Protein intake theory revised and abandoning 40/40/20???

[Times Roman]

Mates

I've been quiet on this subject lately and wanted some time to try and figure out a dilemma I'm experiencing. The dilemma is as follows:

I've been tracking my nutritional intake for several months now, and learning about myself, and how certain foods affect me. Some of you may be aware of the excel spreadsheet I use called the Macro Calculator. It details out all the foods you can eat, and tracks the macros on a per meal basis and a total for the day. It also calculates your TDEE, and protein requirement.

Over time, I was able to determine through experience my TDEE is about 3,100 cals/day. At this intake, my weight average fluctuation was constant for about a two month period, which validates 3,100 cals/day as my TDEE.

After determining my TDEE, I began to really clean up my diet. I came off whey protein powder entirely. My primary protein source became liquid egg whites and canned chicken. Both are more or less pure protein sources with no fat or carbs. Additionally, I switched from grain based carbs to fruit based carbs. Once I switched carb sources, my mood improved, and my energy levels in the gym increased. (I do not know if this is phenomenon is unique to me or is applicable to weight lifters in general.) Additionally, I wanted to slowly start a clean bulk, and so I upped my caloric intake 10%, from 3,100 to 3,400 cals/day. Previously, my macro split was the typical 40/40/20 and it became something like 50/35/15 in round numbers. And then something strange happened. My intended "clean bulk" had me losing a pound or two a month.

How can this be?

How can I increase my caloric intake 10% and slowly start losing weight?

Did the increase in my fiber intake have something to do with it?

Was there some characteristic of the grain based carbs I was sensitive to that slowed down my metabolism?

Was there something about the fruit that increased my metabolism?

I didn't know. But over a two and a half month period, I lost about 5 pounds.

I knew the answer was not due to a lack of protein. I was averaging over 350 grams of protein per day.

So I had to develop a theory.

NOT ALL CALORIES ARE THE SAME

This is the basis of my theory.

There have been a variety of studies centered around the optimal protein intake in a diet. The gist of the studies are to measure all the protein sources over a period of time, and monitor all the excreted protein over the same time, and then measure LBM. Not to go into all the data points, what they found is that once the optimal protein intake has been exceeded, the body actually begins to excrete protein. In stool samples and in nitrogen markers in urine. In other words, the body neither uses all the excess for protein synthesis nor fuel. The body simply eliminates a portion of the excess it cannot use. It is difficult for the body to store excess protein as fat, and therefore, in large part, what it cannot use, it loses through excretion. Be warned, this does not mean you cannot get fat by adhering to a carb free diet. It just takes more calories.

DISPLACEMENT

This is my second theory. If my theory is valid, then it seems my second theory should also be valid.

Displacement theory goes something like this:

If you keep your caloric intake the same, and instead change your macro split, shifting more towards protein and reducing carbs, your total caloric utilization rate will decrease. This means that as the composition of your calories shifts more towards protein, there will be less available from carbs, and therefore it becomes more difficult for your body to fully utilize all the calories. This effect is slight, and only becomes apparent when keeping detailed records of nutritional intake, and then limiting one's intake to TDEE. Then, this slight effect becomes apparent, with the loss of maybe a half a pound a week.

Here's what I think happened.

My protein intake shifted from 40% to 50% of my caloric intake. Plus my carb intake dropped. All in, I consumed something like 500 more cals/day from protein (remember to also include the additional 300 cals/day in increased above TDEE). But there is no way really for me to absorb 350 grams/protein per day. I'm estimating the portion above 1.5grams/day per lbm (300) for a total of 50 grams a day, was excreted. That's the equivalent of 200 cals a day or 6,000 cals a month.

Sanity test.

To lose one pound, one has to burn something like 3,000 or 3,500 cals. So two pounds, the amount of weight loss I was experiencing, comes to 6,000 cals or so.

So hopefully, in theory, this could explain why I was able to increase my caloric intake 10% and still lose 2 pounds a month. I was excreting 6k/cals/mo, which put me below my TDEE.

Now, if all this is true, then I need to look at the traditional rule of thumb that starts our macro split off at 40/40/20. The more I think of this, the more I don't like it. And in fact, for what we do as extremophiles, is just wrong.

To begin with, trying to find the right study to support what we need is a difficult thing to do. Many of the studies are set up correctly, but then use the "average" person which is ok for most, but not us. Then there are studies that measure grams of protein consumed against the body weight of an athlete, but that's wrong too. we need "LBM" not total weight, as the bf% of the athletes in all the various sports changes. Look at the NFL. Some of those boys are over 20%. Swimmers have a relatively high BF%. distance runners may have a relatively low bf%, but have type 1 muscle fiber type, which is not us either. So finding the right studies is a very difficult thing.

I did a lot of reading, and picked up factoids from a number of them. What I have learned, that for 99% of us here, 1.5 grams per pound of Lean body mass, is more than sufficient. There was one study that found benefit at 3.5 grams of protein per kg of lbm, but the exercise routines had them at almost total exhaustion over the course of the day. And the way they described the exercise routine made me realize it was extreme, even for us. So I'm still using 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, but now, I realize it is not a "minimum" requirement. It is a MAXIMUM requirement, or a "not to exceed". Maybe that is what our nutrition guru here was trying to tell me, and somehow, the nature of this threshold got lost in the translation?

I'm going to set up three scenerios based on my personal stats, to illustrate why 40/40/20 is a poor macro target. The first scenario will be at TDEE, the second will be bulking at 500 over TDEE, and the third will be cutting at 500 under.

Scenerio 1 - TDEE
as you can see, my TDEE is 3120 and protein intake is 34% for a total of 265 grams.


Scenerio 2 - TDEE + 500
cals are now at 3620, protein is now at 29% even though protein grams hold steady at 265 grams


Scenerio 3 - TDEE - 500
cals are now at 2620, protein is at 40% and notice all through each scenario protein grams remain steady at 265 grams?




I believe this is a much more precise and benefit based approach to developing a macro based nutritional plan. The theory behind the carb/fat split is that carbs are consumed at twice the rate of fat based on calories.

Previously, at 500 over TDEE, I would have consumed 362 grams of protein using a 40/40/20, of which, almost 100 grams would have surely ended up in the toilet, and not used for protein synthesis nor energy. Which comes to 400 calories, and therefore, displacing carbs that could have been used for energy and help prevent my weight loss.



What do you blokes think?

---Roman

[rollingthunder]

it is going to take me awhile to "digest" this...

(ha!)

[Khazima]

GREAT post, i always kept my protein intake the same no matter what my calories because I prefer to play with my carbs, fats usually stay pretty steady as well.

Interesting post, very informative. Thanks for sharing TR.

[tarmyg]

Probably one of the best posts I have ever seen in this section! Now that I am done kissing your ass here are my thoughts.

So I had to develop a theory.

NOT ALL CALORIES ARE THE SAME

This is the basis of my theory.

I will start out this commentary by saying that I 100% agree with this as I have been arguing the same thing for well over 2 years at this point. It is becoming quite clear that the "All calories count, including Coke" argument is losing steam as we are learning more and more about how the body is processing different foods.

I think you learned this yourself by replacing your carb sources. As we now know, many carbs will be treated like sugar which means they will go straight through the liver and added as fat storage if we ingest to many. When we switch to very fibrous carbs the slow release makes the body treat it a bit differently. So, but showing this you also proved, at least for you, that a change in carb source made a huge impact on your daily life.

---> SNIPP

DISPLACEMENT

This is my second theory. If my theory is valid, then it seems my second theory should also be valid.

Displacement theory goes something like this:

If you keep your caloric intake the same, and instead change your macro split, shifting more towards protein and reducing carbs, your total caloric utilization rate will decrease. This means that as the composition of your calories shifts more towards protein, there will be less available from carbs, and therefore it becomes more difficult for your body to fully utilize all the calories. This effect is slight, and only becomes apparent when keeping detailed records of nutritional intake, and then limiting one's intake to TDEE. Then, this slight effect becomes apparent, with the loss of maybe a half a pound a week.

Here's what I think happened.

My protein intake shifted from 40% to 50% of my caloric intake. Plus my carb intake dropped. All in, I consumed something like 500 more cals/day from protein (remember to also include the additional 300 cals/day in increased above TDEE). But there is no way really for me to absorb 350 grams/protein per day. I'm estimating the portion above 1.5grams/day per lbm (300) for a total of 50 grams a day, was excreted. That's the equivalent of 200 cals a day or 6,000 cals a month.

This is super interesting. So one have to wonder if the amount of protein that is "lost" could be utilized if the intensity or volume was higher as you would need more energy to support that or if you simply would need to add that energy from somewhere else.

Sanity test.

To lose one pound, one has to burn something like 3,000 or 3,500 cals. So two pounds, the amount of weight loss I was experiencing, comes to 6,000 cals or so.

So hopefully, in theory, this could explain why I was able to increase my caloric intake 10% and still lose 2 pounds a month. I was excreting 6k/cals/mo, which put me below my TDEE.

Now, if all this is true, then I need to look at the traditional rule of thumb that starts our macro split off at 40/40/20. The more I think of this, the more I don't like it. And in fact, for what we do as extremophiles, is just wrong.

To begin with, trying to find the right study to support what we need is a difficult thing to do. Many of the studies are set up correctly, but then use the "average" person which is ok for most, but not us. Then there are studies that measure grams of protein consumed against the body weight of an athlete, but that's wrong too. we need "LBM" not total weight, as the bf% of the athletes in all the various sports changes. Look at the NFL. Some of those boys are over 20%. Swimmers have a relatively high BF%. distance runners may have a relatively low bf%, but have type 1 muscle fiber type, which is not us either. So finding the right studies is a very difficult thing.

I did a lot of reading, and picked up factoids from a number of them. What I have learned, that for 99% of us here, 1.5 grams per pound of Lean body mass, is more than sufficient. There was one study that found benefit at 3.5 grams of protein per kg of lbm, but the exercise routines had them at almost total exhaustion over the course of the day. And the way they described the exercise routine made me realize it was extreme, even for us. So I'm still using 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, but now, I realize it is not a "minimum" requirement. It is a MAXIMUM requirement, or a "not to exceed". Maybe that is what our nutrition guru here was trying to tell me, and somehow, the nature of this threshold got lost in the translation?

Now this shows support for the research I referenced in that other post whereas no study showed the need for the amount of protein that we normally recommend. I am not sure anyone around here have ever argued for less than 1.5g/lbm but we should seriously consider trashing that idea as there is less and less support for it.

