Diets - Macros and Calories, what do you really need?

Something I've been introduced to recently is NEAT - non-exercise-activity-thermogenesis.

The gist is that it's possible to under/overestimate rest/training day cals/macros by an appreciable amount, as people don't take into account other stuff they do outside the gym, or a lack of stuff - e.g. I have 'training day macros', but in reality a training day on a work day and a training day on a day off are very different in terms of how much I move about, and therefore I need more food to hit the same cal surplus, which has a knock-on effect on gainz/recovery. The reverse could be true for cutting - aiming for a 30% deficit on a rest day will require less food if you're doing absolutely nothing all day, vs if you've been out and about, so for the latter you could end up in a heavier deficit than you realised and impinge recovery, or indeed be in slightly less of a deficit than you thought because you were as active as someone bed-ridden.

It's captain obvious stuff, but I was reading someone's log where the calculations were giving them 3200/2500 training/rest calories but factoring in NEAT took them to 3800/2750 which then translated positively to their training. So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're using online calculators and/or wondering why your results can vary week to week, it's worth considering NEAT.

I've only found this calculator so far:
http://users.telenet.be/WBtE/cunning.html

But there's an app called CRON-O-METER that has it too.
 
Somnambulist said:
Something I've been introduced to recently is NEAT - non-exercise-activity-thermogenesis.

The gist is that it's possible to under/overestimate rest/training day cals/macros by an appreciable amount, as people don't take into account other stuff they do outside the gym, or a lack of stuff - e.g. I have 'training day macros', but in reality a training day on a work day and a training day on a day off are very different in terms of how much I move about, and therefore I need more food to hit the same cal surplus, which has a knock-on effect on gainz/recovery. The reverse could be true for cutting - aiming for a 30% deficit on a rest day will require less food if you're doing absolutely nothing all day, vs if you've been out and about, so for the latter you could end up in a heavier deficit than you realised and impinge recovery, or indeed be in slightly less of a deficit than you thought because you were as active as someone bed-ridden.

It's captain obvious stuff, but I was reading someone's log where the calculations were giving them 3200/2500 training/rest calories but factoring in NEAT took them to 3800/2750 which then translated positively to their training. So I guess the moral of the story is, if you're using online calculators and/or wondering why your results can vary week to week, it's worth considering NEAT.

I've only found this calculator so far:
http://users.telenet.be/WBtE/cunning.html

But there's an app called CRON-O-METER that has it too.
Click to expand...
Provided one's surplus/deficit was substantial enough to begin with, and considering the point that changes in body composition are at any rate non-linear, none of this should really matter.
 
Some of the studies are pretty interesting - in one, 8 out of the 12 male subjects got a boost of activity that generated 400 calories or more burnt a day. I think two individuals were over 600 and 3 others fairly close to 600 - that's quite a higher number than you'd imagine - you could have a training day where you don't do much but go to the gym, hit your targets and it's a 500 cal surplus, but then another training day you run a load of errands you have to make, eat the same amount because that's your target, and you might only end up 100 over.
 
Somnambulist said:
Some of the studies are pretty interesting - in one, 8 out of the 12 male subjects got a boost of activity that generated 400 calories or more burnt a day. I think two individuals were over 600 and 3 others fairly close to 600 - that's quite a higher number than you'd imagine - you could have a training day where you don't do much but go to the gym, hit your targets and it's a 500 cal surplus, but then another training day you run a load of errands you have to make, eat the same amount because that's your target, and you might only end up 100 over.
Click to expand...
This is true, but it shouldn't really matter if the figure is substantial enough to generate an overall adequate surplus over time. Remember, progress is non-linear anyway. It comes in bursts rather than in a straight line, with a large number of factors involved that go beyond micromanagement. So, provided one's mass on the scale is generally trending upwards, everything is fine. If it's not, then dietary adjustments are needed. My belief is that getting overly technical is helpful for nothing aside from generating neuroses.
 
"My belief is that getting overly technical is helpful for nothing aside from generating neuroses."

A-****ing-men brother. Some people can make over analysing an art form. Having a day where you're burning off 600 calories 'cause of running a few errands should be a one-off; and I mean like once a month if that. If it's happening to you weekly, then it's something you should already be taking in to account with your diet.
 
I think you've gotten it a little misconstrued. Whilst the spreadsheet above is reasonably complex the structure of it isnt.

Basic carb cycling, (the only complex bit seems to be people understanding I cycle the meats in my main meals for variety :p) the above just shows me the detailed breakdown should I need it so I can see easily where I can adjust if need be. I'm not religiously living by this but using it as reasonably accurate information.

I can understand your point and frustration but if you don't work out your calories & macro's then I don't understand how else you can make progress without wasting weeks along the way.
 
BennyC said:
I can understand your point and frustration but if you don't work out your calories & macro's then I don't understand how else you can make progress without wasting weeks along the way.
Click to expand...
It's a common approach, I'm not really knocking it as such. I have frequently used it myself. I think though that once one becomes as experienced with dieting as we both are, that one can afford to be far more approximate and much less precise. And still get brilliant results.
 
Quick question regarding all this, I'm into my cycling and on some days i'll be burning 3000 calories or more, especially if I'm in the saddle for 10 hours or so, when I do these days I take a lot of homemade flapjack and energy gels to keep going, which obviously contain huge amounts of sugar, is this a problem or because I am burning the calories my body will try to use what is readily available?
 
SoliD said:
Quick question regarding all this, I'm into my cycling and on some days i'll be burning 3000 calories or more, especially if I'm in the saddle for 10 hours or so, when I do these days I take a lot of homemade flapjack and energy gels to keep going, which obviously contain huge amounts of sugar, is this a problem or because I am burning the calories my body will try to use what is readily available?
Click to expand...
Why would it be a problem? It's quick carbs. Good option for endurance exercise. At the end of the day, listen to your body. It'll tell you what you need.
 
Depends what your goals are also.

Also also, if you're trying to eat up to a calorie figure given to you by working out your work done on a bike, you will definitely be over shooting the energy your body is actually using.
 
King Damager said:
If you're doing that much exercise, you'll probably be fine with your flapjack and gels. Just don't make it your habitual eating on a day to day basis.

kd
Click to expand...

Oh certainly not only eat it when out riding, although sneak some flapjack on non riding days!


icecold said:
Depends what your goals are also.

Also also, if you're trying to eat up to a calorie figure given to you by working out your work done on a bike, you will definitely be over shooting the energy your body is actually using.
Click to expand...

Well weight loss currently,I never eat as many calories as I burn when I'm riding, it's nigh on impossible will be topped up with recovery xs when I get home and a proper meal few hours later.
 
Re: the NEAT thing, it can even be things like fidgeting at your desk vs someone who sits dead still. Through tracking with some sort of body monitor, they showed considerable differences in energy expenditure between people who were more or less comatose at their desk vs those who got up every hour or so to walk about for a bit, bounce their legs etc. It sounds kind of silly but it all adds up - one of the inferences from the studies (where lean individuals were overfed a set amount to the same ratio and fat gain was compared) were that some people when overfed will move about more, and it wasn't even clear if this was a conscious action, as a means of expending energy to try and reduce the impact of overfeeding.

It's not the be-all of a diet plan, but it seems to contribute enough to be worth taking into account; e.g. on a cut when you're getting to low bf, you might not notice yourself doing things to preserve energy that you weren't before, like taking the lift rather than the stairs or being more lethargic and then finding your results are coming slower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom