Hi All,
I’m trying to end up around 200-210 (5’10 height) and 10% BF… I’m around 195-200 and 19% now.
Not wed to these numbers exactly, but I’m thinking around 2000-2500 cals,210 G protein and 60 g carbs per day (5meals per day)… no dietary restrictions and looking around $100(give or take) grocery bill per week. Might not be the right place but curious as to if anyone had a plan or a link or something…
Thanks!
You want someone to write you a diet of 2000-2500 calories per week and price it all up for you so it costs $100? I think you’ll be waiting a long time for that…
Cheap foods would be things like ground beef, white rice and olive oil. There’s your protein/carbs/fats right there. Add in whatever veg you want and you’re pretty much good to go.
Why would you only get 60 g of carbs? that is the amount of carbs in one bagel. I weigh less than you but I get 7 times more carbs than you
You don’t need that much protein either. 1 g/lb body-weight mostly applies if you are shredded or lean, at that bf most of the protein will likely be turned to fat.
Also so you wanna be the same body weight but way lower bf%? Do you want to lose fat or gain muscle first? Your goal isn’t clear
Hi guys,
Yeah sorry let me elaborate. I’m looking for a plug and play kinda plan.:
I like these foods
I want to weigh X
And have x % BF
Yeah that’s really not how it works.
EDIT: I’ll include a link in case you’re inclined to argue
DOUBLE EDIT: for those of you too lazy to read it, the results were
“The HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories pre vs post (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories than the CON (p < 0.05). The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. When expressed per unit body weight, the HP group consumed 4.4 ± 0.8 g/kg/d of protein versus 1.8 ± 0.4 g/kg/d in the CON. There were no changes in training volume for either group. Moreover, there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat.”
And the highlight is
“This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.”
Oh, here comes the guy who cherrypicks PubMed studies like the majority of those fitness gurus on Youtube. FYI, I didn’t even read your post nor the study. I can already tell that you have never gone to the university, participated in a real research, and understand how science works by showing me a paper and tell me this is the absolute truth.
But here’s my take if you are below your caloric maintenance and eating high protein, most of them won’t be turned into fat. There is a limit on how much protein someone can directly utilize to build muscle. Carbs and fat are more efficient macronutrients to be turned into energy. Unless you are taking enhancements or are lean, more than 1 g/lb in most cases are useless. If you take more than 1 g/lb at that bodyfat but are still below maintenance, you won’t gain body fat, but you will benefit more from adjusting other macronutrients.
I’d add that gaining fat from eating too much protein doesn’t have to be due to the conversion of protein itself into fat.
Eating more protein, to a point, means that more protein is being oxidized for energy, thus less dietary fats and carbs are being burned, and therefore more of them are likely being stored as bodily tissue. That’s probably what all the people saying, “the pathways for converting protein to fat are there but are hardly ever used” are missing IMO.
Doesn’t have to be the absolute proof. Just has to disprove your idiocy. Which it did.
read the study, woamer.
Not interested to be totally honest, but if the premise is that there is a way to overeat and not gain fat, as the statement “overeating protein doesn’t ever lead to fat gain” would imply, then that’s ridiculous IMO.
Your reply doesn’t make sense to the context that I was talking about, and it only further gave me proof of your ignorance and lack of education (turned out I was right, you never went to the university, you don’t know how real research works). Not going to a university and never participating in a real research that actually leads to publication is fine, but don’t talk about it and argue with someone that has actually done it in the first place. You look ridiculous. You are just mad that you thought you got me but you actually ended up being exposed.
If you want me to give you a lecture on research publications work and how to interpret them to real-world applications, I can do so via Skype, but I don’t think you have the brain capability to process it, and I will need at least a 50$ fee too.
I need a definition for woamer, please. The Magic Google Box came up empty.
@EyeDentist
Urban dictionary comes up empty also. 
By the way, I think it’s best to steer clear of this pissing match.
so point out the flaws in the study?
EDIT: actually we both know you won’t be able to so let’s just agree to disagree
it’s my nickname for Samul after another thread he had. It’s meant to be a mild ribbing.
The idea that protein is rarely stored as fat is nothing new. This study took it further than most though.
It’s actually a pretty interesting read if you have the time. The thing that’ll shock a lot of bodybuilder types is the high protein group didn’t gain any more muscle either.
I might take a read when I get home but to clarify my previous comment: what I meant is, saying that protein hardly ever is converted to fat and overeating protein doesn’t lead to fat gain isn’t the same thing.
I think the premise of overeating one specific macro is silly to begin with. If you overeat, you overeat. If you ate lots of fat, then it’ll be directly stored as body fat. In case of eating carbs or protein, then your body will just burn more of whichever you ate and as a result more dietary fat will be stored, with the only difference between the two being that carbs are also somehow more likely to be converted to body fat than protein.
As per not gaining more muscle, I was aware of the fact that excess protein may be converted to carbs via gluconeogenesis or even just oxidized (although people like lyle McDonald mentioned that those excess amino acids being burned may indirectly contribute to somewhat of an “anabolic drive” in the body. Read his Protein Book for that). Also, in the event of an extremely high protein intake with little to no dietary fat, the protein converted to glucose might end up being transformed into fat via lipogenesis de novo, which represents one of the few scenarios in which protein could become fat.
At least that’s the way I’ve understood this stuff so far.
I am not going to waste my time to read the study and babysit you. I have my own research to worry about. Come back when you actually understand how to interpret research publications. That way, we can have meaningful conversations, until then don’t @ me. Case closed.
No you ridiculous asshole, I don’t need you to babysit me.
I have been to uni. And know how interpret research publications. Believe me when I say I have forgotten more about this shit than you’ll ever know.
My whole point is the study I posted was really interesting and well conducted, and your whole “I don’t need to read the study because I understand science” nonsense was absolutely laughable, particularly from someone who claims to be as educated as you.
But I remember you now from previous threads as a know-it-all prick. Had I remembered that before then I wouldn’t have wasted my time talking to you in the first place. Case closed.
Oh this guy suddenly said that he has been to uni and know how about research. Seems legit. I believe him. Or wait… maybe by interpreting he means being able to read every word in the paper without understanding how the methods and controls work, its applicability to real world, and etc. I still think an average 6th grader would do a better job than him though. The hobo in front of my apartment has been lurking around my university too asking for money, maybe that’s what he means by “have been to uni.” Right… Right he’s correct and I am wrong