm an old woman with various metabolic problems and a desire for simplicity. Please believe me that the moment someone comes up with something simpler than what I propose that works, I'll happily toss aside everything I've written.

While I'm putting in requests, I'd like it to work while eating nothing but donuts. If it's not too much trouble.

<I freaking LOVE donuts. God's perfect food - just as long as they're not Krispy Kreme>

 

[Jodi]

Oh hey, I didn't say it wasn't possible to get your diet working with ratios - clearly, it is. Lots of people do it. But this is how I look at it - lots of things turn out to produce the right results, but for the wrong reasons.

I'm an old woman with various metabolic problems and a desire for simplicity. Please believe me that the moment someone comes up with something simpler than what I propose that works, I'll happily toss aside everything I've written.

While I'm putting in requests, I'd like it to work while eating nothing but donuts. If it's not too much trouble.

<I freaking LOVE donuts. God's perfect food - just as long as they're not Krispy Kreme>

Your donuts is my beer

 

[Built]

Mmmm, the beer and pizza diet.

I can see the headlines now:

"Two TITANS (you like that? Titans! Makes us seem important!) of the fitness industry join forces to bring you what the world has been waiting for: the donuts and beer diet-diet-diet-diet...!"

 

[Biggly]

Make sure 120g or more come from protein
Make sure 60g or more come from fat
Make sure 25g or more come from fiber
Make sure calories don't go over 2000

120g protein - 480c
60g fat - 540c
= 1020

To reach 2000 means around 250 grams of carbs, ie around 50% of calore intake would be carbohydrates. For bulking or even maintenance that's fine, for cutting not so good.

Anyway, point is, 480, call it 500, IS a ratio of 25% of daily calories if calories are 2000.

So the ratio described here is around 25/25/50

All you've done is make the carb figure variable, saying it doesn't matter if its 25/30/45 or 30/30/30 or anything as long as you get the 25/25 bit.

Seems to me that's still using ratios, just throwing carbs to chance. However for most people carbs are the No1 thing that affects their weight - and as both Built and Jodi have pointed out, track over time and tune the result, meaning there IS going to be a difference between 25/25/50 and 30/30/30 or whatever.

Also if you say "eat at least 25g of protein" people will take that as "well 20g is OK.."

A ratio is as much about not eating too much of any one food group as it is about eating enough of the others.

Which is more important, protein or calories? Arguably they are as important as each other, because you DO need a minimum of protein and you DO need to restrict your calories (or bump them up or whatever, point is there is a limit).


B.

 

[Built]

120g protein - 480c
60g fat - 540c
= 1020

To reach 2000 means around 250 grams of carbs, ie around 50% of calore intake would be carbohydrates. For bulking or even maintenance that's fine, for cutting not so good.

Not a problem for cutting or bulking. You can get ripped to shreds on sugar. You can get morbidly obese on "clean eats".

Anyway, point is, 480, call it 500, IS a ratio of 25% of daily calories if calories are 2000.

So the ratio described here is around 25/25/50

Yep. That's the beauty of math. If it's a number, you can toss it into an equation.

Doesn't mean it's meaningful.

Trust me, I have two math-based degrees, and I've marked calculus exams. I've seen plenty of meaningless calculations!

All you've done is make the carb figure variable, saying it doesn't matter if its 25/30/45 or 30/30/30 or anything as long as you get the 25/25 bit.

Seems to me that's still using ratios, just throwing carbs to chance. However for most people carbs are the No1 thing that affects their weight -

For all people, calorie balace is the only thing that affects their weight.

Short of amputation.

and as both Built and Jodi have pointed out, track over time and tune the result, meaning there IS going to be a difference between 25/25/50 and 30/30/30 or whatever.

Also if you say "eat at least 25g of protein" people will take that as "well 20g is OK.."

Only if they don't understand English.

Seriously, if you want to calculate your intake as a proportion of your IQ, you go for it.

[/quote]

A ratio is as much about not eating too much of any one food group as it is about eating enough of the others.

Which is more important, protein or calories? [/quote]
No brainer: calories.
[/quote]Arguably they are as important as each other, because you DO need a minimum of protein and you DO need to restrict your calories (or bump them up or whatever, point is there is a limit).


B.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You need a minimum of protein. Not a minimum PERCENTAGE of protein.

 

[Biggly]

But it IS a percentage if your calorie intake is limited, which it is.

You can get ripped to shreds on sugar.

Give that a try some time?

Which is more important, protein or calories?
No brainer: calories.

So your donut diet would work then? You don't really need protein, it's kindda optional, as long as you get the calories? We both know that's not the case, you do need your protein, you do need to restrict your calories so protein DOES need to be a certain percentage of your diet.

You can call it a ratio, a percentage, your macro balance or whatever but it's the same thing.

You can't say you need X amount of protein, Y amount of fats and Z amount of carbs while restricting the total calories to some figure - but ratios don't matter.

That IS a ratio.


Ok let me make this very simple - if you need 22.5 grams of protein (90 calories) and your calorie limit, for silly example only, is 100, then by definition 90% of your calories must be protein.

If you're not restricted by total calories then sure, to hell with ratios but if you are and you indee ARE, then whatever you eat will be a ratio.

Now you can either eat whatever you like and then count the calories and work out the ratio later, just for giggles - or you can set the calories and ratios as a goal.

Simply saying "X amount of calories" doesn't cut it if all your calories come from donuts.

To use an old fashioned expression, you need a "balanced" diet and it's not 50/50 because you need fats, carbs, protein and fiber. Fiber is not so much an issue as long as you get enough but the other 3 contain calories - you have a calorie limit so there has to be a balance.

You know, like a ratio?



B.

 

[Built]

Honey, I GET ratios. I can calculate them.

It's just that they are at best an indirect measure of what is going on.

You can take the sugar argument up with Lyle McDonald. I became obese eating clean.

I'll leave you with this: a recipe for my favourite cake.

White cake with walnut icing
Total calories: 5729
14% from butter
14% from sugar
16% from flour
1% from eggs
0% from Baking powder
2% from skim milk

Directions
Beat the butter and sugar with the eggs until fluffy.
In another bown, combine flour and baking powder. I'll be sporting and tell you it's a level tablespoon.

Dump the flour mixture into the butter-sugar-eggs and add the milk all at once. Stir until just mixed, then bake in an oblong pan for 20 minutes at 350 degrees.

Meanwhile, make the icing.
Ingredients:
1% from Vanilla extract
14% from brown sugar
8% from Icing sugar
14% from walnuts
9% from butter
7% from whipping cream

Nuke the butter, whipping cream and brown sugar until bubbly. Add the vanilla and beat in the icing sugar. Add chopped walnuts and pour over still-warm cake.

 

[VanessaNicole]

This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources.

Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.

I completely agree.

Any way, highly regimented or complicated programs are statistically less successful over long periods of time.

 

[Built]

Agreed.

That's why I like a "feedbag" approach:

Preplan a day with the right calories and with protein, fat and fibre minimums hit or exceeded.

That's it. Eat whatever you want whenever you want it.

When it's gone, it's gone. Completely brainless.

 

[danzik17]

This is where newbies typically say screw it because its too much math. If you set constrained parameters, you generally see a deficit in micronutrient intake because they decide the only thing in their diet that hits their "mystical ratio paradigm" is plain chicken, brown rice, yams and salad. Instead of telling them to eat at a specific ratio, why not tell them to eat 1g/lb of bodyweight in protein, .5g/lb in fat (with constraints on sat. fat) and the rest of their calorie allotment coming from clean carb sources.

Your average person who is just getting into the fitness lifestyle doesn't want to have a calculator next to them everytime they pick up a fork. There are some who do, but from the people i train, they typically want me to tell them what to eat and when to eat it and the less math they have to do the better.

Pfft, some of us actually enjoy the plain chicken diet

Easy to plan and cook, nothing ridiculous. Throw some mustard on and we have a meal.

I do make sure to take a high quality multi-vit though, and this diet is only until September when I will rotate back to more fruit/carbs for the winter bulk.

 

[FitChickett]

Another Inuit! We're everywhere!

I'm so glad the anti-fat hype is sloooowly settling down.

Im a newbe too (to forums) and you just made my day! The amount of people who STILL believe fat is bad for you tell me constantly that Im mad and slowly killing myself. Its SO nice seeing that Im not alone!!!

 

[Jodi]

Pretty good. Finally graduated and got a job, so now my schedule is normal enough where I can consistently hit the gym and have a decent diet.

Making more gains in the gym than I ever have thanks to a program that Gazhole and goob have been using, seems like I'm just consistently adding more and more weight to my lifts every time I go.

Other than that I'm working on a couple of small side projects (one of which you may be interested in helping out with!)

That is awesome! I'm so happy for you. Glad to see you are still here and reading. Gazhole and Goob are great resources for training. Its great to see you are making gains.

I may not always be around but if you ever have any question or want to chat about something I think you know how to reach me. If not PM me and I'll give you the info.

Again. Congrat! Good Job!

 

[Built]

Im a newbe too (to forums) and you just made my day! The amount of people who STILL believe fat is bad for you tell me constantly that Im mad and slowly killing myself. Its SO nice seeing that Im not alone!!!

You're most certainly not alone. Particularly for women, leaning on fats and away from carbs just makes a LOT more sense: we're so much more insulin-resistant than men. Fat-and-protein meals are satiating. I eat my cottage cheese, avocado and eggs for breakfast and I feel fed until the afternoon! A lowfat bagel and scrambled egg whites and I'm chewing my ARM off within an hour!

 

[B-Cubed]

All I track any longer are grams of protein. Almost everything else is fat. I'm almost never hungry. Really, the only time I get hungry is when I've been too long without eating. Dump some protein and fat on it and it's gone. Carbs? What are carbs?

Let me tell you, ratios and lbm dosing are VERY VERY different.

LBM dosing says you need this much protein and this much fat...minimum. It doesn't say from where the rest of your calories need to come. It can be more protein, more fat, or carbs...if you like. But it doesn't HAVE TO come from any particular place. You eat to make yourself COMFORTABLE.


Ratio dosing says that you MUST get a certain percentage of your total calories from protein, fat, and carbs.

Let compare these two approaches with ME as an example. I'm 148 lbs and I have about 115 lbs of LBM. In reality I may have a little more or a little less, but for our purposes, a lb or two won't make much of a difference.

I know from lots of calorie tracking that my maintenance calories are around 2000 calories per day. Let's suppose I cut only 10% of my calories per day. That makes 1800 calories a day to cut.

Percentages: 30% fat, 30% carbs, 40% protein is a fairly common recommendation. So, 60 grams fat, 135 g carbs, and 180 grams protein. This SEEMS reasonable. But I can tell you, from experience, that 60 grams of fat a day would leave me wanting to chew my arm off. If I don't get 80-120 grams of fat a day, I feel like I've been on a ship lost at sea without food for 30 days and I'm considering eating my shipmates. It makes me 'effing crazy. No joke.

Targeted to LBM: 57.5 grams fat minimum, 115 grams of protein minimum; the rest is left up to me. Well, this is less fat and protein than required by the percentages method. But the important thing to note is that these are MINIMUMS. I can eat more fat or protein if I so desire. These minimums total 997.5 calories. That leaves me 802.5 calories to spend AS I PLEASE. I can spend them on fat, protein, or carbs, without restriction. I don't even f**k with worrying about fiber. I've never had a digestive problem as long as I've gotten enough fat. But I've been on a 30/30/40 getting 30 grams of fiber a day and been stopped the 'eff up. I NEED lots of fat to not feel hungry, so I spend my calories there primarily. Someone else who needs more carbs than I do, can spend them there. Someone who wants more protein, can eat more protein if they want. That is A LOT of flexibility. It can be COMPLETELY individualized without changing ANYTHING.

Try and tell me percentages are still just as easy. Tell me to get 35% from fat and 25% from carbs instead of 30/30. F**K YOU! 70 grams of fat is not enough! Tell me to get 40% from fat and that BARELY does it at 80 grams of fat for the day. (I usually get 100 grams or more a day). And what have we learned from this? That a recommendation based on percentages of fat/carbs/protein needs to change to suit the particular individual. That's right, it CANNOT be applied universally. Any recommendation based on percentages HAS to be adjusted WRT goals, metabolism, IR, etc...

One method is simple, and works for EVERYBODY, is easy to calculate, and works regardless of goals. The other needs to be adjusted on a case by case basis. All one method requires is counting. In the other, the user needs to use basic Algebra. Take it from a math Professor, this means that MOST people can't do it.

Tell me again how these methods are the same/equivalent/equally as good?

 

[Biggly]

I think you misunderstand the general concept of both, or are at least dumping all you dislike on one method.

I know from lots of calorie tracking that my maintenance calories are around 2000 calories per day

Right, so you agree that tracking and monitoring your calories worked for you, yes? Later you talk of just eating whatever makes you 'comfortable', which is exactly how most people get fat in the first place.

What you mean is what makes you comfortable within 2000 calories, or 1800 when cutting.

I NEED lots of fat to not feel hungry, so I spend my calories there primarily. Someone else who needs more carbs than I do, can spend them there. Someone who wants more protein, can eat more protein if they want. That is A LOT of flexibility. It can be COMPLETELY individualized without changing ANYTHING.

I agree, for a simple plan to throw out there it works but to me the use of ratios is NOT a matter of "Thou shalt eat X% of carbs, Y% of protein and Z% of fat".

That makes no more sense than saying "Thou shalt eat X number of calories".

Doesn't work does it?

Instead you should track and monitor your calories AND track and monitor your macro food groups because as you have so clearly stated, the common ratios that work great for most people leave YOU wanting to chew your arm off, right?

Just like calories, knowing what you thrive on and then setting that as a target can help a great deal with food groups too.

It's not a matter of "These are the magical numbers that work for everybody", more a matter of track what you actually consume for a couple of weeks, make adjustments and monitor the results, find your ideal then set those ideal figures as targets, adjusting as goals are met.

You want to cut? Reduce calories and adjust your ratios. You wanna bulk? Increase calories and adjust your ratios.

If you just ramp up the calories without regard to your macros you can gain as much or more flab than fab.

If you just decrease your calories without regard to your macros you can lose as much muscle as fat.

As someone who actually sells calorie-counting software for a living I'm the first to say that calories are very important - but they are not the only thing that matters. The quality of what you eat, the ratio of food groups, your training, your sleeping habits, water intake and other such stuff ALSO make a difference.

Some people, genetically gifted or just plain lucky, do great without ever counting or even considering calories let alone macros, while for many others adjusting their macros rather than just calories has made the difference between "Diets don't work" and "Hey! Look at me!"

Essentially the difference in approach is the LBM method is great for advising a newby as guidlines to get started, while the monitoring and control of both macro ratios and calories is a technique to fine-tune for maximum results.

Yes, maximum in terms of both results and comfort, because if it's not comfortable you just won't do it.

As an aside, someone mentioned the idea that strict regimes don't work long term. I'd agree but totally lax regimes don't work either, be it long term or short term. I should also point out that monitoring and measuring what you actually eat is considered one of the most effective methods there is - and is the first thing your doctor will tell you to do.

Amazon.com: Get Fit with Technology: How to Lose Weight Using Your PC: Jordan Gold: Books

"The Journal of the American Medical Association has found that people who use their PCs in conjunction with weight loss programs lose three times more weight than people who don't."

There's a difference between a strict regime and sticking strictly to a regime that works for you - controlling your macros doesn't mean blindly following someone else's figures - it means strictly doing what works for you.



B.

 

[Built]

I think you misunderstand the general concept of both, or are at least dumping all you dislike on one method.

I doubt it. You are telling a professor of mathmatics who has published research in peer-reviewed scientific journals that she doesn't understand the general concept of a mathematical ratio.

Instead you should track and monitor your calories AND track and monitor your macro food groups because as you have so clearly stated, the common ratios that work great for most people leave YOU wanting to chew your arm off, right?

No, she's saying the ratios don't ensure steady dosing of the satiating macronutrients. If she chose a ratio approach, she wouldn't know that it might be "120g of fat" for cutting OR bulking. The grams might not change for one of the macronutrients.

A ratio approach obfuscates this simple fact.

You want to cut? Reduce calories and adjust your ratios. You wanna bulk? Increase calories and adjust your ratios.

Why adjust the ratios when the only thing you might need to drop is the carbs? If you measure directly, using grams, you know what it is that gives comfort. If you do everything through ratios, it's like driving down the road by backing up and looking through the rear-view mirror.

If you just ramp up the calories without regard to your macros you can gain as much or more flab than fab.

Really!

So, let's set the scene here.

Suppose I maintain on 2000 calories a day and I am consuming 180g protein, 90g fat and 118 g carbohydrate on average to do so.

I now decide to bulk and increase my calories to 2250 a day - reasonable for a female since our ability to gain muscle is less than a pound a month. At 2250, the most fat I'll gain is 2 lbs in a month, so I accept this as a possibility in the worst-case and proceed.

I can increase carbs, fat or protein, or of course, all three. Let's make the bold assumption that I don't lower any of them from what I maintained at.

Which combination of additional calories will make me flabby?

As someone who actually sells calorie-counting software for a living

And that system uses ... wait for it ... ratios!

 

[Biggly]

And that system also uses LBM calculations and protein per lb, calculated both by the US Navy formula or via skinfold measurements, as you'd know if you actually downloaded the demo and gave feedback for the current version while I'm working on version 2.3, as I asked you to about 2 weeks ago.

It also allows you to enter both calories and ratios manually, plus you're free to ignore the ratio graphs if you wish and just track your physique, mood and calories - or do as most peeps do and look at the graphs, see if you learn anything about yourself. It's measuring and monitoring, not "Thou shalt" - or it wouldn't have the option of manually changing the ratio targets would it?

The invite for feedback still stands and if you feel it could do with more on the 'per lb of lean mass' stuff then sure, I can do that too. Right now it only does that with protein.

What specific minimums do you think are best and on what basis?

Which combination of additional calories will make me flabby?

Well if you accept adding another 4lb of flab, who cares?

What you describe is around 36% protein, 40% fat and 23% carbs. If you're bulking my suggestion, but it's just a suggestion as it wouldn't work for everybody, would be to increase the carbs. You don't need any extra protein, as long as you're getting your EFAs you don't need any extra fat, while the extra carbs would provide the energy for growth and training.

Simply adding extra fat on a maintenance calorie level would just lead to fat storage and if that is indeed your maintenance (2000) then you're not very large and certainly don't need any extra protein. If you want more calories I'd go for carbs. If you simply ramped up the calories on the exact same ratio you're just wasting protein, adding fat AND adding carbs - why?

But like I say, what works for you may be different for someone else. For some people 23% carbs would leave them in a semi-coma and kill their enthusiasm for training in the first place. Whatever.

So if I were to use 'dosage' what would you recommend for what food groups? At present it uses 1.5 grams of protein per lb of lean body mass.

Would you set a minimum of carbs or do you think carbs are unnecessary or what?


B.

 

[Built]

I don't think carbs are unnecessary. This is not my opinion. The body is capable of making all the glucose it needs, therefore there can be no minimum requirement for carbohydrate. They are, quite simply, not necessary for survival. Not saying they can't have ergogenic or flavour qualities, just that they're not essential, going by the definition of the word "essential" in this context.

Why would one "ratio" make me fatter than another? Can the body somehow calculate these ratios?

PS I apologize, I misspoke myself earlier. 250 cals a day over maintenance is 2 lbs a month, not four. I'm used to working these out for men, their gains can easily be double ours. Gaining muscle has a cost, and that cost is fat-gain. We all try to keep this down to a dull roar, but once newbie gains are over, alas, recomposition isn't much of an option.

Getting back to my question though, why would more carb make me gain muscle, but more fat make me gain fat?

 

[Biggly]

Fat, when the body is sated, is not going to be used for anything, it's just going to be stored as what it already is, with zero thermal cost or hesitation.

Carbs, to be converted into fat, costs calories, albeit a tiny amount barely worth mentioning but you did ask. It's enough for the body to USE those calories by preference while triggering hormonal responses that it's well fed. That in turn is anabolic, whilst excess fat isn't. It's true you need enough fat to trigger testosterone production and so on but beyond that point it serves no purposes and just gets stored. The same applies to carbs but at least the body tries to use them if it can - in fact can come to rely on carbs to the point that most people on a high carb diet suffer greatly when you take carbs away.

Both carbs and protein will be converted to fat in excess but generally the body will try to use protein, burn carbs and store fat. That's what they are, building blocks, energy and stored energy.

If you go really low carbs, effectively zero carbs then the body will happily burn fat instead but what were we saying about strict regimes?


So, you don't think carbs are necessary, so what would you recommend as minimum 'doses' of fats and protein, per lb LBM?



B.

 

[Built]

You did not read the italics. I will re-state. It isn't my OPINION that carb is not an essential macronutrient. It is a simple case of human physiology. We never require a single gram. Therefore, there is no minimum. It is not an essential macronutrient.

So - on the same calories, I'll get fatter on more fat, but on more carbs I won't. Got any proof?

 

[Biggly]

No, no proof whatsoever beyond the experience of others and myself.

Would you answer my question please, what minimums do you recommend?



B.

 

[Biggly]

you know B, the thing that always makes me smile at the irony is that most places I go it's me arguing that fat isn't bad, carbs are evil, cardio is hopeless by itself, calories are king and weight training is the ultimate fat burner.

We're singing from the same hymn book, just different pages.

I often hear peeps saying "it doesn't matter what you eat as long as your calories are OK" - I know we'd both disagree, you need a certain amount of protein and essential fats etc. We both agree things should be as easy as possible - which realistically means peeps will indeed eat carbs, which to me means restricting fat, especially if eaten at the same time. You'd rather just ditch the carbs and eat the fat, OK, we agree, just a different approach.

I'm serious regarding what you consider minimums, if you've already done the research what's the latest? How many grams of fat and protein, ignoring the different types of fat for now and just using a total, per lb or kg of lean mass would you consider minimum for using 'dosing' per se?

Or anyone else, does anyone have any hard figures on this?

I just tend to follow the 1gram per lb or better still 1.5g per lb LBM but if there's a recognised minimum that has worked in the real world then I and other enquiring minds would like to know?


B.