Kelei Routines/Advice

[standalj]

I didn't know this was his theory.. this adds more to the personal belief that all calories are not created equal like many others believe.

I'm curious to see if anyone has done this, keeping their total calories the same but adding in protein and taking out some carbs & fats while getting leaner?

I am not doubting Kelei's theory but have chosen to base my macros on the formulas given in the thread referenced earlier.

[cinemod]

so you dont count calories from potein, thats a **** load of cals

[ThatOneLurker]

so you dont count calories from potein, thats a **** load of cals

100g of protein = 32 calories

200g of protein = 64 calories

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

100g of protein = 32 calories

200g of protein = 64 calories

According to Kelei. I think he meant how the labels write them i.e. 100 g of protein = 400 calories

[sepandee]

100g of protein = 32 calories

200g of protein = 64 calories

Um, no! Where did you get those numbers from?

[Alyion]

Um, no! Where did you get those numbers from?

on the original thread:

I don't even bother counting my calories from protein. Firstly the protein that is used to repair/maintain your body doesn't need to be included in your calorie/energy count because it's not being burnt at all. Secondly after all is said and done 1000 calories from protein (250 grams) only yields a net gain of 80 calories (refer to post 1719), this gives protein an 8% energy efficiency rating (in other words it provides 0.32 net calories per gram).

Let's say my body requires 50 grams of protein for its basic needs and I'm eating 200 grams of protein per day, let's calculate how much energy I'm obtaining from all this protein. Firstly the 50 grams of protein that my body uses to repair/maintain my body does not contribute to my calorie/energy intake. This leaves 150 grams of protein (600 calories), given that the energy efficiency of protein is 8% (0.32 calories per gram) we arrive at a massive 48 calories.

A more accurate way of counting your calories:

Protein = 0.32 calories per gram
Fat = 9.3 calories per gram (9 calories per gram is simply a rounded number, 9.3 is more accurate)
Carbohydrate = 3.7 calories for monosaccharides (glucose, fructose etc), 4.1 calories for starch (rice, pasta, bread etc), 4 calories for disaccharides (sucrose, lactose etc)

The reason why we use 4 calories per gram for carbohydrate is because most of the carbohydrate in our diets comes from starch and disaccharides and also because it's a rounded number.

Protein - 0.32 calories per gram
Fat = 9.3 calories per gram
Carbs = 4 calories per gram (impossible to give an exact number because everyone eats different carb sources in different ratios)

An example calculation based on my diet:

Protein = 213 grams (213 x 0.32 = 68.16)
Fat = 165 grams (165 x 9.3 = 1534.5)
Carbs = 718 grams (718 x 4 = 2872)
Total = 4474.66 calories

I could take away a few calories (4-7) to account for the small amount of protein that isn't burnt for energy but close enough is good enough.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that protein provides **** all calories, it's almost a waste of time even counting your calories from protein. I could rave on about calories from fiber and alcohol and various other sources but it's not worth worrying about.

My practical advice? 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate, 9.3 calories per gram of fat, don't even bother counting your protein calories or anything else for that matter. When I'm trying to figure out my calorie targets for weight loss/gain I simply count my fat and carb calories and go by that number.

Fat = 165 grams (165 x 9.3 = 1534.5)
Carbs = 718 grams (718 x 4 = 2872)
Total = 4406.5 calories

That's how I calculate my calorie intake. I bet a few of you are laughing right now after I just ranted on about exact calculations and then finished with "**** it, close enough is good enough" lol, I just thought some of you might be interested in knowing this.

fwiw, I still count them as 4kcal per gram out of habit - it doesn't change anything (if its true or not), just that the actual calorie number may be wrong.

[Big3PlusChin]

i thought squat, deadlift, bench press, ohp, rows and chinup will hit whole body, right? any reasons to use many other exercises such as leg extension, lateral raise, etc.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

i thought squat, deadlift, bench press, ohp, rows and chinup will hit whole body, right? any reasons to use many other exercises such as leg extension, lateral raise, etc.

I assume you're doing the beginner routine? Those are the main exercises, yessir.

[Big3PlusChin]

I assume you're doing the beginner routine? Those are the main exercises, yessir.

intermediate routine.

i mean why don't advanced lifter use these exercises and progress weight? eg, push: bench, ohp, dips. 3 exercises instead of 6-8 exercises?

[Effrum]

intermediate routine.

i mean why don't advanced lifter use these exercises and progress weight? eg, push: bench, ohp, dips. 3 exercises instead of 6-8 exercises?

Once you get to an intermediate level, you benefit more from adding variety to your routine. The same is true once you hit advanced as well. Having flat bench + chest flyes (or cable crossovers) helps recruit more/different motor units in your chest and allows it to develop further. I would highly recommend sticking to the exercise selection Kelei pointed out, they're very balanced and efficient for hypertrophy.

[Idealius]

different goals

[standalj]

The wait is over. No more guessing games. I finally know my true body fat. Since starting Kelei's routine in June of this year, I've been wanting to know exactly what my BF% was so that I could have a baseline to work from. I started off by taking some random measurements and entering them on some online BF% calculator which indicated 20%. I thought no way--I am not that bad!. I sent Kelei some pics and he estimated 15%. Again this was at the beginning of June before I started his routine. About three weeks ago I had a fitness instructor measure my BF% using a 7 point caliper measurement--10%. Again I thought no way--I am not that lean! Well today I had a DXA scan performed and I am officially 11.0%. As I suspected my "problem area" is in my trunk which is currently 11.2%. Starting this past June, I was recomping at 2500 calories; this past Monday I decided I am primarily concerned with getting rid of my love handles and little pouch in my front tummy area and am now cutting at 2100 calories. I will have another DXA scan done in 6 months with the goal of being at 9.5-10.0. Once there I am going to start my long-term goal of recomping to ~185 lbs @ ~10%. Exciting times!

[cinemod]

do you guys subtract fiber from your carbs. cause beans have so much damn fiber that it throws your carbs off as fiber aint doing **** for calories.

so if i dont use protein as cal i should up my fats ?, cause he has em at like 35% and carbs at 65

can anyone explain the pros and cons of carb to fat ratio? is it ok to raise fat to 35, how is diff than a carb source

[standalj]

do you guys subtract fiber from your carbs. cause beans have so much damn fiber that it throws your carbs off as fiber aint doing **** for calories.

Nope

[cinemod]

Nope

i eat over 80g of fiber. so that could be 320 calories off

[buggsfuddy]

i eat over 80g of fiber. so that could be 320 calories off

Wow, you must have huge turds

Seriously though, I think it's a good question because I eat a ton of veggies and get 40-50g fiber per day. If I'm trying to keep my carbs between 150-200 it can make quite a difference whether I subtract it or not.

FWIW I've read that INsoluble fiber can be deducted but not soluble. I've also read that the calorie content of fiber (from short chain fatty acids due to degradation of fiber by intestinal bacteria) ranges from 1.5 to 2.5 cal/g IIRC.

I guess it's like Kelei's calories from protein - either count it or don't but be consistent because you'll probably need to fine tune as you go along anyway.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

I know in keto diets they don't count fiber CARBS but you still count them towards your total calories. I've never heard of not counting them altogether.

[cinemod]

does it matter if i use a really narrow grip for rows. always figured narrow means more biceps. the only attachment i have has ur hands very close, but its hammer grip/elbows tucked.

[ThatOneLurker]

Um, no! Where did you get those numbers from?

Yes. Why do you think high protein diets are so successful in fat loss?

[Corpsez]

does it matter if i use a really narrow grip for rows. always figured narrow means more biceps. the only attachment i have has ur hands very close, but its hammer grip/elbows tucked.

That's the same attachment I use for seated rows. Just use a good mind muscle connection and pull with your back and your fine.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

Yes. Why do you think high protein diets are so successful in fat loss?

You can't just make up numbers for the amount of calories in a gram of protein, though.

[MichielN]

Yes. Why do you think high protein diets are so successful in fat loss?

Increased satiety, sustained resting energy expenditure in the face of decreased bodyweight and better retention of LBM.

[Morti]

Have been doing the allpro beginner routine for 2-3 years now. Had a break of 3 months cause of surgery last year. My question is if i can change to the intermediate version of this program, or if i should try to get stronger first.
Currently
squatting 85 kg/187 lbs
bench 70 kg/ 154 lbs
90 sldl kg /200lbs
ohp 40 kg /88 lbs
these i do for 8-12 reps.

[ThatOneLurker]

You can't just make up numbers for the amount of calories in a gram of protein, though.

They aren't made up.

I don't even bother counting my calories from protein. Firstly the protein that is used to repair/maintain your body doesn't need to be included in your calorie/energy count because it's not being burnt at all. Secondly after all is said and done 1000 calories from protein (250 grams) only yields a net gain of 80 calories (refer to post 1719), this gives protein an 8% energy efficiency rating (in other words it provides 0.32 net calories per gram).

So he's a biology professor and not a biochemistry professor? That'd explain a lot. If your professor lacks even a basic understanding of gluconeogenesis then I'm very concerned about the quality of your education.

In humans, the glucogenic (able to be converted into glucose) amino acids are:

Glycine
Serine
Valine
Histidine
Arginine
Cysteine
Proline
Alanine
Glutamate
Glutamine
Aspartate
Asparagine
Methionine

Amino acids that are both glucogenic and ketogenic (able to be converted into ketone bodies):

Isoleucine
Threonine
Phenylalanine
Tyrosine
Tryptophan

Only leucine and lysine are not glucogenic.

100 grams of protein will be converted into approximately 57 grams of glucose because the conversion process isn't very efficient, this is why most of the studies that compare high protein and high carbohydrate diets end up showing greater fat loss with the high protein diet. Let me explain, most people assume that protein contains 4 calories per gram (which it does when burnt in a calorimeter) but our bodies are not calorimeters, we can't use all of the energy in a gram of protein. Protein can't be burned directly, instead it must be converted into glucose first and this conversion has a 57% efficiency rate.

What this means is that for every 100 calories of protein (25 grams) your body will only be able to actually make use of 57 of these calories, so instead of saying that protein provides 4 calories per gram it's more accurate to say that it provides approximately 2.3 calories per gram.

Now let's take a look at what they do in these studies, they might compare a diet containing 1000 calories from protein (250 grams) and 400 calories from carbohydrate (100 grams) to a diet containing 400 calories from protein (100 grams) and 1000 calories from carbohydrate (250 grams).

On paper it would appear as though both diets total 1400 calories (excluding calories from fat which is irrelevant), however in the real world the amount of calories your body can actually make use of from each diet is different, your body can only make use of 57% of the calories in protein.

- 1000 calories from protein (250 grams) + 400 calories from carbohydrate (100 grams) = 570 calories from protein, 400 from carbohydrate = 970 calories total.
- 400 calories from protein (100 grams) + 1000 calories from carbohydrate (250 grams) = 228 calories from protein, 1000 from carbohydrate = 1228 calories total.

There's a 258 calorie difference between the two diets even though both appear to provide 1400 calories on paper.

Protein does not provide 4 calories per gram (which is what you get when you burn a gram of protein in a calorimeter), it provides approximately 2.3 calories per gram because your body isn't able to burn protein directly but must instead convert it into glucose with a 57% efficiency rate.

This isn't considering the thermic effect of food, that's an entirely different discussion. Processing protein is more energy costly than processing carbohydrate, even after protein has been processed it still can only convert to glucose at a 57% efficiency rate so the TEF is not related to the 57% conversion rate.

There was a base 258 calorie difference between the high protein and low protein diets in my example, once we also factor in the TEF the actual net calorie difference between the two diets widens even further, not only does the high protein diet provide less calories overall, it also requires more calories to process the additional protein.

I should probably mention that the actual conversion process itself requires energy, so not only will protein only be converted into glucose with 57% efficiency but you'll also burn calories during the conversion process.

By the time you factor in the 57% conversion rate, the thermic effect of food, and the energy cost of the conversion process itself it becomes clear that protein is an extremely inefficient/poor source of calories, it's little wonder that people lose more fat on high protein diets, for every 1000 calories of protein they eat they're only providing their bodies with perhaps 300 net calories after all is said and done.

Do the math.

100g of protein = 32 calories

200g of protein = 64 calories

so on and so forth when the net yield of calories from protein is 0.32 calories per gram.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

The yield may be that but unless you're explaining that to other people with questions, it's extremely confusing.

The yield for carbohydrates is probably less but you don't see people saying how much the yield is.

1 g protein = 4 calories
1 g carbs = 4 calories
1 g fat = 9 calories

People on "zero" carb diets don't count their fat calories as less even though in a keto diet the body clearly uses them different than on a normal diet.

Calories in Protein, Fat and Carbohydrates
Diet and Weight Loss Tutorial

Macronutrient Calories Kilojoules
Protein 4 16.7
Fat 9 37.7
Carbohydrate 4 16.7
Yes, each gram of fat you consume provides more than twice as many calories as a gram of protein or carbohydrate!

As an example of how these numbers are used, imagine a food containing 10 grams of protein, 10 grams of fat, and 10 grams of carbohydrates. That would total 170 calories:

(10 g protein x 4) + (10 g fat x 9) + (10 g carbs x 4) = 170
In this imaginary food 40 calories come from protein, 90 calories come from fat, and 40 calories come from carbohydrates.

Technical Notes

The Numbers Don't Always Add Up

If you check a food label you may find that the total number of calories listed doesn't match the number you arrive at using the 4-9-4 method described above. The reason for the discrepancy may be that the figure for carbohydrates includes insoluble fiber, and the food manufacturer has accounted for this in their figure for calories.

Insoluble fiber passes through your body without being converted to a form that provides energy, or calories. Knowing this, the manufacturer may subtract the caloric value of the insoluble fiber (4 calories per gram) from the total calories figure. When they do this, the 4-9-4 method will give you a higher figure for total calories than the one you find on the food label.

You might think that you could subtract the figure for fiber from the figure for carbohydrates to correct the discrepancy. But the figure for fiber will likely include both soluble and insoluble fiber, and you'd only want to subtract the insoluble fiber. Unfortunately you have no way of knowing how much of the fiber is soluble, and how much is insoluble.

Calories in Alcohol

You will also find that the numbers do not add up when you are looking at the caloric value of liquor. This is because the total calories for liquor include the calories in the alcohol, and this is not addressed by the 4-9-4 equation.

A gram of alcohol provides 7 calories.

Our next topic discusses the proportions of the three macronutrients necessary for a healthy diet.

(source: http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_gram.php )

[cinemod]

confusing as fuk lol, whos right?

count protein or not?
remove fiber from carbs or not?
or middle ground

[standalj]

confusing as fuk lol, whos right?

count protein or not?
remove fiber from carbs or not?
or middle ground

There isn't a 100% correct answer. My diet is working great, is based on the macro formula in the other thread, and I have no reason to change. That diet + Kelei's routine = winning

[buggsfuddy]

confusing as fuk lol, whos right?

count protein or not?
remove fiber from carbs or not?
or middle ground

I think standalj and I are giving you the same advice. Did you check out the thread he mentioned? It states, "use these as 'rough figures', monitor your weight/ measurements for 2-4 weeks. IF your weight is stable/ measurements are stable, you have likely found maintenance." "You then need to DECREASE or INCREASE intake based on your goals (eg: lose or gain mass)." Lastly, " Then monitor your results and adjust as required."

No matter how accurate you think you're measuring cal in/out, you need to monitor it and make changes as you go. This is what everyone does.

[xxx_jfb_xxx]

There isn't a 100% correct answer. My diet is working great, is based on the macro formula in the other thread, and I have no reason to change. That diet + Kelei's routine = winning

I concur.

[jugheadd]

Is there a way to incorporate pull-ups in the intermediate routine? I ran all pros routine for almost a year and my lats are lagging. I love pullups and my favourite muscles are the lats . If anyone could help, i would greatly appreciate it