Calculating Calorie & Macronutrient Needs

[Emma-Leigh]

Calculating Calories and Macro's
Please note - the following should be taken as general advice only and should not be used in the face of medical contraindications. Please consult your physician before starting any diet or nutrition plan.

Basic Terminology
1/ BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate): The amount of calories you need to consume to maintain your body if you were comatose (base level).
2/ NEAT (Non-Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie of daily activity that is NOT exercise (eg: washing, walking, talking, shopping, working). ie: INCIDENTAL EXERCISE! It is something that everyone has a good amount of control over.
3/ EAT (Exercise Associated Thermogenesis): The calorie requirements associated with planned exercise. Unless someone is doing a whole heap of exercise (eg: two or more hrs training a day) it usually doesn't add a stack of calories to your requirements (30 minutes of 'elliptical training isn't going to do it')
4/ TEF (Thermic effect of feeding): The calorie expenditure associated with eating. REGARDLESS of what myths you have been told - this is NOT dependent on MEAL FREQUENCY. It is a % of TOTAL CALORIES CONSUMED (and 15% of 3 x 600 cal meals is the same as 15% of 6 x 300 cal meals). It varies according to MACRONUTRIENT content and FIBER content. For most mixed diets, it is something around 15%. Protein is higher (up to 25%), carbs are variable (between 5-25%), and fats are low (usually less than 5%). So -> More protein and more carbs and more fiber = HIGHER TEF. More FAT = LOWER TEF.
5/ TEE (Total Energy Expenditure): The total calories you require - and the sum of the above (BMR + NEAT + EAT + TEF).

How much do you need?
A multitude of things impact MAINTENANCE calorie needs.
- Age & sex (males generally need > females)
- Total weight & lean mass (more lean mass = more needed)
- Physiological status (eg: sick or injured, pregnant, growth')
- Hormones
- Exercise level (more activity = more needed)
- Daily activity level (more activity = more needed)
- Diet (that is - macronutrient intake)

In order to calculate your requirements the most accurate measure is via Calorimetry [the measure of 'chemical reactions' in your body & the heat produced by these reactions], either directly (via placing a calorimeter where the heat you produce is measured) or indirectly (eg: HOOD studies where they monitor how much oxygen you use/ carbon dioxide and nitrogen you excrete over a given time). But although accurate they are completely impractical for most people & we mostly rely on pre-set formula to calculate our needs.

NOTE: IF YOU ARE LESS THAN 18 YRS OF AGE - THESE FORMULA WILL NOT BE ACCURATE!There is an energy cost associated with growth / inefficient movement / high surface area:mass ratio. Look HERE for alternatives.
As a teenager I would also STRONGLY suggest you don't obsess on calories and macros! Eat well, exercise regularly, and have fun while you can!

Estimating Requirements
The simplest method is to base your intake on a standard 'calories per unit of weight (usually kilograms)'. Typically:
- 26 to 30 kcals/kg/day for normal, healthy individuals with sedentary lifestyles doing little physical activity [12.0-14 kcal/pound]
- 31 to 37 kcal/kg/day for those involved in light to moderate activity 3-5 x a week with moderately active lifestyles [14-16 kcal/ pound]
- 38 to 40 kcals/kg/day for those involved in vigorous activity and highly active jobs [16-18 kcal/ pound].
For those involved in HEAVY training (eg: athletes) - the demand is greater:
- 41 to 50 kcals/kg/day for those involved in moderate to heavy training (for example: 15-20 hrs/ week training) [18.5-22 kcal/ pound]
- 50 or above kcals/kg/day for those involved in heavy to extreme training [> 22 kcal/ pound]

There are then a number of other formula which calculate BMR. This means it calculates what you need should you be in a coma.
1/ Harris-Benedict formula: Very inaccurate. It was derived from studies on LEAN, YOUNG, ACTIVE males MANY YEARS AGO (1919). Notorious for OVERESTIMATING requirements, especially in the overweight. IF YOU CAN AVOID IT, DON'T USE IT!
MEN: BMR = 66 + [13.7 x weight (kg)] + [5 x height (cm)] - [6.76 x age (years)]
WOMEN: BMR = 655 + [9.6 x weight (kg)] + [1.8 x height (cm)] - [4.7 x age (years)]

2/Mifflin-St Jeor: Developed in the 1990s and more realistic in todays settings. It still doesn't take into consideration the differences as a consequence of high BF%. Thus, once again, it OVERESTIMATES NEEDS, ESPECIALLY IN THE OVERWEIGHT.
MEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5
WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161

3/Katch-McArdle:Considered the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. Use ONLY if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat %.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

As these are only BMR calculations To convert BMR to a TOTAL requirement you need to multiply the result of your BMR by an 'activity variable' to give TEE.
The Activity Factor is the TOTAL cost of living, NOT JUST YOUR TRAINING. Think about it - if you train 1 hr a day - WHAT ARE YOU DOING THE OTHER 23 HRS?! So MORE important than training -- it includes work, life activities, training/sport & the TEF of ~15% (an average mixed diet).
Average activity variables are:
1.2 = Sedentary (Desk job, and Little Formal Exercise)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Light daily activity AND light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately daily Activity & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.2 = Extremely Active (Athlete in ENDURANCE training or VERY HARD physical job)

How Accurate are they?: They give rough ball-park figures and are still 'guesstimations'. So the aim is to 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.

Using the Above to Recalculate Based on Goals
You then need to DECREASE or INCREASE intake based on your goals (eg: lose or gain mass). It is not recommended to use a 'generic calorie amounts' (eg: 500 cals/ day). Instead this should be calculated on a % of your maintenance. Why? The effect of different calorie amounts is going to be markedly different based on someones size/ total calorie intake. For example - subtracting 500 cals/ day from a 1500 total intake is 1/3rd of the total cals, where 500 cals/ day from 3000 total intake is only 1/6th of the total. The results will therefore be markedly different on an individuals energy level & weight loss. Generally:
- To ADD weight: ADD 10-20% calories to the total above
- To LOSE weight: SUBTRACT 10-20% calories from the total above
Then monitor your results and adjust as required.

Macronutrient Needs
Once you work out calorie needs, you then work out how much of each macronutrient you should aim for. This is one of the areas that is MOST often confused but This should NOT be based on a RATIO of macro intakes. (eg: '30:40:30 or 40:40:20') Your body doesn't CARE what % intake you have. It works based on SUFFICIENT QUANTITY per MASS.

So to try to make it as simple as possible:
1. Protein: Protein intake is a bit of a controversial issue in nutrition. The general recommendations given in the 'bodybuilding' area are nearly double the 'standard' recommendations given in the Sports Nutrition Arena.
The GENERAL sports nutrition guideline based on clinical trials suggest that in the face of ADEQUATE calories and CARBS the following protein intakes are sufficient:
STRENGTH training -> 1.4 to 2g per KG bodyweight (about .6 / pound)
ENDURANCE training -> 1.2 to 1.8g per KG bodyweight (about .8 / pound)
ADOLESCENT in training -> 1.8 to 2.2g per KG bodyweight (about 1g / pound)
BUT researchers also acknowledge that protein becomes MORE important in the context of LOWER calorie intakes, or LOWER carb intakes.
Recent evidence also suggests that protein intakes of 3g/kg help with physiological and psychological stressors associated with high volume or intense training.
One should also note that ADEQUATE v's OPTIMAL is not discussed when it comes to hypertrophy v's performance.
And lastly - you need to consider thermogenics/ satiety/ and personal preference.

So - General 'bodybuilding' guidelines for protein would be as follows:
- Moderate bodyfat and training load = 2.2-2.8g per kg TOTAL weight (about 1-1.25g per pound)
- Very Low bodyfat or Very Low Calorie or High training load = 2.4 - 3g per kg TOTAL weight (1.1-1.35g per pound)
- High bodyfat, high calorie, or low training load = 1.6 to 2.2g per kg TOTAL weight (.75 - 1g per pound)
Anecdotally, as most find HIGHER protein intake better for satiety, partitioning, blood sugar control, and hypertrophy. UNLESS you have medical reasons for lower protein, or unless guided to use the GENERAL sports nutrition guidelines, I would suggest the BODYBUILDING values.


2. Fats: Generally speaking, although the body can get away with short periods of very low fat, in the long run your body NEEDS fat to maintain health, satiety, and sanity. Additionally - any form of high intensity training will benefit from a 'fat buffer' in your diet - which controls free radical damage & inflammation. General guides:
Average or low bodyfat: 1 - 2g fat/ kg body weight [between 0.40 - 1g total weight/ pounds]
High bodyfat: 1-2g fat/ Kg LEAN weight [between 0.4 - 1g LEAN weight/ pounds]
Low calorie dieting - you can decrease further, but as a minimum, I would not suggest LESS than about 0.30g/ pound.
Note 1: Total fat intake is NOT the same as 'essential fats' (essential fats are specific TYPES of fats that are INCLUDED in your total fat intake)...


3. Carbs: For carbs there are no specific 'requirements' for your body so - but carbs are important for athletes, ACTIVE individuals, or those trying to GAIN MASS. [carbs help with workout intensity, health, & satiety (+ sanity)]. This means if you are an athlete involved in a good volume of training I would suggest you CALCULATE a requirement for carbs as a PRIORITY - then go back and calculate protein / fat:
Moderately active: 4.5 - 6.5 g/ kg (about 2 - 3g/ pound)
High active: 6.5 - 8.5 g/ kg (about 3 - 4g/ pound)
INTENSE activity: + 8.5g / kg (more than 4g/ pound)

For 'others' - simply carbohydrate intakes via the calories left over from fats/ protein:
carb cals = Total cal needs - ([protein grams above x 4] + [fat grams above x 9])
carb grams = (above cals)/ 4


How do I count Calories accurately? *Check out Calorie Counting Websites

What are Macronutrients and Micronutrients? *Check out Macro & micronutrients explained!

PLEASE NOTE: If you create a spreadsheet & post them in this thread I will DELETE THEM.
The point is for people to DO THE MATHS and THINK about what they need WITHOUT resorting to a pre-generated 'spit out' number!
Thanks.

[05impalaSS]

Wow, pretty informative read....good stuff Emma.

[ChecksandGiggles]

Emma,

This is a good, informative post. One question, though. As far as exercise induced thermogenesis goes, hasn't it been shown that anaerobic activity such as weightlifting or HIIT induced a caloric afterburn for a certain amount of time? Granted, these activities on their own can burn a good quantity of calories. It just seems like 2 hours is an arbitrary figure, and must be very activity-dependent.

Coorect me if I'm wrong, please.

[Emma-Leigh]

Emma,

This is a good, informative post. One question, though. As far as exercise induced thermogenesis goes, hasn't it been shown that anaerobic activity such as weightlifting or HIIT induced a caloric afterburn for a certain amount of time? Granted, these activities on their own can burn a good quantity of calories. It just seems like 2 hours is an arbitrary figure, and must be very activity-dependent.

Coorect me if I'm wrong, please.

^
Shown? Hardly.... More like 'massively blown out of proportion'.

Firstly - Weight lifting, unless doing absurdly high volume training, doesn't usually create a 'relatively' large EPOC (Excess Post-Exercise Oxygen Consumption)... The average lifter simply doesn't create that much of a demand during their session. For those who DO actually manage to create a big demand - it is not *that* much different to that which is seen with cardio.

For cardio - The effects of a good bout of high intensity steady state or HIIT is minimal in comparison to that which is actually burnt DURING the activity itself... [something in the order of 5-15% of cals burnt DURING the exercise]. So - say you burnt 400 cals during a low intensity cardio session? 5% EPOC = 420 cals
burn 400 cals during a HIGH intensity cardio session? 15% EPOC = 460 cals
^
Hardly going to make the difference, is it?

There was a study a few years ago that examined it well:

J Sports Sci. 2006 Dec;24(12):1247-64.
Effects of exercise intensity and duration on the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption.
LaForgia J, Withers RT, Gore CJ.

School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA. joe.laforgia@unisa.edu.au
Recovery from a bout of exercise is associated with an elevation in metabolism referred to as the excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). A number of investigators in the first half of the last century reported prolonged EPOC durations and that the EPOC was a major component of the thermic effect of activity. It was therefore thought that the EPOC was a major contributor to total daily energy expenditure and hence the maintenance of body mass. Investigations conducted over the last two or three decades have improved the experimental protocols used in the pioneering studies and therefore have more accurately characterized the EPOC. Evidence has accumulated to suggest an exponential relationship between exercise intensity and the magnitude of the EPOC for specific exercise durations. Furthermore, work at exercise intensities >or=50-60% VO2max stimulate a linear increase in EPOC as exercise duration increases. The existence of these relationships with resistance exercise at this stage remains unclear because of the limited number of studies and problems with quantification of work intensity for this type of exercise. Although the more recent studies do not support the extended EPOC durations reported by some of the pioneering investigators, it is now apparent that a prolonged EPOC (3-24 h) may result from an appropriate exercise stimulus (submaximal: >or=50 min at >or=70% VO2max; supramaximal: >or=6 min at >or=105% VO2max). However, even those studies incorporating exercise stimuli resulting in prolonged EPOC durations have identified that the EPOC comprises only 6-15% of the net total oxygen cost of the exercise. But this figure may need to be increased when studies utilizing intermittent work bouts are designed to allow the determination of rest interval EPOCs, which should logically contribute to the EPOC determined following the cessation of the last work bout. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the earlier research optimism regarding an important role for the EPOC in weight loss is generally unfounded. This is further reinforced by acknowledging that the exercise stimuli required to promote a prolonged EPOC are unlikely to be tolerated by non-athletic individuals. The role of exercise in the maintenance of body mass is therefore predominantly mediated via the cumulative effect of the energy expenditure during the actual exercise.

^
Basically --> Although it would be nice to believe different, the fact of the matter is that the calorie burn from exercise is basically that which occurs DURING the activity, not afterward.

[determined4000]

This should eliminate 90% of questions
Nice info Emma

[tagun]

This should eliminate 90% of questions
Nice info Emma

Sadly it won't.

Great read.

[Tiny bit]

A million, trillion THANK YOU'S Emma! You ROCK !

[Insight]

Excellent post! Now if we could only get a "critique my diet" sticky...

Seriously, a stickied post with the title "Is honey/potato/fruit/pork/anything food okay to eat on a cut?" would cut traffic down here considerably

Although there is one question I have:

1. Protein: Although most accurately based on LEAN MASS it is easiest just to set up a general starting point:
Protein (grams) = 1-1.5 x total weight (pounds).
If you are VERY LEAN or very LOW IN TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then you need to stick to close to, or increase ABOVE, 1.5 x weight.... (eg: 2 x LEAN MASS)
If you are VERY OVERWEIGHT or VERY HIGH IN TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then you should stick closer to, or decrease slightly BELOW 1 x weight (eg: 1 x LEAN MASS)...

I'm at 170 lbs now and somewhere around 17-18% bodyfat. My maintenance is somewhere around 2500 cals and on a 2000 cal/day diet I've been losing slightly more than 1 lb/week. I've been getting about 1.1 g/lb protein per day - my LBM is about 140 lbs and I've been getting 155-165g per day on average.

I am hardly "VERY LEAN" but I am on a caloric deficit. Where do you draw the line between taking 1 g/lb and 1.5-2 g/lb? At what BF will it become more important to up my protein intake? And how much of a caloric deficit is considered "Low in total calorie intake?"

Thanks if you could shed some insight!

[determined4000]

Excellent post! Now if we could only get a "critique my diet" sticky...

Seriously, a stickied post with the title "Is honey/potato/fruit/pork/anything food okay to eat on a cut?" would cut traffic down here considerably

Although there is one question I have:



I'm at 170 lbs now and somewhere around 17-18% bodyfat. My maintenance is somewhere around 2500 cals and on a 2000 cal/day diet I've been losing slightly more than 1 lb/week. I've been getting about 1.1 g/lb protein per day - my LBM is about 140 lbs and I've been getting 155-165g per day on average.

I am hardly "VERY LEAN" but I am on a caloric deficit. Where do you draw the line between taking 1 g/lb and 1.5-2 g/lb? At what BF will it become more important to up my protein intake? And how much of a caloric deficit is considered "Low in total calorie intake?"

Thanks if you could shed some insight!

While you wait for Emma, I am going to venture and say you'd have to be at least sub-10% BF to be considered "VERY LEAN" for a guy.

[Insight]

While you wait for Emma, I am going to venture and say you'd have to be at least sub-10% BF to be considered "VERY LEAN" for a guy.

Thanks. My question was more in regards to the size of the caloric deficit required before protein requirements increase.

[Emma-Leigh]

Excellent post! Now if we could only get a "critique my diet" sticky...

Seriously, a stickied post with the title "Is honey/potato/fruit/pork/anything food okay to eat on a cut?" would cut traffic down here considerably

LOL - would a generic one lined thread of: 'it is fine'
do?

I'm at 170 lbs now and somewhere around 17-18% bodyfat. My maintenance is somewhere around 2500 cals and on a 2000 cal/day diet I've been losing slightly more than 1 lb/week. I've been getting about 1.1 g/lb protein per day - my LBM is about 140 lbs and I've been getting 155-165g per day on average.

I am hardly "VERY LEAN" but I am on a caloric deficit. Where do you draw the line between taking 1 g/lb and 1.5-2 g/lb? At what BF will it become more important to up my protein intake? And how much of a caloric deficit is considered "Low in total calorie intake?"

There is no 'line' that can be drawn - it is not an 'all or nothing' - like most physiological variables it is a continuum - and something that should be individual.

It is based on things such as activity level, genetics, physiological status (eg: enhanced or not)... BUT ->> generally:
For males - as mentioned, I would probably consider sub 10% ish as 'getting lean' and where you would think more carefully about calorie deficit and protein intake...
For females - I would think something sub 16% ish in the same light...

And for the calorie deficit part - it, once again, is a continuum and depends, once again, on a number of variables including training status, how much bodyfat you have, and your underlying genetics...
More training = less wriggle room to play with in regards to creating a deficit as you need to fill training needs.
Less training = can get away with more of a deficit
Large volume of bodyfat = can create larger deficit without impacting lean mass....
Little bodyfat = can not create large deficit without impacting lean mass...
Constitutionally lean = can get away with less deficit
Thrifty metabolism = need to create more of a deficit to get results

For someone with your stats and BF (about 29-30# fat) 500 cals/ day is not a massive deficit, and you could probably get away with something up around 800-900 cals/ day before your fat stores wouldn't fill your calorie needs and you would draw on more lean mass than that which would be considered acceptable.... So ->> at 500 cals/ day deficit, you should be ok between 1-1.5g/ pound.... but if you were to increase above this, I would increase to 1.5-2g/ lean mass.

[illninofan21]

Wow, definitely subbed and in for later.

[JJ-]

Thanks Emma, Great post as always!

[Wombatman]

nice thread helps alot

[xFORGEDx]

This is a great post!
Thanks Emma!

[Jaymie]

Thank you!!

[Kittyfeet]

This post is excellent. Thank you!

[zulander]

I was just about to post and see if anyone knew of any good write ups - thanks Emma!

[Wundervice]

Sadly it won't.

Great read.

Just confused the crap out of me lol. As a 21yo male, 6'2" and about 260 lbs do i really need like 150g protein a day? Sounds bonkers >_>

Im trying to lose 40 pounds of fat and size up the arms and legs a bit more (yes i know), but I'm not really sure at what kinda numbers I should be looking at. i gotta start today but I'd prefer to know what Im doing. I don't just wanna run and play with my workbench and hope i'll get more fit x.X

[CostalChic]

Hmmm....

I'm a female, relatively active (5-6 day/week workouts) trying to reduce bodyfat, retain LBM.

Do these (specifically the last formula) work the same for females? What sort of "tweaks" should I make in the equations to make them more accurate for women?

Based on 110 lbs of LBM, I'm coming up w/ daily caloric requirements of 3564 for maintenance. Subtracting the 20% for fat loss would give me my caloric requirements on a "diet" of 2852...

Am I doing something wrong here? I can see these figures working for a male but there is no way possible I'm(or any woman) is going to reduce bf on a 3000 calorie diet.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to tweak the formula for an active women?

[wolfcw1]

Hmmm....

I'm a female, relatively active (5-6 day/week workouts) trying to reduce bodyfat, retain LBM.

Do these (specifically the last formula) work the same for females? What sort of "tweaks" should I make in the equations to make them more accurate for women?

Based on 110 lbs of LBM, I'm coming up w/ daily caloric requirements of 3564 for maintenance. Subtracting the 20% for fat loss would give me my caloric requirements on a "diet" of 2852...

Am I doing something wrong here? I can see these figures working for a male but there is no way possible I'm(or any woman) is going to reduce bf on a 3000 calorie diet.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to tweak the formula for an active women?

Sounds like you might not be converting pounds to kilograms.

[daYDreAmErX]

Awesome thread, Emma !

[Emma-Leigh]

Hmmm....

I'm a female, relatively active (5-6 day/week workouts) trying to reduce bodyfat, retain LBM.

Do these (specifically the last formula) work the same for females? What sort of "tweaks" should I make in the equations to make them more accurate for women?

Based on 110 lbs of LBM, I'm coming up w/ daily caloric requirements of 3564 for maintenance. Subtracting the 20% for fat loss would give me my caloric requirements on a "diet" of 2852...

Am I doing something wrong here? I can see these figures working for a male but there is no way possible I'm(or any woman) is going to reduce bf on a 3000 calorie diet.

Anyone have any suggestions on how to tweak the formula for an active women?

Sounds like you might not be converting pounds to kilograms.

^
this.... Note that my formula states LBM is KILOGRAMS... So - 110# = 50 KG
And if you then use this in the formula:
BMR: 370 + (21 x 50) = 1420
TEE: 1420 x 1.5 = 2130
DIET: 2130 - 20% = 1700 cals

Make more sense?

[Insight]

LOL - would a generic one lined thread of: 'it is fine'
do?

Yes please anything would be fine.

Suggested thread title: "Can I eat xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx food on a cut?" There goes 49% of the traffic on this board.

If we had a "critique my cutting diet" sticky too, that would make up for another 49%. The leftover 2% would consist of us talking strictly about science, I am sure!

BTW Emma can I eat white rice on a cut? I heard eating white rice is bad because it metabolizes right into fat because of the fructose and the other thing

(don't answer that!)

[mugugaipan]

I have a question over TEE that has always confused me. I workout pretty normally 3-5 times a week. So I usually take that into account. But I wait tables also. I took a pedometer with me to work for awhile and on a slow night I will walk about 5 miles and on a busy night its about 10, add in all the lifting of random stuff and I get lost at calculating that in my calories. Any advice there?

[Emma-Leigh]

I have a question over TEE that has always confused me. I workout pretty normally 3-5 times a week. So I usually take that into account. But I wait tables also. I took a pedometer with me to work for awhile and on a slow night I will walk about 5 miles and on a busy night its about 10, add in all the lifting of random stuff and I get lost at calculating that in my calories. Any advice there?

This you would calculate it into your activity factor (multiplier) which considers both WORKOUTS as well as DAILY activity.

So where if you simply worked out 3-5 x a week then sat on your butt all day your activity factor might be 1.4... As you are on your feet all day - it may increase to 1.6 as a baseline.

^^
But don't use it to confuse yourself: The point is to start at a non-stupid intake and adjust as required.

[Insight]

1. Protein: Although most accurately based on LEAN MASS it is easiest just to set up a general starting point:
Protein (grams) = 1-1.5 x total weight (pounds).
If you are VERY LEAN or very LOW IN TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then you need to stick to close to, or increase ABOVE, 1.5 x weight.... (eg: 2 x LEAN MASS)
If you are VERY OVERWEIGHT or VERY HIGH IN TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then you should stick closer to, or decrease slightly BELOW 1 x weight (eg: 1 x LEAN MASS)...

When do protein requirements ever go as high as 2xLBM? I cited 1.5 g/lb LBM in my thermodynamics guide and people were yelling at me about even that, citing studies and etc.

[Agoodman42]

Hi, this site is an incredible resource, first time posting. I read the stickies and my question is, how much does everyone spend on food? I'm a 21 yr old male, 103kg, 19.5% bodyfat(hydrostatic) armed with a copy of Tom Venuto's Burn the Fat, feed the muscle. I've done the katch-mcardle equations that look mysteriously similar to what is available for free on this site...and the meals i'm making have me eating 8 oz of chicken, or 6-7 egg whites per meal, and I'm eating 6 meals a day. Is this right? Am I insane?I've also cut out all junk and am now eating only organic, high nutrient density food from a local farm, which itself comes at a premium, hence my distress at my calorie numbers.
How do you all afford to eat like this?
thanks

-Aaron

ps
Lean Mass 82.915
BMR 2160.964
TDEE 3349.4942

[Emma-Leigh]

When do protein requirements ever go as high as 2xLBM? I cited 1.5 g/lb LBM in my thermodynamics guide and people were yelling at me about even that, citing studies and etc.

^
well, you should have done your research then.

An important thing to note with regards to many studies our are that they are not performed in situations mimicking that which a competitor will face when dieting for stage. Things like:
- V. LOW calorie diet
- Low CARB diet
- V. low BodyFat [unnaturally so] with goal to reduce more-so
- HIGH lean mass with aim to maintain/ gain more
- Heavy / intense weight training
- +/- cardio
- +/- anabolic agents
^
These things all add to protein requirements...

A few things you should read:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129150/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1474076
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17473774
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15972575

[MadBunny]

If you are VERY OVERWEIGHT or VERY HIGH IN TOTAL CALORIE INTAKE then you should stick closer to, or decrease slightly BELOW 1 x weight (eg: 1 x LEAN MASS)...

This part is a little confusing. For a very Overweight person with a high bodyfat percentage, the difference between 1xweight and 1xlean mass would be huge right?

eg. 260lb with 35% bodyfat

1x weight = 260g Protein
1x LBM = 170g Protein

Is this right or am I understanding it incorrectly?