My friend argued that I should be taking in more protein than fat when I’m at about 10% carbs per day. I argued that eating fat would be more ideal since your body will go through what you put into it. Which one is correct?
[quote]Zagman wrote:
Joe Joseph wrote:
ok… so if you aim to lose a MAXIMUM of 10lbs LBM… that would leave you at 208lbs 7%…
If you aimed to lose a maximum of 7lbs LBM…
makes you at 212lbs at 7%…
personally i’d go with - PLAN to lose the full 10lbs, and if you then lose 5lbs LBM… BONUS.
Plan for every outcome and never be disappointed.
I disagree with this, you shouldn’t aim to lose any muscle mass while dieting. With proper training and an adequate protein intake it quite possible to maintain just about all of your lean mass while dieting. And with some of the supplements out there it makes it even easier.
Though I agree that you should plan for every outcome, you should learn not to be satisfied with the poor ones.[/quote]
Fair enough - you put it in a way i actually agree with! I didn’t really mean be satisfied with poor results, but i suppose it does mean that. You’re right, and not my motive.
The trouble is, as an advanced supplement user, i believe that keeping weight while un-assisted is next to impossible - i am very lean naturally, and i NEVER get above 15% - not for trying, but naturally. It is also that hard to put on muscle. Very very hard.
This guy has a much higher affinity to increase fat AND muscle, so you may be right, he can hold onto some of it easier than i can or would expect with only Carbolin 19 etc…(which i think is an amazing supplement BTW)
Joe
[quote]drummerofgod89 wrote:
My friend argued that I should be taking in more protein than fat when I’m at about 10% carbs per day. I argued that eating fat would be more ideal since your body will go through what you put into it. Which one is correct?[/quote]
Both and neither. Excess protein beyond what you body will be able to utilize will be used as energy, stored as fat, or converted to glucose by your body. If you are getting at least 1g/lb of bodyweight, then it isn’t likely that the extra protein intake will do you much good and the rest can be carbohydrate. If you aren’t getting roughly 1g/lb, then you should take in more protein.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by “you body will go through what you put into it.” in context, but I think you mean that fat is a more efficient form of energy, but it is also more energy dense containing 9kcals per gram instead of 4. If you are eating a very high amount of fat then it makes it harder to keep calories in check, especially when dieting. I prefer to monitor my carb intake, make sure that I am getting enough protein, and let the rest of the calories fall where they may. Less worry that way.
[quote]Joe Joseph wrote:
Zagman wrote:
Joe Joseph wrote:
ok… so if you aim to lose a MAXIMUM of 10lbs LBM… that would leave you at 208lbs 7%…
If you aimed to lose a maximum of 7lbs LBM…
makes you at 212lbs at 7%…
personally i’d go with - PLAN to lose the full 10lbs, and if you then lose 5lbs LBM… BONUS.
Plan for every outcome and never be disappointed.
I disagree with this, you shouldn’t aim to lose any muscle mass while dieting. With proper training and an adequate protein intake it quite possible to maintain just about all of your lean mass while dieting. And with some of the supplements out there it makes it even easier.
Though I agree that you should plan for every outcome, you should learn not to be satisfied with the poor ones.
Fair enough - you put it in a way i actually agree with! I didn’t really mean be satisfied with poor results, but i suppose it does mean that. You’re right, and not my motive.
The trouble is, as an advanced supplement user, i believe that keeping weight while un-assisted is next to impossible - i am very lean naturally, and i NEVER get above 15% - not for trying, but naturally. It is also that hard to put on muscle. Very very hard.
This guy has a much higher affinity to increase fat AND muscle, so you may be right, he can hold onto some of it easier than i can or would expect with only Carbolin 19 etc…(which i think is an amazing supplement BTW)
Joe[/quote]
Before bodybuilding, I was at about 12% without ever doing any exercise, so I am naturally lean. I, however, have forced myself to put on muscle, and along with it came fat. I think my body will be pretty willing to drop back down to what it once was and lower.
[quote]Zagman wrote:
drummerofgod89 wrote:
My friend argued that I should be taking in more protein than fat when I’m at about 10% carbs per day. I argued that eating fat would be more ideal since your body will go through what you put into it. Which one is correct?
Both and neither. Excess protein beyond what you body will be able to utilize will be used as energy, stored as fat, or converted to glucose by your body. If you are getting at least 1g/lb of bodyweight, then it isn’t likely that the extra protein intake will do you much good and the rest can be carbohydrate. If you aren’t getting roughly 1g/lb, then you should take in more protein.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by “you body will go through what you put into it.” in context, but I think you mean that fat is a more efficient form of energy, but it is also more energy dense containing 9kcals per gram instead of 4. If you are eating a very high amount of fat then it makes it harder to keep calories in check, especially when dieting. I prefer to monitor my carb intake, make sure that I am getting enough protein, and let the rest of the calories fall where they may. Less worry that way.
[/quote]
I think he means that the body will make use of what it has a surplus of. In other words, if you eat a high-fat diet, your body will condition itself to burn fat for fuel. This is true, so you are right. Eating enough fat is essential if you are going to be on a carb-restricted/keto diet, and hope to maintain muscle mass. You do not want your body to get in the habit of utilizing protein for fuel, for obvious reasons. Basically, keep protein intake the same, and make up whatever calories you cut from carbs by upping fat intake, of course not to exceed whatever kcal deficit you set for the diet.
[quote]
I think he means that the body will make use of what it has a surplus of. In other words, if you eat a high-fat diet, your body will condition itself to burn fat for fuel. This is true, so you are right. Eating enough fat is essential if you are going to be on a carb-restricted/keto diet, and hope to maintain muscle mass. You do not want your body to get in the habit of utilizing protein for fuel, for obvious reasons. Basically, keep protein intake the same, and make up whatever calories you cut from carbs by upping fat intake, of course not to exceed whatever kcal deficit you set for the diet.[/quote]
Our bodies are very efficient and smarter than we are. Our bodies using protein for a fuel sources is not a problem, as long as that protein does not come from our muscles. When you eat a lot of protein in a day, beyond what is needed to build tissues, our bodies use that protein for energy, convert it to fat, or convert it to glucose. Our bodies are constantly transforming the foods that we eat into something esle, useing them for energy, or storing them. Though we may be meticulous with what and when we take in foods, our bodies does what it has evolved to do, survive.
Set a carb level you are comforatble with. Choose a variety of food sources that are good sources or protein and fats and let the specific macros fall where they may, as long as you are getting the minimum amount of protein it won’t be a problem.
[quote]Zagman wrote:
Our bodies using protein for a fuel sources is not a problem, as long as that protein does not come from our muscles. [/quote]
I disagree, I think it’s a BIG problem, and you pointed out why yourself. How can you be certain your protein intake and timing is dialed in to the point that you never enter gluceogenesis? You can’t.
To further expound, why would you even want to take that chance? There is NO benefit to eating protein to the exclusion of fat on a keto-type diet once basic levels are hit, i.e. enough for repair/rebuild protein synthesis, because as you pointed out, your bodies will use the excess as it needs to. Better to be fat-adapted and once blood sugar is low, burn fat. If food isn’t available, everyone has fat reserves to tap, which is exactly the point of dieting in the first place.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
drummerofgod89 wrote:
My friend argued that I should be taking in more protein than fat when I’m at about 10% carbs per day. I argued that eating fat would be more ideal since your body will go through what you put into it. Which one is correct?
Both and neither. Excess protein beyond what you body will be able to utilize will be used as energy, stored as fat, or converted to glucose by your body. If you are getting at least 1g/lb of bodyweight, then it isn’t likely that the extra protein intake will do you much good and the rest can be carbohydrate. If you aren’t getting roughly 1g/lb, then you should take in more protein.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by “you body will go through what you put into it.” in context, but I think you mean that fat is a more efficient form of energy, but it is also more energy dense containing 9kcals per gram instead of 4. If you are eating a very high amount of fat then it makes it harder to keep calories in check, especially when dieting. I prefer to monitor my carb intake, make sure that I am getting enough protein, and let the rest of the calories fall where they may. Less worry that way.
I think he means that the body will make use of what it has a surplus of. In other words, if you eat a high-fat diet, your body will condition itself to burn fat for fuel. This is true, so you are right. Eating enough fat is essential if you are going to be on a carb-restricted/keto diet, and hope to maintain muscle mass. You do not want your body to get in the habit of utilizing protein for fuel, for obvious reasons. Basically, keep protein intake the same, and make up whatever calories you cut from carbs by upping fat intake, of course not to exceed whatever kcal deficit you set for the diet.[/quote]
I’m not sure if I will go into ketosis. It will be close to it at least. If I do, so be it. But yeah, I will attempt to have a carb-restricted diet. Heh, this should be a fun ride. What kind of calorie intake sounds about right for me to lose at LEAST 1 lb a week if I lifted daily and did cardio daily?
See, it’s pretty much impossible to get a good estimate as to how many calories I am getting in a college cafeteria because there are no nutrition labels and the foods there are constantly changing. Would 3,500 be good for a person weighing 250, 205 of it being LBM?
Personaly Id say 3500 is around your maintenance level on a lifting day! That being said 3000 would be a good number to start with and see how your body responds! Now some may say to start at 3500 which will also work. You dont want to cut calories to drasticaly at first! because you will adapt over time and will have to reduce continually to drop fat at the same rate so you wanna know your body and really monitor your fat loss with pictures and tape measurments!
I once read an article that said Lou Ferrigno was down to 1100 calories a day for the last 2 weeks of his pre contest prep! just to give you an idea of how adaptable the body can be and Lou was a monster 6’4" 275 lol. So get a feel for it and keep an eye on the scale you dont wanna lose any more than 2 lbs of fat per week as the boys alredy said!
Dave.F- a lot of professional bodybuilders use steroids to maintain muscle mass to the point of a competition. Steroids (and I know this is a blanket statement) increase your bodies affinity to use protein to develop and maintain muscle tissue, and so you can skirt much lower on kcals without fear of wasting away.
1100 kcal is 275g of protein, and I’ll bet you that’s what it was. Something like 1g/lb of bodyweight?
Natural trainnees cannot afford to do that.
DrummerOfGod- here’s what I’m doing. I plan for a 16 week cut, and I figure the lowest point my body will handle without dropping muscle is 2000kcal with HOT-ROX (I made that number up, so it’s not a hard and fast rule). Then I counted back.
The last four weeks, 2000kcal and HOT-ROX.
The four weeks before that, 2000 kcal.
The four weeks before that 2500 kcal with HOT-ROX.
The first four weeks- 2500 kcal.
For the record, I also make sure I’ve got 200g of protein/day (I weigh 230) and lift my ass off 3x/week.
By planning backwards, I figured the lowest point acceptable, and then adjusted backwards to allow for constant fat loss. My BMR is about 3500, and I could have only dropped my kcals to 3000 and probably seen results. But 1lb/week? There are faster ways than that, even without doing the Velocity Diet.
I’ve been dropping 2lbs/wk. This is week 6. It sucks, but it’s managable.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
Our bodies using protein for a fuel sources is not a problem, as long as that protein does not come from our muscles.
I disagree, I think it’s a BIG problem, and you pointed out why yourself. How can you be certain your protein intake and timing is dialed in to the point that you never enter gluceogenesis? You can’t.
To further expound, why would you even want to take that chance? There is NO benefit to eating protein to the exclusion of fat on a keto-type diet once basic levels are hit, i.e. enough for repair/rebuild protein synthesis, because as you pointed out, your bodies will use the excess as it needs to.
Better to be fat-adapted and once blood sugar is low, burn fat. If food isn’t available, everyone has fat reserves to tap, which is exactly the point of dieting in the first place. [/quote]
What I am trying to tell you is that the subject it no where near as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I am not advocating protein at the expense of fat. As I clearly said, get your required protein intake and let the rest fall where it may, whether you choose almonds or more olive oil.
Never enter gluconeogenisis, now that is funny. In any diet that is even remotely carb restricted there is gluconeogenisis, it refers to the process in which our bodies convert amino acids to glucose. This is a major function in allowing the body to survive carb/food restriction, since the nervous system functions optimally when it uses glucose for energy.
It does not function optimally when it uses ketone bodies which are made from fats for energy since they are able to pass the blood brain barrier and supply the nervous system with energy.
How much is just enough protein? The answer is you don’t know, but can make a guess. There are benefits to additional protein intake, think thermic effect of food. And how is the high amount of circulating fatty acids after a high fat meal not going to contribute to temporary fat gain, exactly it will still be stored as fat for a short while until we need to tap into that energy source.
It is less efficient to convert extra protein to fat and store it. Becoming fat adapted, that is difficult to do, what I have looked at were studies where nearly 80% of energy intake was fat, that may or may not have carry over to humans in a dieting role worrying about muscle preservation.
You may be “fat adapted” but an excess of circulating fatty acids will still be stored as fat after a meal. Eat enough protein which supplies plenty of circulating amino acids and your body will not need to tap into the protein reserves of your muscles.
When you eat, your bodies stores some fat, and shortly after it has to start tapping into those reserves for energy.
Ok so thats how he was doing it because I coulndt see such a big guy with such low calories!
Just a quick question Otep do you find cycling HOT-ROX on your cuts work well! Or do you just cycle it so you always get the full affect and dont become addapted to it?
[quote]Zagman wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
Our bodies using protein for a fuel sources is not a problem, as long as that protein does not come from our muscles.
I disagree, I think it’s a BIG problem, and you pointed out why yourself. How can you be certain your protein intake and timing is dialed in to the point that you never enter gluceogenesis? You can’t.
To further expound, why would you even want to take that chance? There is NO benefit to eating protein to the exclusion of fat on a keto-type diet once basic levels are hit, i.e. enough for repair/rebuild protein synthesis, because as you pointed out, your bodies will use the excess as it needs to.
Better to be fat-adapted and once blood sugar is low, burn fat. If food isn’t available, everyone has fat reserves to tap, which is exactly the point of dieting in the first place.
What I am trying to tell you is that the subject it no where near as cut and dried as you make it out to be. I am not advocating protein at the expense of fat. As I clearly said, get your required protein intake and let the rest fall where it may, whether you choose almonds or more olive oil.
Never enter gluconeogenisis, now that is funny. In any diet that is even remotely carb restricted there is gluconeogenisis, it refers to the process in which our bodies convert amino acids to glucose. This is a major function in allowing the body to survive carb/food restriction, since the nervous system functions optimally when it uses glucose for energy.
It does not function optimally when it uses ketone bodies which are made from fats for energy since they are able to pass the blood brain barrier and supply the nervous system with energy.
How much is just enough protein? The answer is you don’t know, but can make a guess. There are benefits to additional protein intake, think thermic effect of food. And how is the high amount of circulating fatty acids after a high fat meal not going to contribute to temporary fat gain, exactly it will still be stored as fat for a short while until we need to tap into that energy source.
It is less efficient to convert extra protein to fat and store it. Becoming fat adapted, that is difficult to do, what I have looked at were studies where nearly 80% of energy intake was fat, that may or may not have carry over to humans in a dieting role worrying about muscle preservation.
You may be “fat adapted” but an excess of circulating fatty acids will still be stored as fat after a meal. Eat enough protein which supplies plenty of circulating amino acids and your body will not need to tap into the protein reserves of your muscles.
When you eat, your bodies stores some fat, and shortly after it has to start tapping into those reserves for energy. [/quote]
Zagman, you are not quite as on the ball as you think you are. Gluceogenesis is not and does not have to be an issue in a carb-restricted state if fat intake is high enough. Maybe you’re not advocating upping protein at the expense of fat (although it sure sounded like it), but high-protein, low-fat, very low-carb is not the answer. Your second paragraph is wrong. You do not have to create glucose from amino acids if you do it correctly. A proper low-carb approach is very glycogen-sparing.
You are correct in saying that using protein as fuel is the least efficient source of energy; therefore, by default, the body “prefers” carbs or fat. Being fat adapted in a low-carb diet simply means your body is conditioned to burn free fatty acids for energy. It is very protein-sparing too; you do not run the risk of continuous gluceogenesis if fat intake is high enough. Additionally, what carbs you DO ingest are preferentially shuttled to the muscle for glycogen replenishment, hence the purpose of carb re-loading. Now here’s the kicker: when blood sugar is low, the body will tap easily into fat stores for energy because it has been conditioned to do so. The OPs assertion that the body will use what is has a surplus of is correct: give it fat, it will burn fat. Give it protein to the exclusion of other macros, it will burn protein. My whole point to you is, WHY would you rather burn protein and run the risk of cannabilizing muscle? You wouldn’t. You’d want to burn fat for energy, and eat enough carbs and/or re-load enough to replenish glycogen the way it should be, from carbs, NOT through gluceogensis.
Maybe we’re not talking abvout the same thing. I am referring to a cyclical-keto type diet, under the assumption this is what the OP is looking at, not a strict ketogenic diet, in which case most of your assertions would be correct. But that approach is not optimal.
[quote]doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
Zagman, you are not quite as on the ball as you think you are. Gluceogenesis is not and does not have to be an issue in a carb-restricted state if fat intake is high enough. Maybe you’re not advocating upping protein at the expense of fat (although it sure sounded like it), but high-protein, low-fat, very low-carb is not the answer. Your second paragraph is wrong. You do not have to create glucose from amino acids if you do it correctly. A proper low-carb approach is very glycogen-sparing.
You are correct in saying that using protein as fuel is the least efficient source of energy; therefore, by default, the body “prefers” carbs or fat. Being fat adapted in a low-carb diet simply means your body is conditioned to burn free fatty acids for energy. It is very protein-sparing too; you do not run the risk of continuous gluceogenesis if fat intake is high enough. Additionally, what carbs you DO ingest are preferentially shuttled to the muscle for glycogen replenishment, hence the purpose of carb re-loading. Now here’s the kicker: when blood sugar is low, the body will tap easily into fat stores for energy because it has been conditioned to do so. The OPs assertion that the body will use what is has a surplus of is correct: give it fat, it will burn fat. Give it protein to the exclusion of other macros, it will burn protein. My whole point to you is, WHY would you rather burn protein and run the risk of cannabilizing muscle? You wouldn’t. You’d want to burn fat for energy, and eat enough carbs and/or re-load enough to replenish glycogen the way it should be, from carbs, NOT through gluceogensis.
Maybe we’re not talking abvout the same thing. I am referring to a cyclical-keto type diet, under the assumption this is what the OP is looking at, not a strict ketogenic diet, in which case most of your assertions would be correct. But that approach is not optimal.
[/quote]
Gluconeogenisis is a response to fasting, starvation, and intense exercise that supplies glucose to tissues that need it, than kinda sounds like a carb restricted diet. That sounds like a cyclic or standard ketogenic. I want to know how you are dialing your protein intake so precisely that you aren’t supplying excess protein.
In truth, you probably are. You can’t shut off gluconeogenesis, and can’t simply turn on a “fat burning mode”. How often are your carb reloads, because we can deplete liver glycogen in just over a day. What is your body using at that time, hugh, amino acids converted to glucose. Huh, sound like that is protein sparing.
Just because our body uses excess dietary protein for energy, does not mean that our bodies are going to break down muscle tissue for amino acids. But attempting to exactly pinpoint your protein need(impossible) is a sure way to undershoot or still receive an small excess of protein which you seem to believe is bad.
Your kicker is exactly right, but blood sugar is still going to be very low, the very small amount of amino acids that are turned into glucose are not going to have a measurable effect on blood sugar since the process of converting amino acids to glucose is not fast enough to invoke a measurable rise in blood sugar.
I position is that there is no need to worry too much about your protein/fat ratio if you are meeting your protein requirement while in a carb depleted state. I am not advocated 80/10/10.
I think starting with a 3,000 calorie diet consisting of 10% Carbs, 40% Protein, 50% Fat. 300 grams of protein is plenty for my body. Would this macro nutrient ratio be most efficient for switching to fat-burning? I really don’t want to try a higher protein ratio.
[quote]Zagman wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
doubleh wrote:
Zagman wrote:
Gluconeogenisis is a response to fasting, starvation, and intense exercise that supplies glucose to tissues that need it, than kinda sounds like a carb restricted diet. That sounds like a cyclic or standard ketogenic. I want to know how you are dialing your protein intake so precisely that you aren’t supplying excess protein.[/quote]
Huh? That was MY point a few posts ago. It’s nearly impossible to have your protein intake that “dialed in”. Excess protein isn’t the problem; excess protein in the absence of other macros is. Gluceogenesis isn’t necessarily a starvation response either. Glycogen MUST be replenishd somehow, and that comes from either carbs or protein (via gluceogenesis).
So one could very well experience gluceogenesis in a strict keto diet, i.e. virtually no carbs and no re-load, but not be in a caloric deficit.
Lol, actually, that is the very definition on NON-protein sparing. Burning aminos (protein) is what we want to AVOID. Also, a proper cyclical-keto diet is glycogen sparing, so the depletion of liver and/or muscle glycogen is slower once you adapt. But really, you’re missing the point.
You don’t want to burn either glycogen OR aminos for energy in this phase. You want to burn FAT, so you must train your body to do so. To expound further, take a look at a thread called “BBing on the AD”. I went back and forth with no less an expert than CT about whether glycogen replenishment is actually needed at all. My belief was it is for lifters, and his thoughts basically confirmed this. So, optimally speaking, carb re-loads are needed for intense training.
Oh but it can, if our diet isn’t perfect and perfectly timed, and reality says that’s usually not possible. If our body gets used to burning protein, guess what it’s going to burn when blood sugar drops and no meal is taken in? Burn some fat, sure, but also MUSCLE. Why even give it this option when there are better ways to do it?
[quote]But attempting to exactly pinpoint your protein need(impossible) is a sure way to undershoot or still receive an small excess of protein which you seem to believe is bad.
Your kicker is exactly right, but blood sugar is still going to be very low, the very small amount of amino acids that are turned into glucose are not going to have a measurable effect on blood sugar since the process of converting amino acids to glucose is not fast enough to invoke a measurable rise in blood sugar.
I position is that there is no need to worry too much about your protein/fat ratio if you are meeting your protein requirement while in a carb depleted state. I am not advocated 80/10/10.[/quote]
Again, I disagree with that position. Yes, meet your protein requirement. 1.5g/lb. of BW should do it. But after that, when low-carb dieting, you MUST make sure fat intake is high enough to train the body to burn fat.
Making up the difference in excess protein is sub-optimal b/c the body will just as easily tap muscle for fuel unless it adapts to tapping fat stores, which is the whole point of dieting in the first place: burning fat.
[quote]drummerofgod89 wrote:
I think starting with a 3,000 calorie diet consisting of 10% Carbs, 40% Protein, 50% Fat. 300 grams of protein is plenty for my body. Would this macro nutrient ratio be most efficient for switching to fat-burning? I really don’t want to try a higher protein ratio.[/quote]
Drummer, that looks pretty good if you do not plan on carb re-loads. I don’t think 75g of CHO is too high, although it all depends on how carb tolerant you are.
I’m leaving for vacation soon and won’t post for at least a week, so I’ll leave you with this: do your own research on keto-type diets. You’ll find that upping fat intake is almost always recommended.