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

I've been recording all I've been eating every day this week to get a feel for where I am

So, here's the lowdown (day, cals, carbs, protein, fats)
Sun 2202, 240, 122, 87 (gym)
Mon 2404, 279, 213, 65
Tues 1626, 184, 144, 37 (commute)
Weds 1138, 206, 50, 14 (unwell)
Thurs 2313 218, 128, 100 (gym)
Fri 3447, 234, 269, 131 (commute)
Sat 2285, 278, 162, 57 (gym)

Calced BMR is 1740 then scaled to 2392-2697 to maintain weight

So, I'm down on calories if I want to grow and get stronger. I was a little surprised but thats the whole point of recording these things :) Friday was a meal out but I felt like I ate well on Saturday and still only 2285 calories. Right, some easy 3-500 cal snacks coming up!
 
Just had another read of this and it's a solid post.

However, I just do not get the obsession with breakfast. I have not had 'breakfast' since January and have lost approximately 10kg (84kg-75kg) whilst increasing poundages across virtually all my gym work. The kick starting metabolism thing sounds like something you'd read on a box of Kellogs cereal.

If scientific studies show that people who skip breakfast suffer in terms of health then the logical explanation is that the sort of people who skip breakfast tend to have awful diets anyway (or bad habits, a lot of smokers I know skip breakfast and get through their morning on coffee and fags) - OR - they think they are even hungrier at lunch time and psychologically find it acceptable to eat obscene amounts of food to make up for it. I always eat at about 12-1PM, I have 3 healthy meals a day after this point and I have never felt better in my entire life not to mention the results on my gym performance and physique.

Basically I don't care what studies say because my own personal experience says it's rubbish. That doesn't go to say that skipping breakfast would work for everyone though :)
 
Last edited:
Skipping breakfast is fine IMO, but when you're bulking, it can be hard fitting the required calories into a shorter period. When I wake I have 0 appetite, so all I have is a coffee and some coconut oil. I'll then tuck into my first meal at 10.30. My body wouldn't go without food until lunch, I'd be crippled by hunger.

3 meals is all well and good, but trying to hit 3000+ cals in 3 meals isn't fun.
 
Depends on the person. I gess the main reason for the average person to eat it is they reach lunch and think "oh crap I'm starving time to binge" and overeat (if trying to lose weight) as lie said tho, sometimes hard to hit calories
 
scott212 said:
Just had another read of this and it's a solid post.

However, I just do not get the obsession with breakfast. I have not had 'breakfast' since January and have lost approximately 10kg (84kg-75kg) whilst increasing poundages across virtually all my gym work. The kick starting metabolism thing sounds like something you'd read on a box of Kellogs cereal.

If scientific studies show that people who skip breakfast suffer in terms of health then the logical explanation is that the sort of people who skip breakfast tend to have awful diets anyway (or bad habits, a lot of smokers I know skip breakfast and get through their morning on coffee and fags) - OR - they think they are even hungrier at lunch time and psychologically find it acceptable to eat obscene amounts of food to make up for it. I always eat at about 12-1PM, I have 3 healthy meals a day after this point and I have never felt better in my entire life not to mention the results on my gym performance and physique.

Basically I don't care what studies say because my own personal experience says it's rubbish. That doesn't go to say that skipping breakfast would work for everyone though :)
Click to expand...

Yes the 'people who skip breakfast have worse health' thing was one of those articles in the Daily Mail type things where they add on later 'subjects who skipped breakfast were also more likely to drink heavily/smoke/eat crap'. Basically ignore anything that says 'x is linked to y' and if you want to read about studies properly, pay $10 a month for Alan Aragon's Research Review where he breaks studies down into something the average joe can read.

It's all about intake vs expenditure, and some people like LiE prefer breaking it up a bit, some people (like me) are ex-fatties and love eating stupidly big meals. Results = same. If you're an athlete who trains in blocks over the course of a day then multiple meals make sense for several reasons. If you're just an office worker who hits the gym, then it's really what suits your schedule best.
 
Somnambulist said:
Yes the 'people who skip breakfast have worse health' thing was one of those articles in the Daily Mail type things where they add on later 'subjects who skipped breakfast were also more likely to drink heavily/smoke/eat crap'. Basically ignore anything that says 'x is linked to y' and if you want to read about studies properly, pay $10 a month for Alan Aragon's Research Review where he breaks studies down into something the average joe can read..
Click to expand...

Indeed my friend. I remember at Uni our lecturer in Empirical analysis used a memorable example:

Studies showed that people who drank a lot were more likely to get lung cancer. However, there was no causality between alcohol and lung cancer, it was simply that heavy drinkers were more likely to smoke and thus the lung cancer was a direct result of the smoking and not the drinking. Similar sort of thing.

LiE said:
Skipping breakfast is fine IMO, but when you're bulking, it can be hard fitting the required calories into a shorter period. When I wake I have 0 appetite, so all I have is a coffee and some coconut oil. I'll then tuck into my first meal at 10.30. My body wouldn't go without food until lunch, I'd be crippled by hunger.

3 meals is all well and good, but trying to hit 3000+ cals in 3 meals isn't fun.
Click to expand...

Of course we're all different. It's just the brigade who bang on about the fact that if you skip breakfast your muscles will cannibalise themselves and your metabolism will come to a dead halt. Looks like there are plenty of members on this forum who will also testify it's absolute tosh.

Mate - even on a cut I struggle to get in the calories post workout. Eating even 1,500kcal of carbs/veg/protein after a workout on training days is a challenge for me :D

BennyC said:
Since discovering IF years ago I haven't looked back.
Click to expand...

It's a fantastic lifestyle change let alone a diet. It took me a while to really understand it and to get all my TDEEs/macros correct but it has paid dividends.

The other thing about the IF diet/breakfast skipping is that it makes biological sense. As cavemen we did not wake up each morning to have a load of meat sitting in front of us ready to eat, we had to go out, hunt, expel energy, exhaust ourselves before we were able to catch our food. Breakfast advocates ignore this and state that your blood sugar levels go dangerously low if you skip breakfast. If this was true I'm pretty sure we would have been extinct long ago. I like to think the human body is more resilient than that! :D Really is a load of karp. I'm also a fan of fasted training, I much prefer training on an empty stomach and have far more energy. Each to their own though.
 
Last edited:
Interesting articles debunking the low carb approach.

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/low-carb-diets-2

Basic summary is:

Carbs are fine but should be minimally processed and as "raw" as possible - i.e. choose your carb sources carefully.
Great for energy and keeping test levels up and lowering cortisol
Protein IS important, but just bolster your diet with them anyway.
If you're active, eat more carbs, if you're not, cut them down but don't eliminate.
Experiment, everyone is different see how you respond to changes in macros.
Don't be extreme in your diet unless you have very specific goals (i.e. get uber lean for a competition).
 
Thanks for the OP. I have just taken part in a study which has shamed me a little about my weight. I knew I had put on weight but the figures are a little startling, I carry my weight well so don't look 'big' :o.

Body fat - 28.6%
Fat tissue - 28.4 kg
% lean - 71.4%
Lean tissue - 70.8 kg
Total weight - 99.2 kg
% body water - 46.1%
BMR - 9000 kjoules
BMI - 29.9

So according to the OP my BMR is 1899 x 1.2 = 2278.8

I plan to go to the gym around 3 times a week (cycling, running and some weights), so lets say 1899 x 1.35 = 2563.65. Assuming I want to lose 15% per week, this would mean a daily intake of 2179. Have I got the numbers right?
 
Last edited:
Start off on 2100 for a few weeks, then drop to 2000 for a couple more weeks and see how you fair after a month. Remember it can fluctuate quite a lot. Drop the calories gradually it'll make it easier. That is if you really are doing enough exercise to burn the calories. If not then I'd adjust accordingly.

you could just jump below maintenance of 1899 but there's little point and you won't actually achieve much other than making yourself miserable and hungry.
 
Thanks for the quick reply :)

I plan to do 3x1 hour sessions; two cycling/running aiming for the fat burn MHR and unsure about weights as I have rarely done them in the past.
 
Don't just suddenly drop form your current calorie intake to whatever level it is you're planning on using for weight loss.

Track your current intake already and then make reductions from this. Make as small a cut as possible to promote weightloss, otherwise you're just throwing a nice big buffer in the bin and making the experience less pleasant than it needs to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom