MEMBER LOGIN

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 40 of 40
  1. #26
    Watchin what yer doin! tadolfi's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Apr 2006
    • Posts
      5,406
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Always Close to a Gym
    • Reputation
      447,223,776
    • Rep Power
      4,472,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carmover View Post
    Darshan,

    Thanks I am starting to see that those macro numbers are not as important as I though. I just see them talked about in the forums that I though that is where I needed to "start". But now I am seeing that I need to worry more about calories than the percentages (within reason that is).

    To all who helped out thanks and as always more info is better so keep the comments coming as I could use the help.

    Keith.
    Keith,
    Sorry I didn't get back to this till now.
    As far as the 2700 - I threw this out as a number to get you at a base for lower activity level....assuming you drive truck and are not moving around a lot. (unless you are loading or unloading yourself).
    This will start a good base where you are not overwhelmed with higher calorie count numbers....500+ calories per meal is a lot to try to map out when starting out.

    Plus, between you and I, there will be slip up days and this gives you an automatic cushion of sorts.
    ~Troy
    Failure to Plan is Planning to Fail
    What's your plan?
    Yes, I am a Moderator

  2. #27
    Regular Poster 403ANDERSON's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2009
    • Posts
      491
    • Years Exp
      2-3 Years
    • Goal
      Sex Appeal
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Canada
    • Reputation
      13,350,437
    • Rep Power
      133,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post
    Ok lets use the following data

    17 year old
    170 cm
    60 kg

    BMR = 2500 calories
    Cutting BMR = 2500 - 500 = 2000 kcalories

    40% of 2000 = 800 kcalories = 800/4 = 200grams
    40% of 2000 = 800 kcalories = 800/4 = 200grams
    20% of 2000 = 400 kcalories = 400/9 = 44grams

    Using the 1.0-1.5grams / lb = 60x2.2x1.5 = 200grams

    What do you know its the same value, using the upper end of the range!!

    So 40/40/20, is still with in the athletes range for protein intake of 1.0-1.5g/lb.

    That is one small person you are dealing with, 132 pounds is not the average weight, and why would you cut at this weight? That is an unrealistic example. Something more normal might be:

    20 year old male
    180 cm (5'11)
    80 kg (176 lbs)
    Wants to cut
    Active 3-5 days per week.

    BMR: 2989 calories
    To Cut: 2489 calories

    40/40/20:
    Protein: 995.6 calories = 248.9 grams
    Carbohydrates: 995.6 calories = 248.9 grams
    Fat: 497.8 calories = 55.3 grams

    You are using lbs instead of kgs; according to this article [Whats all the fuss about protein], strength trained athletes at the maximum take in 1.7 g for kg of body weight.
    1.7 x 80 = 136 grams of protein

    Even in your example:
    1.7 x 60 = 102 grams of protein

    I'm not biased one way or the other, I consume 240 g of protein/day, but what i am pointing out is that there is a lot of conflicting knowledge and facts available.
    Age: 21 | Height: 71 Inches | Weight: 192 lbs | bf% ~10.8 Cycle: Functional Training

  3. #28
    Seasoned M&S Veteran darshan's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2008
    • Posts
      3,732
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      I like to eat.
    • Reputation
      29,952,704
    • Rep Power
      299,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 403ANDERSON View Post
    That is one small person you are dealing with, 132 pounds is not the average weight, and why would you cut at this weight? That is an unrealistic example. Something more normal might be:

    20 year old male
    180 cm (5'11)
    80 kg (176 lbs)
    Wants to cut
    Active 3-5 days per week.

    BMR: 2989 calories
    To Cut: 2489 calories

    40/40/20:
    Protein: 995.6 calories = 248.9 grams
    Carbohydrates: 995.6 calories = 248.9 grams
    Fat: 497.8 calories = 55.3 grams

    You are using lbs instead of kgs; according to this article [Whats all the fuss about protein], strength trained athletes at the maximum take in 1.7 g for kg of body weight.
    1.7 x 80 = 136 grams of protein

    Even in your example:
    1.7 x 60 = 102 grams of protein

    I'm not biased one way or the other, I consume 240 g of protein/day, but what i am pointing out is that there is a lot of conflicting knowledge and facts available.
    I think it is generally accepted that the protein requirements for most gym goers is between 1.0-1.5g per pound of bodyweight (for overweight individuals it may be more accurate to use LBM).

    I think Doug must have made a typo in the article you posted, and should have wrote POUNDS not KG...

    Using your numbers.

    80 x 2.2 x 1.5 = 264 grams of protein in comparisons with your 248.9 gram value. It is still excruciating similar. There are a lot of conflicting information out there, but one constant remains, and is generally accepted, and that is protein requirements of 1.0-1.5g/lb of bodyweight (barring FDA recommendations for protein).
    Last edited by darshan; 04-07-2009 at 10:04 PM.
    I Want to Tone, But I Donít Want to Get Too Big

  4. #29
    Coming Up The Ranks artyartea's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Mar 2009
    • Posts
      124
    • Years Exp
      6-12 Months
    • Goal
      Get Huge
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Puerto Rico
    • Reputation
      11
    • Rep Power
      11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 403ANDERSON View Post
    This seems to be drifting back to EK's great post about P/C/F ratios: Are We Doing this Wrong? However so many people are on a 40/40/20 split especially for cutting, how dangerous is it really? Using a typical 2,500 cutting calorie diet and 40/40/20 you get 250 gram protein, 250 grams carbs and about 55 grams of fat. That is over the traditional 1 to 1.5 g per lb of bodyweight for say a 170 to 180 lb male who exercises 3 to 5 times a week. Are there any long term effects from this, or is it inhibiting the cut in any way?
    I think the reason many people use the 40/40/20 is becuase of the old school view that carbs are the enemy (see: Are Carbohydrates Really Our Enemy?). At lost of people assume that the excess protein and less carbs will increase the fat loss due to:
    Less carbs being converted to fat
    Protein causing the metabolism to work harder
    Protein is 'needed' for muscles
    etc.
    There are of course grains of truth in each of these statements, but a lot of people aren't comfortable with increased carb consumption due to a lot of misinformation from a variety of sources (ie. media, atkins diet, third hand information). People are also afraid to change from what they have, fearing their current progress will be inhibited if they fo from 40/40/20 to a 30/50/20 split. I myself use a 40/40/20 split and will continue to use this until the end of my cut until I move onto a bulk.
    The problem here is that people are misinformed or overinformed on one side of the argument. It's important to do a bit of research from both angles to understand the effects of each type of diet. An excellent idea for the next M&S article might be: 40/40/20 versus 30/50/20: Whata are the Effects of Each?
    As far as the current issue, there haven't been massive reports of kidney failure from users on this site, and there have been plenty of pepole using a 30/50/20 split for cutting. Both methods are currently acceptable, and the best thing to do, is to find what works for you.
    I agree with this, but I feel 40/40/20 its working for me so for EK its working his ratios hell if it working why move? But sorry EK If I become personal, you got much more experience than I do.

  5. #30
    Trusted Advisor Doug's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jul 2006
    • Posts
      32,477
    • Years Exp
      20+ Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      UK
    • Reputation
      1,385,257,343
    • Rep Power
      13,852,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post
    I think it is generally accepted that the protein requirements for most gym goers is between 1.0-1.5g per pound of bodyweight (for overweight individuals it may be more accurate to use LBM).

    I think Doug must have made a typo in the article you posted, and should have wrote POUNDS not KG...

    Using your numbers.

    80 x 2.2 x 1.5 = 264 grams of protein in comparisons with your 248.9 gram value. It is still excruciating similar. There are a lot of conflicting information out there, but one constant remains, and is generally accepted, and that is protein requirements of 1.0-1.5g/lb of bodyweight (barring FDA recommendations for protein).
    It is not a typing error, the 1.4-1.7g of protein per Kg is the recommended intake for strength trained athletes. There is no advantage in muscle gain etc above 2g per Kg

    "Tarnopolsky MA, Atkinson SA, MacDougall JD, Chesley A, Phillips S, Schwarcz HP.
    Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

    Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males."

    PMID: 1474076 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE!]
    Doug

    Not Joined The Forum Yet?? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

    * My Articles and Workouts Page - Click Here

    * My fitness Centre Site - www.gemini-fitness-centre.co.uk

    * My Nutrition & Diet site - Coming Soon

    "You can't out-train a lousy diet"

  6. #31
    Seasoned M&S Veteran darshan's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2008
    • Posts
      3,732
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      I like to eat.
    • Reputation
      29,952,704
    • Rep Power
      299,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    It is not a typing error, the 1.4-1.7g of protein per Kg is the recommended intake for strength trained athletes. There is no advantage in muscle gain etc above 2g per Kg

    "Tarnopolsky MA, Atkinson SA, MacDougall JD, Chesley A, Phillips S, Schwarcz HP.
    Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

    Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males."

    PMID: 1474076 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE!]
    I think it would make more sense if it were pounds rather than kilograms. The range 1.0-1.5g/lb almost corresponds to the macro nutrients ratios that are advocated on this site.

    30/50/20 - 30% protein is very close to the lower 1.0g/lb of bodyweight
    40/40/20 - 40% protein is very close to the upper 1.5g/lb of bodyweight

    If it were 1.0-1.5g/kg why would you recommend such a high daily protein % if there no advantage in muscle gain.

    Perhaps I have clearly misunderstood something! I've seen many fitness resources recommend the 1.0-1.5g/lb figure for both cutting and bulking
    Last edited by darshan; 04-08-2009 at 09:35 AM.
    I Want to Tone, But I Donít Want to Get Too Big

  7. #32
    Moderator EKnight's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Feb 2008
    • Posts
      6,405
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Performance
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Metropolis
    • Reputation
      1,613,671,072
    • Rep Power
      16,136,754

    Default

    Perhaps you have. First, let me say this to the group as a whole- there is no advantage to more carbs, less protein or less carbs, more protein when dieting (within reason) as long as your over caloric content is where it should be. Carbs and protein have the same caloric value and manipulating the ratios will not make you lose or gain any faster as long as those manipulations are within reason. Too much protein is stored EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS TOO MUCH CARBS- IT ALL TURNS TO FAT. Having said that, the stress on the kidneys ONLY occurs from too much protein. You would have to consume something way beyond your BMR in carbs to have any effect on insulin sensitivity or mitochondrial function unless you were already predisposed genetically to such conditions. Finally, as long as you have a positive nitrogen balance, consuming tremendous loads of protein beyond that is not going to be advantageous. Protein is about 16% nitrogen, but the only way to know for sure if you have a positive balance is to have your urine tested. 1.5 grams per pound of body weight is beyond what anyone on this board needs. None of us is Michael Phelps, Phil Harrington, or LeBron James. 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is sufficient for almost everyone who engages in regular physical activity. Again, when I used the BMR to figue out a cutting diet, for me at 165 and 12% bf, 30% for protein was 626 calories or 156 grams. My lean body mass is 147 pounds. That 156g is almost dead center between total bw and lean body mass, and adding another 80 grams of protein at the expense of carbs would do absolutely nothing for total caloric intake anyway. Everyone who says 40/40/20 is working so well for them should remember that they are getting the exact same number of calories as a 30/50/20 p/c/f split, with no logical benefit, but many more potential risks. -EK
    Donít chase the 1%, there is no magic training routine or diet thatís going to provide any measurable results over the basic principles for getting huge and strong: Train heavy, eat and sleep more.

  8. #33
    Coming Up The Ranks artyartea's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Mar 2009
    • Posts
      124
    • Years Exp
      6-12 Months
    • Goal
      Get Huge
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Puerto Rico
    • Reputation
      11
    • Rep Power
      11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKnight View Post
    Perhaps you have. First, let me say this to the group as a whole- there is no advantage to more carbs, less protein or less carbs, more protein when dieting (within reason) as long as your over caloric content is where it should be. Carbs and protein have the same caloric value and manipulating the ratios will not make you lose or gain any faster as long as those manipulations are within reason. Too much protein is stored EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS TOO MUCH CARBS- IT ALL TURNS TO FAT. Having said that, the stress on the kidneys ONLY occurs from too much protein. You would have to consume something way beyond your BMR in carbs to have any effect on insulin sensitivity or mitochondrial function unless you were already predisposed genetically to such conditions. Finally, as long as you have a positive nitrogen balance, consuming tremendous loads of protein beyond that is not going to be advantageous. Protein is about 16% nitrogen, but the only way to know for sure if you have a positive balance is to have your urine tested. 1.5 grams per pound of body weight is beyond what anyone on this board needs. None of us is Michael Phelps, Phil Harrington, or LeBron James. 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is sufficient for almost everyone who engages in regular physical activity. Again, when I used the BMR to figue out a cutting diet, for me at 165 and 12% bf, 30% for protein was 626 calories or 156 grams. My lean body mass is 147 pounds. That 156g is almost dead center between total bw and lean body mass, and adding another 80 grams of protein at the expense of carbs would do absolutely nothing for total caloric intake anyway. Everyone who says 40/40/20 is working so well for them should remember that they are getting the exact same number of calories as a 30/50/20 p/c/f split, with no logical benefit, but many more potential risks. -EK
    My diet is at follows: Calories 2114 Protein: 236.5 Carbs: 191g Fat:40.75g, from that I should then raise carbs and get down on the protein?

  9. #34
    Moderator EKnight's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Feb 2008
    • Posts
      6,405
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Performance
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Metropolis
    • Reputation
      1,613,671,072
    • Rep Power
      16,136,754

    Default

    I don't know how much you weigh, but I would never advocate more protein than carbs in your diet. FYI, your numbers don't add up to 2114 anyway. I come up with 2076.75 calories. I would do 265g carbs, 159g protein, and 46 g fat. -EK
    Donít chase the 1%, there is no magic training routine or diet thatís going to provide any measurable results over the basic principles for getting huge and strong: Train heavy, eat and sleep more.

  10. #35
    Seasoned M&S Veteran darshan's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2008
    • Posts
      3,732
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      I like to eat.
    • Reputation
      29,952,704
    • Rep Power
      299,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKnight View Post
    Perhaps you have. First, let me say this to the group as a whole- there is no advantage to more carbs, less protein or less carbs, more protein when dieting (within reason) as long as your over caloric content is where it should be. Carbs and protein have the same caloric value and manipulating the ratios will not make you lose or gain any faster as long as those manipulations are within reason. Too much protein is stored EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS TOO MUCH CARBS- IT ALL TURNS TO FAT. Having said that, the stress on the kidneys ONLY occurs from too much protein. You would have to consume something way beyond your BMR in carbs to have any effect on insulin sensitivity or mitochondrial function unless you were already predisposed genetically to such conditions. Finally, as long as you have a positive nitrogen balance, consuming tremendous loads of protein beyond that is not going to be advantageous. Protein is about 16% nitrogen, but the only way to know for sure if you have a positive balance is to have your urine tested. 1.5 grams per pound of body weight is beyond what anyone on this board needs. None of us is Michael Phelps, Phil Harrington, or LeBron James. 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is sufficient for almost everyone who engages in regular physical activity. Again, when I used the BMR to figue out a cutting diet, for me at 165 and 12% bf, 30% for protein was 626 calories or 156 grams. My lean body mass is 147 pounds. That 156g is almost dead center between total bw and lean body mass, and adding another 80 grams of protein at the expense of carbs would do absolutely nothing for total caloric intake anyway. Everyone who says 40/40/20 is working so well for them should remember that they are getting the exact same number of calories as a 30/50/20 p/c/f split, with no logical benefit, but many more potential risks. -EK
    I agree 1.0 gram / lb should be sufficient for most people. Especially considering when LBM is taken in consideration.

    However, the article on Doug's site seems to be inconsistent with this and recommends

    1.0 grams / kg.

    Say a recreational athlete weighs 75 kg thats 75 grams of protein, which equates to 2 protein shakes. You can almost make 75 grams of protein from your complex carbohydrates alone without eating a single meat product.

    Something's not right.

    However, the number of health risks that have been attributed to the consumption of high protein intakes tend to be grossly overstated.

    While high protein intakes may cause problems when there is pre-existing kidney disease, no research suggests that high protein intakes cause kidney damage.

    One study examined the impact of 2.8 g/kg protein on the kidney function of bodybuilders, no negative effect was seen (3).

    (3) Poortmans JR and Dellalieux O. Do regular high protein diets have potential health risks on kidney function in athletes? Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. (2000) 10(1):28-38.


    Very little research has directly examined the impact of high protein intakes on kidney function in athletes, and the data in support of that idea would seem to be lacking both from a scientific and real-world point of view.
    Last edited by darshan; 04-08-2009 at 08:58 PM.
    I Want to Tone, But I Donít Want to Get Too Big

  11. #36
    Moderator EKnight's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Feb 2008
    • Posts
      6,405
    • Years Exp
      10-20 Years
    • Goal
      Performance
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      Metropolis
    • Reputation
      1,613,671,072
    • Rep Power
      16,136,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post
    You can almost make 75 grams of protein from your complex carbohydrates alone without eating a single meat product.

    I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I don't have a clue what this statement means.


    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post
    However, the number of health risks that have been attributed to the consumption of high protein intakes tend to be grossly overstated.

    While high protein intakes may cause problems when there is pre-existing kidney disease, no research suggests that high protein intakes cause kidney damage.

    One study examined the impact of 2.8 g/kg protein on the kidney function of bodybuilders, no negative effect was seen (3).

    (3) Poortmans JR and Dellalieux O. Do regular high protein diets have potential health risks on kidney function in athletes? Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. (2000) 10(1):28-38.


    Very little research has directly examined the impact of high protein intakes on kidney function in athletes, and the data in support of that idea would seem to be lacking both from a scientific and real-world point of view.
    There is no lacking of data. For whatever reason you are ignoring the clinical facts. Let me state again:
    1. Excess calories turn to fat. Protein is calories, ergo excess protein is turned to fat.
    2. When protein is converted to fat, ammonia is a by-product. If you doubt this fact, go smell any cat's litter box. Cats are carnivores-- all they eat is protein, and their urine reeks of ammonia. As carnivores. they also have kidneys that are designed for getting rid of this ammonia.
    3. The higher amount of ammonia the kidneys have to process, the harder they work and more likely they are to suffer damage.
    4. You don't need a scientific study to determine why the kidneys would be stressed getting rid of excessive ammonia. It's an accepted fact, so no one is going to overload a patient with protein to prove it. that would be unethical.

    For the record, here's a few links that reference the effects of high protein diets on the kidneys. Citing one or two studies on bodybuilders does not negate years of generally accepted medical practice.

    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...09-kidney.html
    http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/35812.html
    http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/Kudiseas...eCKD/index.htm
    http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/Kidneys-101/

    -EK
    Donít chase the 1%, there is no magic training routine or diet thatís going to provide any measurable results over the basic principles for getting huge and strong: Train heavy, eat and sleep more.

  12. #37
    Trusted Advisor Doug's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jul 2006
    • Posts
      32,477
    • Years Exp
      20+ Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      UK
    • Reputation
      1,385,257,343
    • Rep Power
      13,852,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post

    However, the article on Doug's site seems to be inconsistent with this and recommends

    1.0 grams / kg.

    Say a recreational athlete weighs 75 kg thats 75 grams of protein, which equates to 2 protein shakes. You can almost make 75 grams of protein from your complex carbohydrates alone without eating a single meat product.

    .
    Research, research, research, research, research and then research..!!

    Daily protein intake recomendations:

    Sedentary person requires 0.8g per Kg of body weight.
    A Male and non-pregnant female recreational athlete requires 1.0-1.5g per Kg body weight
    Endurance trained athletes require 1.2 - 1.6g per Kg of body weight
    Strength trained athletes require 1-4 - 1.7g per Kg of body weight
    Doug

    Not Joined The Forum Yet?? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

    * My Articles and Workouts Page - Click Here

    * My fitness Centre Site - www.gemini-fitness-centre.co.uk

    * My Nutrition & Diet site - Coming Soon

    "You can't out-train a lousy diet"

  13. #38
    Seasoned M&S Veteran darshan's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2008
    • Posts
      3,732
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      I like to eat.
    • Reputation
      29,952,704
    • Rep Power
      299,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug View Post
    Research, research, research, research, research and then research..!!

    Daily protein intake recomendations:

    Sedentary person requires 0.8g per Kg of body weight.
    A Male and non-pregnant female recreational athlete requires 1.0-1.5g per Kg body weight
    Endurance trained athletes require 1.2 - 1.6g per Kg of body weight
    Strength trained athletes require 1-4 - 1.7g per Kg of body weight
    Doug, I don't think you understand what I am saying.

    According to those recommendations a recreational athlete that weights 70 kg. Needs

    70g - 105g of protein.

    This is like 2 protein shakes, and a lot of people take it morning, night and postworkout (all your protein for day is gone without eating a single meal!).

    If you were to use these figures your suggested macro nutrient ratios will be more like 15/65/20. It seems inconsistent with the macro nutrients you are suggesting people take, particularly after saying there is no benefit in going beyond 1.5g/kg of bodyweight.

    If you used the 1.0-.1.5g/lb of bodyweight it would be much more consistent with your suggested macro nutrient ratios.
    Last edited by darshan; 04-09-2009 at 08:55 PM.
    I Want to Tone, But I Donít Want to Get Too Big

  14. #39
    Seasoned M&S Veteran darshan's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jan 2008
    • Posts
      3,732
    • Years Exp
      < 6 Months
    • Goal
      Other
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      I like to eat.
    • Reputation
      29,952,704
    • Rep Power
      299,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EKnight View Post
    I'm not trying to be facetious here, but I don't have a clue what this statement means.




    There is no lacking of data. For whatever reason you are ignoring the clinical facts. Let me state again:
    1. Excess calories turn to fat. Protein is calories, ergo excess protein is turned to fat.
    2. When protein is converted to fat, ammonia is a by-product. If you doubt this fact, go smell any cat's litter box. Cats are carnivores-- all they eat is protein, and their urine reeks of ammonia. As carnivores. they also have kidneys that are designed for getting rid of this ammonia.
    3. The higher amount of ammonia the kidneys have to process, the harder they work and more likely they are to suffer damage.
    4. You don't need a scientific study to determine why the kidneys would be stressed getting rid of excessive ammonia. It's an accepted fact, so no one is going to overload a patient with protein to prove it. that would be unethical.

    For the record, here's a few links that reference the effects of high protein diets on the kidneys. Citing one or two studies on bodybuilders does not negate years of generally accepted medical practice.

    http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...09-kidney.html
    http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/35812.html
    http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/Kudiseas...eCKD/index.htm
    http://www.aakp.org/aakp-library/Kidneys-101/

    -EK
    First off, thank you for your reply.

    I am quite aware of the urea and ammonia implications caused by high protein and fatigue during exercise. However, the problem is such that it is tough to identify where the cut off is. Some studies have shown long term adaptations to high protein intake where the metabolism has improved.

    For me, 1.0-1.5g/lb is with reasonable limit (mind you this is still classified as high protein), and anything beyond that is unnecessary.

    If you define high protein as 3g/lb, then your probably right. However, I think there are a lot of juiced up bodybuilders taking this much, and I am not familiar with the scene (as Doug is), to know the long term implications. Though, I think their kidney damage has a lot to do with the other **** their taking as well, who knows.
    I Want to Tone, But I Donít Want to Get Too Big

  15. #40
    Trusted Advisor Doug's Avatar
    • Join Date
      Jul 2006
    • Posts
      32,477
    • Years Exp
      20+ Years
    • Goal
      Build Muscle
    • Gender
      Male
    • Location
      UK
    • Reputation
      1,385,257,343
    • Rep Power
      13,852,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darshan View Post
    Doug, I don't think you understand what I am saying.

    According to those recommendations a recreational athlete that weights 70 kg. Needs

    70g - 105g of protein.

    This is like 2 protein shakes, and a lot of people take it morning, night and postworkout (all your protein for day is gone without eating a single meal!).

    If you were to use these figures your suggested macro nutrient ratios will be more like 15/65/20. It seems inconsistent with the macro nutrients you are suggesting people take, particularly after saying there is no benefit in going beyond 1.5g/kg of bodyweight.

    If you used the 1.0-.1.5g/lb of bodyweight it would be much more consistent with your suggested macro nutrient ratios.
    You are getting confused between a recreational athlete and a strength trained athlete, meaning someone who is involved with weight training. It equates to 0.8g protein per lb of body weight, weight trainers for ease of calculation use 1g per lb of body weight

    A strength trained athlete weighing 80kg would only require 136 grams of protein.
    Doug

    Not Joined The Forum Yet?? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.

    * My Articles and Workouts Page - Click Here

    * My fitness Centre Site - www.gemini-fitness-centre.co.uk

    * My Nutrition & Diet site - Coming Soon

    "You can't out-train a lousy diet"

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. P/C/F Ratio when cutting
    By Briggsy in forum Beginners Questions & Advice
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 07:39 AM
  2. Cutting and PCF Ratio Questions
    By Mlavey in forum Fat Loss
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 01:26 PM
  3. What C/P/F Ratio for cutting?
    By kray in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-21-2010, 07:30 PM
  4. P/C/F ratio for cutting ?
    By aza2391 in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 10:57 PM
  5. What ratio of C/P/F ?
    By xman in forum Diet & Nutrition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 09:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •