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

Evilsod · 16 Jan 2015 at 15:16

FrenchTart said:
First off, you don't need to worry about nutrient timing to the degree you are now. If you eat enough protein during the day you'll be fine and will gain very little (probably nothing) from timing a protein shake for immediately after your bouldering session.

Its hard to know who to believe with things like that as the 'general knowledge' seems to be its best to take protein fairly soon after (as in, within 30-45 minutes). To be honest it isn't a big chore taking the bottle in a shaker with me so I'm not too worried about it not strictly being the case.

Secondly, before you get too bogged down with planning what your intake should be I would highly recommend that you start logging your food into the likes of MyFitnessPal. Make sure you're as accurate as possible - weighing food initially if you're unsure (as time progresses and your knowledge of things improves you will need to do this less and less).

I did attempt that earlier this week (I was reading the thread Tefal created) but its such a goddamn ball ache. Guess I really need to persevere as it'll probably get easier to use once you've already got everything set up. Also really need to get a decent pair of digital kitchen scales, got a set of really old difficult to use mechanical ones that go up to about 500g.

Once you have been logging your intake for a while you can start to look at trends in your diet that could be improved. You'll probably want to move to something around 100g of protein per day with the rest split amongst fat and carbs...but for now don't get too worried about it. The numbers will seem (and be) fairly arbitrary until you have more of an idea of the numbers for what you're eating right now.

Suppose thats the best I can hope for yeah. I've been monitoring my weight the last couple of weeks just to get an idea of what it was and its been pretty consistent between lows of 73kg and highs of 75kg (weighing first thing in a morning and before I go to bed).

Thanks.

FrenchTart · 16 Jan 2015 at 15:25

MFP is a bit of an arse when you first start but you rapidly get to the point where it's quite easy. Try to turn it into a habit and eventually it'll seem like second nature.

Nutrient timing can matter in certain situations but the amount it matters to someone in your situation is infinitely less than the amount getting good nutrients and rest (and everything else) matters. If it's not an issue to have your shake just after your exercise that's fine..there's no reason to change what you're doing. Just don't let nutrient timing be something you worry about until you've sorted everything else out (and even then, it doesn't matter very much unless you have very specific goals). There's a few videos and guides that have been posted in this thread that will explain better.

Somnambulist · 16 Jan 2015 at 20:52

MyMacros+

<3

Somnambulist · 16 Jan 2015 at 20:58

The best nutrient timing is the one you can adhere to best and is the most convenient in terms of enabling you to eat to your calorie/macro targets. The rest is minutiae for most.

BennyC · 18 Jan 2015 at 12:14

Evilsod said:
Its hard to know who to believe with things like that as the 'general knowledge' seems to be its best to take protein fairly soon after (as in, within 30-45 minutes). To be honest it isn't a big chore taking the bottle in a shaker with me so I'm not too worried about it not strictly being the case.

General knowledge is regurgitated 'bro-science'. What you are referring to is the formerly known 'Anabolic window' whereby there is perceived to be a 30 minute golden window after exercise where there is an accelerated uptake of protein and muscle protein synthesis.

In reality this is nonsense. The meal prior to your exercise is going to be the one used to repair/recover your body/muscles post exercise. The window in which you can eat post workout and still benefit is nearer 4-6 hours after so there is no need to buy the acclaimed fasted digesting whey you can find and then trample people across the gym to get to your locker without drawing breath to drink it.

If you want a shake immediately after that's fine but no doing so won't hinder your progress

Evilsod · 18 Jan 2015 at 17:15

BennyC said:
General knowledge is regurgitated 'bro-science'. What you are referring to is the formerly known 'Anabolic window' whereby there is perceived to be a 30 minute golden window after exercise where there is an accelerated uptake of protein and muscle protein synthesis.

In reality this is nonsense. The meal prior to your exercise is going to be the one used to repair/recover your body/muscles post exercise. The window in which you can eat post workout and still benefit is nearer 4-6 hours after so there is no need to buy the acclaimed fasted digesting whey you can find and then trample people across the gym to get to your locker without drawing breath to drink it.

If you want a shake immediately after that's fine but no doing so won't hinder your progress

Eloquently put

I normally just mix it up with water and drink it while I'm stretching out after climbing.

Trying to stick to using MFP so far. I had to kinda write-off Thursday/Friday due to the major unknown of Chinese Takeaway (paid for by work) but I'm starting to get some stuff logged now. Bit of guesswork with things bought from the market though like sausages and salmon.

Gimli · 12 Jun 2015 at 12:58

I've created a spreadsheet which calculates Body Fat Percentage (using calipers), FFMI, BMR and calories.

I don't know the best way to share it but if people are interested, suggest an upload source and I'll share it.

It looks like:

SoliD · 12 Jun 2015 at 13:34

FrenchTart said:
Good ideas though. I'll have a look at pro cyclist diets.

Be intrigued to see what you find, obviously do quite a lot of cycling myself, but during the summer, where I'm Time Trialling, these are obviously quite high intensity 25-60 minute sessions, to ensure I'm getting the right break down, I've been aiming for about 140g of Protein, but not sure on carbs, as obviously the amount of cycling I do, I just burn through these.

Starting to do a small amount of core stuff recently in the evnings - only 20 minutes after riding home from work. But don't want to stuff myself stupid when I do go out for longer rides to ensure I'm taking in all I need to, as some days I need to eat about 4000calories. But I would have only eaten about 400 when I'm actually riding, as I don't want to carry a load of food with me.

BennyC · 13 Jun 2015 at 12:59

I came across these two articles recently (having just taken up road cycling at the end of last year and becoming progressively more focused on it) regarding cycling nutrition, fat adaptation and high fat low/moderate carb diets. They're very interesting, not that long and worth a read:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/08/high-fat-low-carb-diets-good-for-you-and-your-cycling/
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/high-fat-low-carb-diets-the-effects-and-how-to-try-one/

Particularly part 2 with the results

Just sharing it really because we're not all the same and will benefit from different macro breakdowns.

Somnambulist · 13 Jun 2015 at 15:34

Seems in line with other research - sprints etc will likely suffer but for endurance-y type stuff it can work.

Here's some more, although you'd obviously have to go and find the full texts yourself.

Fuggan · 25 Jun 2015 at 20:35

Good thread.

I'm looking to lose some weight to make me more efficient in my primary sport (running). I had an InBody scan today down at my gym and here are my results.

At the moment I run about 35-40 miles a week and do some light cross-training/gym work 2 to 3 times a week.

I'm looking for some advice around my macro splits. Now, in my head I have 1g of protein per lb of LBM (which is 155) and then 0.35g of fat per lb of LBM, then filling the rest up with carbs which puts me at P155/C170/F55 for my daily allowance. 1795 calories I think is the exact figure.

Does this sound reasonable for an endurance athlete? I have previous 'diets' in the past and have not felt any of them to be sustainable so am looking for a genuine lifestyle change here. I already feel a lot more comfortable with these macros and I'm only two days in!

Any tips welcome.

P.S. the InBody scan was pretty bad ass! There's some more information on the other page if anyone's interested.

SixTwoSix · 25 Jun 2015 at 21:14

How does the Inbody scan work?

Also 1795 will be the calories you need to live assuming you do nothing, everyday movement, be it just walking around the workplace will increase that.

Fuggan · 25 Jun 2015 at 21:34

Not 100% sure exactly how it works.. taken from their website "..uses state of the art direct segmental multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance to examine the composition of your body."

Other than my training I am relatively sedentary throughout the day, work a desk job. If the deficit is more than 500 some days, what's likely to happen? Other than lose weight a bit quicker? Would I be more prone to losing more muscle? Cheers.

Somnambulist · 25 Jun 2015 at 23:37

FrenchTart said:
Cheers for your input

I guess despite how I worded my initial post my main worries were that I'd be eating a ton more food and not really making muscle gains due to the large amount of cardio. Perhaps it's a fear borne of broscience stuff I've read though.

You're absolutely right that I can still eat decent food and match the kcal requirements. There will be days when I do stuff like the below where I'll probably have to hit pretty ridiculous amounts of kcal though. As it's using a (virtual, but fairly accurate) power meter the kcal burned in this turbo session is supposedly fairly accurate.

http://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/1374101-Galena

Combine that with 20+ miles of cycling to work and potentially also going to the gym am I best literally making up all of those calories to see a gain in lean mass or am I at best going to maintain my current mass?

You should pick up a copy of Alex Viada's book.

FoxEye · 27 Oct 2019 at 19:52

About fats...

Steedie said:
Fats
Again, these get a bad rep, people assume because of the name that fats make you fat. But only the wrong kinds (trans fats are the worst kind)

Fats are crucial to regulating hormone levels, as well as aiding the body to actually burn fat. So these are a must in the diet. Saturated fats are important too, but again these are something that must be had in moderation

The types of fats you need to know about are Saturated Fats, Monounsaturated Fats, Polyunsaturated Fats and Trans Fatty Acids.

Saturated Fats
Usually found in food from animals (meat, butter, cream etc), they yield more energy than unsaturated fats however are linked to higher cholesterol levels and heart diseases. However, please don't shy away from Saturated fats, as a certain amount is important in your diet.
For men, you should be eating no more than 30g per day of saturated fats, for woman, 20g

(re the bolded bit) Read a couple articles lately, like this one

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/whole-vs-skim-milk#section1

Are we about to re-write the advice yet again? "Saturated fat = bad" seems to be increasingly called into question.

Even the link between saturated fat and cholesterol is being questioned.

I'm glad that we're continuously improving our understanding, and nobody is going to suggest that our body chemistry is simple. But it shows that advice needs to be continually updated and the old ways of thinking revised over time.

Personally I'm going to try whole milk after a lifetime of semi-skimmed.

e: Just to be clear I claim zero expertise or knowledge (of anything), and therefore may mis-understand or mis-represent anything I've read (and failed to understand).

Delvis · 27 Oct 2019 at 22:07

@Steedie