What, in your opinion, is what we should recommend? I am personally eating around 1.15g/lbm at this time and that seems to be working just fine.

[Flatus78]

Very interesting reading. I do not have an answer, there are probably many factors that needs to be included, but high protein intake increases secretion of the hormone glucagon from the pancreas, and maybe the hormone balance or ratio between insulin and glucagon secretion from the pancreas also have an effect on the weight reduction?

[Dpyle]

Interesting thoughts here Times. I recently watched a YouTube video of Dorian Yates speaking on nutrition. His suggestions were 1-1.5g/lb of body weight for protein intake and double that for carb intake to start and then adjust from there depending on how carb sensitive you are. So that throws the traditional 40/40/20 out the window and to a degree helps to reinforce the theories you just put forth.

In my early days of training it was all about the protein. I made sure to eat my proteins first in my meals and then eat my carb source after until I was full. It wasn't until I reversed that idea that I really started to see fast growth. Now I start my meals with my carb source and the move on to the protein until I can't put in another bite. This new method has given me a 30lb weight gain over the past year with only a 4-5% increase in body fat.

[Times Roman]

Probably one of the best posts I have ever seen in this section! Now that I am done kissing your ass here are my thoughts.



I will start out this commentary by saying that I 100% agree with this as I have been arguing the same thing for well over 2 years at this point. It is becoming quite clear that the "All calories count, including Coke" argument is losing steam as we are learning more and more about how the body is processing different foods.

I think you learned this yourself by replacing your carb sources. As we now know, many carbs will be treated like sugar which means they will go straight through the liver and added as fat storage if we ingest to many. When we switch to very fibrous carbs the slow release makes the body treat it a bit differently. So, but showing this you also proved, at least for you, that a change in carb source made a huge impact on your daily life.

---> SNIPP



This is super interesting. So one have to wonder if the amount of protein that is "lost" could be utilized if the intensity or volume was higher as you would need more energy to support that or if you simply would need to add that energy from somewhere else.

My interpretation of the information I read is regardless of the utilization of protein, whether it be for tissue growth/repair or for energy, 1.5grams per pound of lean body mass is the ceiling of what we can handle in anything other than the most extreme 1% of exercise programs. If you are limiting your calories, then eating excess protein above this is really displacing other fuel sources that could have actually been of benefit.

Say your target is 3k/cal/day. And you eat an excess of 100 grams of protein and it is excreted without being metabolized. Then my understanding is that your "net" calories would now be 2,600 calories, which could prevent you from gaining.
Now this shows support for the research I referenced in that other post whereas no study showed the need for the amount of protein that we normally recommend. I am not sure anyone around here have ever argued for less than 1.5g/lbm but we should seriously consider trashing that idea as there is less and less support for it.

What, in your opinion, is what we should recommend? I am personally eating around 1.15g/lbm at this time and that seems to be working just fine.

I would recommend not exceeding 1.5grams of protein per pound of LBM. Knowing a specific amount is unknowable to anyone other than the individual that has gone through the rigors of clinical testing. Which is about <.1% of us, if any.

For me, I reconstructed my calculator to keep the protein target fixed regardless of caloric intake, and that this new algorithm is improved over the old. And I think that is about as good as it is going to get. It was never intended to be an exact science. We all knew that. But I think that when we want to do a slow clean bulk, this model will provide a better plan for doing so. And if we want to cut, it too will provide a plan that will allow us to do so with sufficient protein to help prevent catabolism.

Anyone wanting the new calculator, feel free to pm me.

---Roman

[RangerDanger830]

I think the "not all calories are the same" comment should be rephrased. A calorie is either the amount of energy needed to water temperature one degree per gram or kilogram depending on whether you are talking about small calories (cal) or large calories (kcal). This is always going to be the same, just over 4.2 joules. The amount of calories you used was less after excreting the excess, but the calorie measurement remains constant.

As far as measuring how much you need I intend on starting a month long process in October where I try various amounts of protein intake and then I measure the amount I am excreting in my urine and study the trend and compare to established norms. I have access to a lab so I look forward to seeing if a diminishing return will the present in the data.

[zaggahamma]

Hopefully the 5lbs wasnt just water

[Times Roman]

I think the "not all calories are the same" comment should be rephrased. A calorie is either the amount of energy needed to water temperature one degree per gram or kilogram depending on whether you are talking about small calories (cal) or large calories (kcal). This is always going to be the same, just over 4.2 joules. The amount of calories you used was less after excreting the excess, but the calorie measurement remains constant.

As far as measuring how much you need I intend on starting a month long process in October where I try various amounts of protein intake and then I measure the amount I am excreting in my urine and study the trend and compare to established norms. I have access to a lab so I look forward to seeing if a diminishing return will the present in the data.

ok, how about this....

Your body's ability to efficiently burn a calorie depends on the source of that calorie and the rate at which that source is being consumed. With protein, there is a point of diminishing marginal returns to where each additional gram of protein produces fewer and fewer utilizable calories, until we get to something like 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, and then at which point, the body becomes "overwhelmed" and is no longer able to process all the protein, thereby eliminating any further excess.....?

[Times Roman]

I think the "not all calories are the same" comment should be rephrased. A calorie is either the amount of energy needed to water temperature one degree per gram or kilogram depending on whether you are talking about small calories (cal) or large calories (kcal). This is always going to be the same, just over 4.2 joules. The amount of calories you used was less after excreting the excess, but the calorie measurement remains constant.

As far as measuring how much you need I intend on starting a month long process in October where I try various amounts of protein intake and then I measure the amount I am excreting in my urine and study the trend and compare to established norms. I have access to a lab so I look forward to seeing if a diminishing return will the present in the data.

You will also need to have very accurate measurements of your LBM. Much more precise than a skin fold test. You will need to measure not only protein intake, but the amount of protein excreted, whereby it is a nitrogen marker in your urine, or protein in your feces.

Have fun. I look forward to seeing your controlled environment, your data and your conclusions.

---Roman

[Docd187123]

ok, how about this....

Your body's ability to efficiently burn a calorie depends on the source of that calorie and the rate at which that source is being consumed. With protein, there is a point of diminishing marginal returns to where each additional gram of protein produces fewer and fewer utilizable calories, until we get to something like 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, and then at which point, the body becomes "overwhelmed" and is no longer able to process all the protein, thereby eliminating any further excess.....?

Your body is smarter than that. When you eat fats and fibers or a mixed source of protein, the body will change he rate of digestion to make use of all the nutrients you take in. How big the meal was can also affect gastric emptying. The ileal tract controls this rate from within the small intestine. If you eat 200g of protein in a sitting from 2 big steaks for example, not only would the high protein content take a very very long time to digest, but the added fat would also help slow down the digestion period. Just bc there is a ca on MPS does not mean that all the protein you eat does not get utilized in some way.

[Deal Me In]

I've read this a couple of times and I'm still processing it. I will be back with questions in a day or two.

In the meantime, great article. Thanks for the time you put it to this TimesRoman. Great food for thought, so to speak.

[Times Roman]

Your body is smarter than that. When you eat fats and fibers or a mixed source of protein, the body will change he rate of digestion to make use of all the nutrients you take in. How big the meal was can also affect gastric emptying. The ileal tract controls this rate from within the small intestine. If you eat 200g of protein in a sitting from 2 big steaks for example, not only would the high protein content take a very very long time to digest, but the added fat would also help slow down the digestion period. Just bc there is a ca on MPS does not mean that all the protein you eat does not get utilized in some way.

that theory doesn't jive with the clinical studies and my personal experiences, and the data I've gathered.

I switched to liquid egg white, and canned chicken. upping caloric consumption 10% and bumping protein intake 10%. over the course of 2.5 months, I'm down 5 pounds even though eating at 10% over TDEE. And while I was doing so, with all the fruit and increased fiber content, my throughput time reduced. I could eat a meal, and within 12 to 15 hours, the markers of that meal would be eliminated. Shorter than before. Digestion throughput accelerated, not decelerated. The assumption is that I have normal biology.

one last thought. My fat intake % decreased due to all the "pure" protein I was eating, down to something like 15% last time I looked at my ten day average. Down from about 23%

[tarmyg]

I think the "not all calories are the same" comment should be rephrased. A calorie is either the amount of energy needed to water temperature one degree per gram or kilogram depending on whether you are talking about small calories (cal) or large calories (kcal). This is always going to be the same, just over 4.2 joules. The amount of calories you used was less after excreting the excess, but the calorie measurement remains constant.

As far as measuring how much you need I intend on starting a month long process in October where I try various amounts of protein intake and then I measure the amount I am excreting in my urine and study the trend and compare to established norms. I have access to a lab so I look forward to seeing if a diminishing return will the present in the data.

I do not agree with this at all and to point out something hilarious, this is the EXACT discussion I have with my wife each time we talk about this. Here is my reasoning: For all intents and purposes calories is no longer defined in the mathematical sense even though that is of course what it exactly is. Now why do disagree with people referring to this each time? Because that is what the food industry use to justify that all calories are the same while they clearly are not. I would say that to really simplify this we should say that "all calories are not created equal" but this "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" bs just have got to go because it is driving my ****ing bananas.

[Docd187123]

that theory doesn't jive with the clinical studies and my personal experiences, and the data I've gathered.

I switched to liquid egg white, and canned chicken. upping caloric consumption 10% and bumping protein intake 10%. over the course of 2.5 months, I'm down 5 pounds even though eating at 10% over TDEE. And while I was doing so, with all the fruit and increased fiber content, my throughput time reduced. I could eat a meal, and within 12 to 15 hours, the markers of that meal would be eliminated. Shorter than before. Digestion throughput accelerated, not decelerated. The assumption is that I have normal biology.

one last thought. My fat intake % decreased due to all the "pure" protein I was eating, down to something like 15% last time I looked at my ten day average. Down from about 23%

By bumping up your protein intake you've increased your TEF which helps explain the weight loss. By increasing your fruit intake you have added to the possibility of error in your intake readings. Do you weigh each and every piece of fruit or do you take an average? You cannot accurately measure your digestive throughput at home so I'm curious as to how you got the number 12-15.

The clinical studies absolutely do back up my statements. The methods you talk about in the OP refer mainly to nitrogen balance tests from stool and urine samples which is not an accurate indicator of either protein needs, protein proteolysis, or protein synthesis. There's plenty of sources out about how unreliable nitrogen balance testing is.

[RangerDanger830]

You will also need to have very accurate measurements of your LBM. Much more precise than a skin fold test. You will need to measure not only protein intake, but the amount of protein excreted, whereby it is a nitrogen marker in your urine, or protein in your feces.

Have fun. I look forward to seeing your controlled environment, your data and your conclusions.

---Roman

Well guess who's university just got a brand new shiny cosmed bod pod

I do not agree with this at all and to point out something hilarious, this is the EXACT discussion I have with my wife each time we talk about this. Here is my reasoning: For all intents and purposes calories is no longer defined in the mathematical sense even though that is of course what it exactly is. Now why do disagree with people referring to this each time? Because that is what the food industry use to justify that all calories are the same while they clearly are not. I would say that to really simplify this we should say that "all calories are not created equal" but this "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" bs just have got to go because it is driving my ****ing bananas.

Well here is what I will give you. A food producing company is required by law to post their own nutritional facts of course. Whether they report those results with extreme accuracy or if they fudge them as much as they can get away with is beyond me. But a calorie is a calorie in the scientific sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise has merely adopted another definition of the word.

[Times Roman]

By bumping up your protein intake you've increased your TEF which helps explain the weight loss. By increasing your fruit intake you have added to the possibility of error in your intake readings. Do you weigh each and every piece of fruit or do you take an average?

no. I do not weigh each banana nor apple. but my calculator uses 2 apples per pound, and I can weigh each apple. the ones I buy from Costco are about 3/4 pound, and so in this case, this would mean 1.5 apples if the unit of measure was a 0.5pound apple. Bananas are a little less precise as it just says 1 banana. but, over the course of a day, I may eat 5 bananas, and so in total, even though each specific banana is not precise, in the aggregate, all these bananas should approximate the average banana as per the FDA data down load I have.

The differences between Protein and carb TEF are slight, maybe a few percentages points. I hardly doubt this can explain the phenomenon I experienced. remember, I Increased caloric intake 10% above a stable TDEE and was losing 1/2 pound a week. A couple of small percentage point variances in TEF hardly seems able to justify this amount of weight loss. Now, if I had NOT increased caloric intake 10%, and simply adjusted my macro percentage, then maybe. But weight loss AND increase caloric intake 10%? I don't think so mate.
I've provided plenty of data. Crunch the numbers and make me a believer, fair enough?

You cannot accurately measure your digestive throughput at home so I'm curious as to how you got the number 12-15.

I was hoping I wouldn't have to be so graphic, and thought by saying "the markers of that meal" would suffice. So ladies I apologize for the following comment:

The markers of that meal refer to corn. if you were to eat a half cup of corn with the meal, you can time throughput from the moment you eat it to the moment you eliminate it. it's a non digestible marker, assuming you do not overly chew.

I've always had fast throughput, but when I made the above mentioned changes, throughput time reduced.

The clinical studies absolutely do back up my statements. The methods you talk about in the OP refer mainly to nitrogen balance tests from stool and urine samples which is not an accurate indicator of either protein needs, protein proteolysis, or protein synthesis. There's plenty of sources out about how unreliable nitrogen balance testing is.

yes, that is primarily what I am referring to. however, I did read stool sample tests were performed, nitrogen was abandonded, and actual protein measurements were taken. Not a savory test, but nonetheless, performed. And I think that if you do nail down all the variables, it can be used in a reasonably accurate fashion. You must consider protein in, the overall change in inventory balance in the body (LBM is a good start), and protein out. The studies I read explained that these nitrogen markers decreased as protein intake reduced, and increased when protein increased beyond a certain point. In fact, once you get past a certain intake amount, the amount of protein output increased at almost a linear rate. I said "almost". The body still uses an ever decreasing amount of protein for energy even above 1.5g/lb/lbm

Well guess who's university just got a brand new shiny cosmed bod pod

Nice! You should be g2g then


Well here is what I will give you. A food producing company is required by law to post their own nutritional facts of course. Whether they report those results with extreme accuracy or if they fudge them as much as they can get away with is beyond me. But a calorie is a calorie in the scientific sense. Anyone who thinks otherwise has merely adopted another definition of the word.

this comment, although probably accurate to a certain degree (after all, how can small amounts of carbs have "zero" calories as per their labels?), it probably does not apply to me in this case, as I predominantly eat whole foods and rely on the macro calculator, not the ingredient label, for my data.

...just saying

[Times Roman]

after thinking things through, I may have exaggerated throughput time. realistic is probably closer to between 15 and 17. I'm thinking input at 8pm and output by noon which is closer to what? 16 hours?

[Times Roman]

now doc.

I just want to point out that I have a fairly open mind. And in the face of solid evidence and personal experience, my belief system is subject to change.

I too until recently thought that the body could metabolize much more protein than the "not to exceed" 1.5g/lb/lbm until I faced this delimma and decided to try and find a way to explain it.

But after posting the other thread, hearing what some had to say, reading their cites, doing further research, and then correlating that to my personal experience, I'm going to have to say the way I was thinking before was flawed.

My current way of thinking may still be flawed, but I suspect it is much more accurate than it was before.

[Docd187123]

now doc.

I just want to point out that I have a fairly open mind. And in the face of solid evidence and personal experience, my belief system is subject to change.

I too until recently thought that the body could metabolize much more protein than the "not to exceed" 1.5g/lb/lbm until I faced this delimma and decided to try and find a way to explain it.

But after posting the other thread, hearing what some had to say, reading their cites, doing further research, and then correlating that to my personal experience, I'm going to have to say the way I was thinking before was flawed.

My current way of thinking may still be flawed, but I suspect it is much more accurate than it was before.

TR,

I know you have an open mind. We are simply trying to get to the bottom of this subject matter is all. No harm no foul buddy. I'll respond more as time permits. Going to be a long day for me today lol

[kelkel]

Hopefully the 5lbs wasnt just water

Now that's funny!

[tarmyg]

With all the information we have and TR's tested hypothesis it sounds, to me, like

1. Protein recommendation should be a set value i.e. 1.5g/lbm as an absolute MAX.
2. We should not tell people to run 40/40/20 as some standard because it will have people, in general, consume way too much protein.

Comments?

[rollingthunder]

TR-
i wonder how much of your results are due to just making a (relatively dramatic) change in your diet. we all know that the body adapts over time. that's why it is a good idea to "change up" one's routine in the gym, periodically. (something i rarely do, i confess. i love me my routine!)

[Deal Me In]

You guys obviously know a lot more about this than I do and have access to lab equipment that I can only dream of. I'm trying to figure all this out in a practical sense. Please let me know if my logic is flawed.

I have been consuming 1.5g/lb of protein and gaining about 1 pound every two weeks. I carb cycle on lifting days but my intake is never less than 350 calories over TDEE. I've been using 40/40/20.

Now, according to this, if I drop to 1.0g/lb I will be taking out 100 grams of protein or 400 calories which will put me just over maintenance. However, if less protein will result in the same amount of muscle built, then I should be able to do this without losing any muscle mass. Since the lower amount of protein is still enough to build muscle. Is this right?

To me, this would mean I could stay at or near maintenance, and still build muscle if we assume I keep my carb intake high enough to account for energy spent. Is this right? I assume this means I will not actually gain any weight since I will be at maintenance but if I'm adding muscle mass I don't really care if my actual weight goes up. If I could add 5 pounds of muscle over the course of a year and remain at 200 lbs I would be fine with that.

This seems way to simple. Tell me where I've gone wrong.

[Times Roman]

TR,

I know you have an open mind. We are simply trying to get to the bottom of this subject matter is all. No harm no foul buddy. I'll respond more as time permits. Going to be a long day for me today lol

emotional content is difficult to convey sometimes in this environment. I meant nothing condescending nor negative in the slightest in my comment to you. Sorry if it came off that way. We're good.....

With all the information we have and TR's tested hypothesis it sounds, to me, like

1. Protein recommendation should be a set value i.e. 1.5g/lbm as an absolute MAX.
2. We should not tell people to run 40/40/20 as some standard because it will have people, in general, consume way too much protein.

Comments?

Well, in my opinion, I think it is a better starting point for a newb to calculate 1.5grams of protein per pound of lbm, than it is to say 40/40/20. 40/40/20 is a no brainer calculation, and what we are proposing is slightly more complex. My opinion is that for a 200+ bloke like me, 400+ grams protein/day is excessive. I was averaging something like 365 grams/day, when 265 for me is more than sufficient. for a powerlifter or someone on a dirty bulk, it doesn't matter. But for someone that is cutting or wants a very clean bulk with very controllable and predictable results over time, then even 1.5 is probably on the high side for most. I'm going to stick to 1.5 as a "not to exceed" for now (and yes, yesterday, I was short the 1.5 by maybe 17 grams or so, no biggie) plus 380 cals over TDEE for a couple of months and see how that goes.

TR-
i wonder how much of your results are due to just making a (relatively dramatic) change in your diet. we all know that the body adapts over time. that's why it is a good idea to "change up" one's routine in the gym, periodically. (something i rarely do, i confess. i love me my routine!)

I've been slowly improving my diet since april. then, a couple of months ago I switched protein sources to the liquid egg whites and totally off the whey. that shouldn't have anything to do with it. grain based carbs to fruit based carbs, and even with the higher fiber content (I'm assuming that's a true statement, I haven't chased that one down yet), I'm not convinced that had anything to do with it to. My macro distribution changed, and that DOES have a slight impact on caloric utilization due to the TEF, but slight. And the TEF pales in comparison when you consider an over all ten percent increase in caloric intake. Not only that, but my evening meal changes daily. I never know what the woman is cooking for dinner! =)

You guys obviously know a lot more about this than I do and have access to lab equipment that I can only dream of. I'm trying to figure all this out in a practical sense. Please let me know if my logic is flawed.

I have been consuming 1.5g/lb of protein and gaining about 1 pound every two weeks. I carb cycle on lifting days but my intake is never less than 350 calories over TDEE. I've been using 40/40/20.

Now, according to this, if I drop to 1.0g/lb I will be taking out 100 grams of protein or 400 calories which will put me just over maintenance. However, if less protein will result in the same amount of muscle built, then I should be able to do this without losing any muscle mass. Since the lower amount of protein is still enough to build muscle. Is this right?

To me, this would mean I could stay at or near maintenance, and still build muscle if we assume I keep my carb intake high enough to account for energy spent. Is this right? I assume this means I will not actually gain any weight since I will be at maintenance but if I'm adding muscle mass I don't really care if my actual weight goes up. If I could add 5 pounds of muscle over the course of a year and remain at 200 lbs I would be fine with that.

This seems way to simple. Tell me where I've gone wrong.

the 1.5 is with respect to LBM, not total weight. I'm not sure what your lbm% is. drop your protein % to just below 1.5 per lbm and you will have excess protein for the most part.

You mention 1 gram per pound. this IS too low. If you want to cut it to the bone, I personally wouldn't go below 1.25 per pound of lbm. This could be on the high side, but not knowing your activity level and your biology, you could run the risk of not having excess protein. I think we all want excess protein, but to keep it minimized.

Now, what you are referring to (not gaining weight but gaining muscle mass) is the definition of a recomposition. Easy to do with elevated bf%, not so easy with lower bf%. I'm at 13% and have been recomping for awhile, and let me tell you, it is a slow process. Depending on your stats, you may be better off targeting a clean bulk? One of the purposes of my recomping for a few months was to test my actual TDEE against the formulated TDEE. During this time (since april), I've only dropped 1% bf. I didn't do much in the way of cardio, and had reasons for it. Conclusion is that if you want to recomp, include cadio especially to speed things up at lower Bf% levels.

[Times Roman]

reminds me. all this protein talk gives me gas.

I'm trying a variety of enzymes to assist in digesting protein (papaya, bromelein) and probiotics. if favorable results, may start a gaseous counterpart to this thread.

and if it does work, then I will probably buy the enzymes in bulk powder (as always)

[tarmyg]

reminds me. all this protein talk gives me gas.

I'm trying a variety of enzymes to assist in digesting protein (papaya, bromelein) and probiotics. if favorable results, may start a gaseous counterpart to this thread.

and if it does work, then I will probably buy the enzymes in bulk powder (as always)

If there ever was a thread that should be labeled 60+ it should be that new thread ;-)

[Deal Me In]

Thank you for taking the time TR. Yeah, it sounds like recomping is more what I'm looking for at this point. I've only really gotten strict about my diet for the last 12 months (I mean really strict) and I seem to always be fighting unwanted fat gain. I'm able to gain weight but my bodyfat creeps up 2-3%. I've tried carb cycling, without much success. If I increase the cardio I lose the body fat but stop gaining muscle.

This has given me a lot to think about. I think I will try your method and drop to 1.25g/lb of lean muscle and give this a go for 90 days and see what happens. I don't mind if it takes me till next summer, I'm in this for the long haul. It's just such a struggle trying to find that sweet spot of adding muscle without body fat.

I've also been calculating based on total body weight and not LBM. I will put pen to paper tomorrow and see what kind of new numbers I come up with.

Thanks again man. I really appreciate the time you put into this.

Oh just for a little context, I started this journey at 183 @13%. I'm up to 197 @16%. I think it's time to see if I can cut it down to 12% and see where my weight is at.

[Times Roman]

Thank you for taking the time TR. Yeah, it sounds like recomping is more what I'm looking for at this point. I've only really gotten strict about my diet for the last 12 months (I mean really strict) and I seem to always be fighting unwanted fat gain. I'm able to gain weight but my bodyfat creeps up 2-3%. I've tried carb cycling, without much success. If I increase the cardio I lose the body fat but stop gaining muscle.

This has given me a lot to think about. I think I will try your method and drop to 1.25g/lb of lean muscle and give this a go for 90 days and see what happens. I don't mind if it takes me till next summer, I'm in this for the long haul. It's just such a struggle trying to find that sweet spot of adding muscle without body fat.

I've also been calculating based on total body weight and not LBM. I will put pen to paper tomorrow and see what kind of new numbers I come up with.

Thanks again man. I really appreciate the time you put into this.

Oh just for a little context, I started this journey at 183 @13%. I'm up to 197 @16%. I think it's time to see if I can cut it down to 12% and see where my weight is at.

PM me. i'll send you the macro calculator. it does all the heavy calculating for you.

[Docd187123]

You guys obviously know a lot more about this than I do and have access to lab equipment that I can only dream of. I'm trying to figure all this out in a practical sense. Please let me know if my logic is flawed.

I have been consuming 1.5g/lb of protein and gaining about 1 pound every two weeks. I carb cycle on lifting days but my intake is never less than 350 calories over TDEE. I've been using 40/40/20.

The reason you shouldn't use percentages to calculate macro needs is bc it doesn't actually Calculate your needs. It often times gives an over or under estimate. Take for example a 1000cal intake, 2500cal intake, and a 5000cal intake and a macro ratio of 40% protein

1000cals x .40 = 400cals or 100g of protein
2500cals x .40 = 1000 cals or 250g protein
5000cals x .40 = 2000cAls or 500g protein

Using myself as an example, my last bulk I was around 205-210lbs and eating about 4500-4700cals to gain any type of weight. If I were to use the ratios above that would mean I'd be eating damn near 500g of protein a day. A little excessive for a ~200 lber don't you think? That's over 2g/lb bodyweight of protein which is excessive bc I more than met my minimums and it takes away calories from fats and carbs which could be better used to fuel workouts and recovery. Basing your macros off bodyweight, lean body mass, or even target bodyweight/lean body mass is a much better option.

Now, according to this, if I drop to 1.0g/lb I will be taking out 100 grams of protein or 400 calories which will put me just over maintenance. However, if less protein will result in the same amount of muscle built, then I should be able to do this without losing any muscle mass. Since the lower amount of protein is still enough to build muscle. Is this right?

1g/lb bodyweight or even lean body mass is plenty for building muscle. It doesn't mean you've maximized the rate of muscle building but it's at a point where diminishing returns becomes a serious limitation. Protein/amino acids are stored in muscle tissue to make it bigger and stronger yes. Yes you'll still gain may me mass provided you're in a caloric surplus on average. This is bc you still need an excess of calories, from any macro really, to fuel the processes that cause protein to be stored as muscle.

To me, this would mean I could stay at or near maintenance, and still build muscle if we assume I keep my carb intake high enough to account for energy spent. Is this right? I assume this means I will not actually gain any weight since I will be at maintenance but if I'm adding muscle mass I don't really care if my actual weight goes up. If I could add 5 pounds of muscle over the course of a year and remain at 200 lbs I would be fine with that.

Correct to some degree but as TR pointed out, the leaner or more advanced you are in terms of emetic potential makes recomps much more difficult, time consuming, and frustrating to some. As a natty lifter 2lbs of muscle gained a month means you're doing everything perfect. You cannot sustain this rate though for long and the body grows in spurts. You'll have periods where you won't have any change and then all of a sudden you get a big change.

This seems way to simple. Tell me where I've gone wrong.

Again recomps are slow processes as TR mentioned. You trade the getting fat part for slower results. Nothing wrong with a recomp but don't be frustrated if significant changes take time to appear.

[Docd187123]

Calculating macros/protein on LBM is superior as fatty tissue doesn't require protein but this would mean your need an accurate indicator of your body composition. Some people are way off in their estimations and can't use calipers at all. If you have access to a bodpod or deca scan I suggest signing up for one

[Deal Me In]

Calculating macros/protein on LBM is superior as fatty tissue doesn't require protein but this would mean your need an accurate indicator of your body composition. Some people are way off in their estimations and can't use calipers at all. If you have access to a bodpod or deca scan I suggest signing up for one

Thanks Doc. This fits in nicely with what TR is telling me. My local gym is bringing in one of those dunk tanks next month. I was going to sign up for that. Are those as accurate as a bodpod? I've never used anything other than calipers.

Second, is there a separate equation to figure TDEE using LBM or do you use the standard one and just substitute LBM for body weight?

[Docd187123]

emotional content is difficult to convey sometimes in this environment. I meant nothing condescending nor negative in the slightest in my comment to you. Sorry if it came off that way. We're good.....

You did not and it wasnt taken that way at all

[Docd187123]

Thanks Doc. This fits in nicely with what TR is telling me. My local gym is bringing in one of those dunk tanks next month. I was going to sign up for that. Are those as accurate as a bodpod? I've never used anything other than calipers.

Second, is there a separate equation to figure TDEE using LBM or do you use the standard one and just substitute LBM for body weight?

Dexa scans and BodPods are the leaders in accurate body comp measurements as far as I'm aware of. There are sites online with locators of each close to home. You can even google bodpod or dexa scan and the name of your city and ones close to you should pop up.

The most accurate TDEE formula IF you have accurate body comp measurements is the Katch-McArdle formula:

BMR (both men and women) = 370 + ( 21.6 x lean body mass in kg )

Then simply multiply by an activity factor to get TDEE from BMR

[Deal Me In]

Dexa scans and BodPods are the leaders in accurate body comp measurements as far as I'm aware of. There are sites online with locators of each close to home. You can even google bodpod or dexa scan and the name of your city and ones close to you should pop up.

The most accurate TDEE formula IF you have accurate body comp measurements is the Katch-McArdle formula:

BMR (both men and women) = 370 + ( 21.6 x lean body mass in kg )

Then simply multiply by an activity factor to get TDEE from BMR

Thanks Doc, this gives me a great place to start. I'll work up a knew diet in the next couple of days and post for review.

[Deal Me In]

I just punched the numbers into a Katch-McArdle calculator (I had to guess at my BF but it's a very educated guess) and it spit out a number that is 400 calories less than what I thought my TDEE was. That might explain why I've been able to gain weight but can't keep the body fat off. I've been eating at almost 900 calories over TDEE. I'm going to have to do a whole new diet.

[Deal Me In]

One more thing, does the 1.25g/lb apply to women also? I need to know if I need to completely redo my wife's diet also. Thanks again guys.

[Docd187123]

I just punched the numbers into a Katch-McArdle calculator (I had to guess at my BF but it's a very educated guess) and it spit out a number that is 400 calories less than what I thought my TDEE was. That might explain why I've been able to gain weight but can't keep the body fat off. I've been eating at almost 900 calories over TDEE. I'm going to have to do a whole new diet.

Just keep in mind your working off an ESTIMATED body fat measurement. Most people underestimate their body fat so that's always a possibility (not saying it definitely is but could be) and even with this formula, it is still an educated guess that's subject to so many variables it's never going to be 100% perfect. You should play around with the numbers and eat at that intake for 2-3wks measuring weight change and any body measurement changes. Adjust as needed obviously.

Definitely do some experimenting and see if these new changes help any.

[Docd187123]

One more thing, does the 1.25g/lb apply to women also? I need to know if I need to completely redo my wife's diet also. Thanks again guys.

The 1.25g/lb isn't a set rule either. It's certainly adequate but not necessarily optimal. It depends on the person, goals, context etc.

A cording to Lyle McDonald, there's no direct data suggesting women need more or less protein than men. You might assume bc their testosterone and other anabolic hormonal levels are lower than men and the fact they gain less muscle mass then men in a given time frame that they need less protein but there's no studies on the topic.