Mayday
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2019
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 37
- Points
- 18
Macros breakdowns, Calorics Surpluses, Caloric Deficits, Recalculation frequencies, and YOUR OPINION
Diet sometimes seems like a cruel voodoo science based around absurd assumptions and conjecture. Sure, it makes total sense. Kinda. That is, if we're getting the results we desire. When we're not, it's another story altogether. Seeing as though there are some pretty experienced people on this forum that oftentimes note the importance of diet, I figured this topic would be prudent to discuss. So here goes. And let us try to make things as simple as possible.
We all realize (hopefully) that proper diet is, first and foremost, based around accurately estimating a baseline caloric requirement. Age, height, weight, and activity level all play a crucial role in accurately deducing our individual "magic" number. This magic number is unique to each one of us and embodies our baseline caloric requirements. If we are to eat exactly at this nutritional requirement on a consistent basis whilst maintaining the activity level utilized in our original calculation with zero deviation, we could expect our weight to remain exactly the same. It's sort of like nutritional stagnation, sort of speak. That's hypothetical, of course. Afterall, the result is totally dependent on the accuracy of the original baseline caloric requirement calculation.
Nevertheless, if we modify our activity level, we can expect our baseline caloric requirement to change. Likewise, if we modify our caloric intake, we can expect the caloric surplus or caloric deficit to affect our total body weight. The result of a steady caloric surplus or caloric deficit would inevitably modify our baseline caloric requirement. So, the result of a steady caloric surplus or caloric deficit would ultimately require a nutritional recalculation to determine a relevant new baseline caloric requirement.
Then, there’s macronutrients. There’s a lot of talk centered around macronutrient ratios. How many times have we heard that AAS promotes a vastly increased rate of protein synthesis? We kill ourselves in the gym in hopes of tearing down muscle fibers, thereby forcing our body to repair them bigger, better, and stronger than before. It’s what makes muscles grow. And, on anabolic drugs the muscles repair faster which results in a shortened recovery time. This creates an increased demand relating to protein requirements for the average bodybuilder, especially the bodybuilder utilizing anabolic drugs.
We often hear the conventional wisdom of a bodybuilder's protein demand being met by consuming 1-2 grams of protein per pound of body weight per day. For example, this would entail a 175lb bodybuilder consuming 175 grams to 350 grams of protein per day to meet his or her needs. Seeing as though one gram of protein represents 4 calories, this places the range of daily caloric expenditure exclusive to protein consumption at around 700 to 1400 calories. If this bodybuilder was a 27-year-old man, roughly 5’10, engaged in light weekly activity, having a baseline caloric requirement of 2,441 calories, we could easily determine the percentage of total protein consumed daily. If we used the "two grams of protein per pound of body weight" recommendation (350g), multiplied this number by 4 (4 calories per gram of protein), then divided this number (1,400) by his baseline caloric requirement (2,441), we would approximate that 57.35% of his daily caloric intake consisted of protein exclusively. If we subtract 57.35% from 100%, it leaves us with 42.65%, or 1,041 remaining calories.
Therefore, that leaves us with 1,041 calories to divvy between carbohydrates and lipids. Of course, carbohydrates embody our primary energy source. So, they’re very important. However, lipids also provide energy and help to produce and regulate all the hormones in our bodies. So, which should be prioritized? Clearly, limiting fats sounds more important given the fact that if utilizing anabolic drugs, the average bodybuilder no longer requires as much hormone production. Why? Well, because an important and necessary hormone is now being artificially supplied via an external source. Thus, carbohydrates seem to become the bigger priority. If this man was to prioritize carbohydrates by allocating 30% of the 42.65% remainder, this man would be forced to consume roughly 183 grams, or 732 calories, of carbohydrates per day. All that's left is lipids, a gram of which represents 9 calories. Given the 12.65% remainder, it works out to 308.78 calories, or 34 grams of fats.
Hence, this example macronutrient breakdown would end up roughly P 57.35% (350g), C 30% (183g), F 12.65% (34g). I'm off around 6 calories due to rounding the following: 349.978375 to 350, 183.075 to 183, and 34.3096111 to 34 respectively. So, more or less, this would be the exact breakdown to supposedly maintain his exact body weight provided he also maintained an identical activity level. In essence, this macronutrient ratio is a much more detailed report of his actual dietary habits. This is his 2,441 calories under the proverbial “microscope”.
So, at this point, you totally asking “Great. What the f*ck is the point, douche?”
Well, I’m getting there. Really.
The first point I’m attempting to make is based around an arbitrary concept of nutritional requirements; in this case, protein. As you saw, from that original protein requirement, this man deduced his remaining caloric expenditure and allotted the remainder accordingly. After all, who is to say the exact protein demands required to facilitate muscle repair in this man are guaranteed by this arbitrary number? Who is to say that the two grams of protein is enough and that the one gram of protein may too little? Surely, I’m positive that several studies would agree that this range is accurate (roughly). However, it is also surely possible that this man could be an outlier. It is also surely possible that the sample size enlisted in this hypothetical research study might have neglected pertinent factors relevant to this man’s dietary needs.
This brings me to my second point. The macronutrient breakdown is seemingly irrelevant to his baseline caloric requirement. Let's face it- NOWHERE does it say that he must consume a certain macronutrient more heavily. The only requirement is that he adheres to the total caloric needs represented by his baseline caloric requirement of 2,441 calories. He is not to go over or above that magic number. So, in theory, his macronutrient breakdown could end up P 10%/ C 80%/ F 10% and he still would neither gain nor lose weight! Carbohydrate sensitivity be damned!
So, herein lies the disconnect in the philosophy of IIFYM (if it fits your macros). It seems obvious that one’s body would not function correctly when employing any extreme macronutrient breakdown. It would impair one’s normal functionality! I’m no nutritionist, but I’m confident that this impairment would have a substantial effect on one’s baseline metabolic rate. However, the original formula does not account for a baseline metabolic rate in any way relevant to this application. So, even if the baseline caloric requirement is adhered to, it might end up being irrelevant depending on dietary habits. I’m not sure the effect a 10%/ C 80%/ F 10% diet would have on the body, but I doubt it would be beneficial in any way for the conventional bodybuilder.
All in all, I propose that some things may work for some people. In fact, they may work very well. Unfortunately, that does not mean that certain things work for everyone. So, what’s the answer?
There’s only one answer.
Trial and error. A shitload of experimentation is required to find out what works and, even then, it doesn’t mean that it will continue to work in the future. It doesn’t even mean that the exact conditions which facilitated the apparent success could even be replicated again.
So, what’s good diet? What’s bad diet?
In the end, a diet that works for you that can be consistently replicated and produces good results is probably pretty good. Any diet that is erratic, uncalculated, and impossible to replicate which produces no results is bad.
With that being said, what do your macros look like when maintaining, bulking, or cutting? What has worked for you? What advice regarding diet would you give yourself if you could go back in time?
Diet sometimes seems like a cruel voodoo science based around absurd assumptions and conjecture. Sure, it makes total sense. Kinda. That is, if we're getting the results we desire. When we're not, it's another story altogether. Seeing as though there are some pretty experienced people on this forum that oftentimes note the importance of diet, I figured this topic would be prudent to discuss. So here goes. And let us try to make things as simple as possible.
We all realize (hopefully) that proper diet is, first and foremost, based around accurately estimating a baseline caloric requirement. Age, height, weight, and activity level all play a crucial role in accurately deducing our individual "magic" number. This magic number is unique to each one of us and embodies our baseline caloric requirements. If we are to eat exactly at this nutritional requirement on a consistent basis whilst maintaining the activity level utilized in our original calculation with zero deviation, we could expect our weight to remain exactly the same. It's sort of like nutritional stagnation, sort of speak. That's hypothetical, of course. Afterall, the result is totally dependent on the accuracy of the original baseline caloric requirement calculation.
Nevertheless, if we modify our activity level, we can expect our baseline caloric requirement to change. Likewise, if we modify our caloric intake, we can expect the caloric surplus or caloric deficit to affect our total body weight. The result of a steady caloric surplus or caloric deficit would inevitably modify our baseline caloric requirement. So, the result of a steady caloric surplus or caloric deficit would ultimately require a nutritional recalculation to determine a relevant new baseline caloric requirement.
Then, there’s macronutrients. There’s a lot of talk centered around macronutrient ratios. How many times have we heard that AAS promotes a vastly increased rate of protein synthesis? We kill ourselves in the gym in hopes of tearing down muscle fibers, thereby forcing our body to repair them bigger, better, and stronger than before. It’s what makes muscles grow. And, on anabolic drugs the muscles repair faster which results in a shortened recovery time. This creates an increased demand relating to protein requirements for the average bodybuilder, especially the bodybuilder utilizing anabolic drugs.
We often hear the conventional wisdom of a bodybuilder's protein demand being met by consuming 1-2 grams of protein per pound of body weight per day. For example, this would entail a 175lb bodybuilder consuming 175 grams to 350 grams of protein per day to meet his or her needs. Seeing as though one gram of protein represents 4 calories, this places the range of daily caloric expenditure exclusive to protein consumption at around 700 to 1400 calories. If this bodybuilder was a 27-year-old man, roughly 5’10, engaged in light weekly activity, having a baseline caloric requirement of 2,441 calories, we could easily determine the percentage of total protein consumed daily. If we used the "two grams of protein per pound of body weight" recommendation (350g), multiplied this number by 4 (4 calories per gram of protein), then divided this number (1,400) by his baseline caloric requirement (2,441), we would approximate that 57.35% of his daily caloric intake consisted of protein exclusively. If we subtract 57.35% from 100%, it leaves us with 42.65%, or 1,041 remaining calories.
Therefore, that leaves us with 1,041 calories to divvy between carbohydrates and lipids. Of course, carbohydrates embody our primary energy source. So, they’re very important. However, lipids also provide energy and help to produce and regulate all the hormones in our bodies. So, which should be prioritized? Clearly, limiting fats sounds more important given the fact that if utilizing anabolic drugs, the average bodybuilder no longer requires as much hormone production. Why? Well, because an important and necessary hormone is now being artificially supplied via an external source. Thus, carbohydrates seem to become the bigger priority. If this man was to prioritize carbohydrates by allocating 30% of the 42.65% remainder, this man would be forced to consume roughly 183 grams, or 732 calories, of carbohydrates per day. All that's left is lipids, a gram of which represents 9 calories. Given the 12.65% remainder, it works out to 308.78 calories, or 34 grams of fats.
Hence, this example macronutrient breakdown would end up roughly P 57.35% (350g), C 30% (183g), F 12.65% (34g). I'm off around 6 calories due to rounding the following: 349.978375 to 350, 183.075 to 183, and 34.3096111 to 34 respectively. So, more or less, this would be the exact breakdown to supposedly maintain his exact body weight provided he also maintained an identical activity level. In essence, this macronutrient ratio is a much more detailed report of his actual dietary habits. This is his 2,441 calories under the proverbial “microscope”.
So, at this point, you totally asking “Great. What the f*ck is the point, douche?”
Well, I’m getting there. Really.
The first point I’m attempting to make is based around an arbitrary concept of nutritional requirements; in this case, protein. As you saw, from that original protein requirement, this man deduced his remaining caloric expenditure and allotted the remainder accordingly. After all, who is to say the exact protein demands required to facilitate muscle repair in this man are guaranteed by this arbitrary number? Who is to say that the two grams of protein is enough and that the one gram of protein may too little? Surely, I’m positive that several studies would agree that this range is accurate (roughly). However, it is also surely possible that this man could be an outlier. It is also surely possible that the sample size enlisted in this hypothetical research study might have neglected pertinent factors relevant to this man’s dietary needs.
This brings me to my second point. The macronutrient breakdown is seemingly irrelevant to his baseline caloric requirement. Let's face it- NOWHERE does it say that he must consume a certain macronutrient more heavily. The only requirement is that he adheres to the total caloric needs represented by his baseline caloric requirement of 2,441 calories. He is not to go over or above that magic number. So, in theory, his macronutrient breakdown could end up P 10%/ C 80%/ F 10% and he still would neither gain nor lose weight! Carbohydrate sensitivity be damned!
So, herein lies the disconnect in the philosophy of IIFYM (if it fits your macros). It seems obvious that one’s body would not function correctly when employing any extreme macronutrient breakdown. It would impair one’s normal functionality! I’m no nutritionist, but I’m confident that this impairment would have a substantial effect on one’s baseline metabolic rate. However, the original formula does not account for a baseline metabolic rate in any way relevant to this application. So, even if the baseline caloric requirement is adhered to, it might end up being irrelevant depending on dietary habits. I’m not sure the effect a 10%/ C 80%/ F 10% diet would have on the body, but I doubt it would be beneficial in any way for the conventional bodybuilder.
All in all, I propose that some things may work for some people. In fact, they may work very well. Unfortunately, that does not mean that certain things work for everyone. So, what’s the answer?
There’s only one answer.
Trial and error. A shitload of experimentation is required to find out what works and, even then, it doesn’t mean that it will continue to work in the future. It doesn’t even mean that the exact conditions which facilitated the apparent success could even be replicated again.
So, what’s good diet? What’s bad diet?
In the end, a diet that works for you that can be consistently replicated and produces good results is probably pretty good. Any diet that is erratic, uncalculated, and impossible to replicate which produces no results is bad.
With that being said, what do your macros look like when maintaining, bulking, or cutting? What has worked for you? What advice regarding diet would you give yourself if you could go back in time?
Last edited: