Hi all, so I'm coming back off of an unhealthy cut where I was eating only 1400-1800 cals daily and not counting macros. I'm reverse dieting by adding ~100 calories a week until maintenance is reached, then cutting again.
My question is about my macros. I've read conflicting things, and these numbers seem generally on high side. I'm 180 lbs at 6 foot 3.
Protein: 1g per lb of total mass = 180g daily
Fats: 0.4g per lb of total mass = 72g daily
Remainder: split over p/f/c fibre, nutrient rich foods etc.
I've been trying to hit these numbers recently but it seems impossible on my calorie intake. Was I really that under-nourished or are these numbers somehow calculated wrong?
Qwin
|
Thread: Reverse Dieting and Macros
-
08-20-2013, 05:40 PM #1
Reverse Dieting and Macros
-
08-20-2013, 05:47 PM #2
-
08-20-2013, 05:51 PM #3
-
08-20-2013, 05:56 PM #4
-
-
08-20-2013, 06:04 PM #5
go by percentages of total calories. Recommended daily amounts are about 30% protein on the high end, 45-65% on carbs, and 20-35 percent on fats. I generally go a little higher on the protein.. and a little lower on the carbs if I'm cutting, and remember to eat the complex carbohydrates. Making a diet after you know your calorie goal is much easier if you go by macro percentages, for me anyway.
-
08-20-2013, 06:13 PM #6
-
08-20-2013, 06:16 PM #7
-
08-20-2013, 06:18 PM #8
-
-
08-20-2013, 06:47 PM #9
I wasn't saying that 20-35% of the food you eat should be fat, or 30% should be protein, or 45-65% of food should be protein. I was saying PERCENTAGE of CALORIES. I eat about 3500 calories per day, 30% of 3500 is 1050 calories. Divide that by 4 calories per gram of protein, and you get 262 grams of protein per day. At 180 pounds, that is in the ballpark of 1.5g protein/lb of body weight, which is about what I look for when bulking. I use the g/lb ratios as a guideline and to check my amounts, but when aiming for a calorie goal, aiming for calorie percentages tends to work for me. I choose my calorie goal BASED ON MASS, then assign my appropriate percentages of macros. Maybe we're on two different pages, but dietary guidelines with numerous studies behind them for many different diets aim for macro percentages with a calorie goal in mind.. This is how I decide how to eat my foods. All I was suggesting to the OP is to pick the calories he wants, designate the percentage that is appropriate to get the grams, because hitting his calorie goal was proving to be an obstacle.
You have a different school of thought, okay, but you don't have to call mine nonsense.. Sorry if I offended you!Last edited by CMJD103012; 08-20-2013 at 06:54 PM.
-
08-20-2013, 07:23 PM #10
-
08-20-2013, 07:47 PM #11
Based on 200 lbs, 2000 calories for someone who I'm assuming has a very active life style would be an extreme calorie deficit, would it not? I know this formula is an approximation, but figuring out basal metabolism, calories from exercise/activity, plus dietary thermogenesis
For a male: 200lbs x 11= 2200 calories basal metabolism, x 75 percent for very active (intense workouts, active life style, other daily activities etc..) = 1650. 2200 plus 1650 3850, x.10 for dietary thermogenesis equals 385, plus 3850 is 4235 calories for your baseline calorie needs. Assuming that high cardio is involved, weight training, not lazy sitting on the couch, a very active individual. If not as active, you can use 50 percent instead of 75, but still, thats a lot of calories to cut when that individual would eat only 2000. That is why the fat grams would be low for the individual, too much calories cut down, the calories have to come from somewhere!
I've taken nutrition classes in college, and done a lot of reading on my own. I'm by NO MEANS and expert on nutrition and have a lot to learn still, but I have a decent grasp on it and I don't see how what I'm saying is nonsense. Maybe we don't agree on our philosophies, but I don't think we are far enough apart to be called nonsense. Not tryin to be over sensitive lol but c'mon!
-
08-20-2013, 07:54 PM #12
-
-
08-20-2013, 08:03 PM #13
-
08-20-2013, 08:09 PM #14
So then perhaps adjust the percentage? The percentages are recommended in ranges, and broad ranges at that, for a reason, no? This is why I keep both factors in mind, the percentages that I am aiming for along with calorie goal, and double checking that I am ballpark with my g/lb ratios, depending on the lifestyle of the person and goals, protein I have been taught should range anywhere from .5g/lb to 1 or even 1.5g/lb (any more your body will probably not be able to utilize), fats usually about .5g/lb,and carbs generally start at 2g/lb, but fluctuate based on goals/lifestyle. I don't ignore those numbers, they are good to refer to, but in the end, gaining weight or losing weight requires calorie surplus or deficit, and by marking that calorie goal, (appropriate calorie goal) and using your percentage guidelines, you'll generally end up within range for your g/lb anyway. It helps me double check, but in the end I have found percentages work for me and make life easy when designing a diet for ones self.
Or..agree to disagree? lol I don't think we are far off from each other on thought process, just coming from slightly different angles. But again, I just didn't take well to having my comment called nonsense, I have taken numerous classes and studied endless hours about this kind of stuff, and have a decent grasp on it, and obviously so do you, we just come from different angles I think to end up at the same result...
-
08-20-2013, 08:17 PM #15
I weigh 180 lbs, and have found that to add weight need about 4000 calories to gain weight. If I use 1g protein/lb, .5g fat/lb, and 3g carbs/lb, I still only get to about 3600 calories. I don't know what you delegate to carbs for g/lb since it is so fluctuating for everyone and their needs, but ultimately reaching calorie goals is where I find using percentages helps. I ultimately reach my calorie goal, and after I choose my percentage if it doesn't line up with the g/lb ratio I can always change. Why negate one school of thought for another, when you can instead keep both in mind and work them together to find what's appropriate? I don't know maybe I'm wrong. Sorry. lol
-
08-21-2013, 08:41 AM #16
-
-
08-21-2013, 10:18 AM #17
- Join Date: Sep 2010
- Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
- Age: 34
- Posts: 12,347
- Rep Power: 41865
You are wrong. You meet the minimum requirement of protein/fat then fill in the remaining calories however you choose.
And I negate one school of thought if it proves to be unreliable in certain situations. Using percentages turns out not to work in some cases, therefore I disregard it. That's not being close minded, that is being logical.Last edited by Lvisaa2; 08-21-2013 at 02:42 PM.
-
08-21-2013, 12:23 PM #18
your macros are your minimum to maintain your performance and build muscle. Once you reach them, you eat what you want to get to your calorie threshold.
I am your weight and i hit your macros easily at 1800 calories while cutting (though I dont hit the carbs. My carbs are whats left after hitting protein and fat req's)Team Kelei
Similar Threads
-
IF Reverse Dieting
By areya2005 in forum Contest Prep and Competition DiscussionReplies: 18Last Post: 08-24-2012, 04:12 PM -
Reverse dieting experiences
By kentykentkent in forum Contest Prep and Competition DiscussionReplies: 15Last Post: 10-16-2011, 05:05 PM -
New to Reverse Dieting?
By drummerguydw in forum NutritionReplies: 0Last Post: 07-01-2011, 08:27 PM -
Reverse Dieting/Post Contest Dieting???
By smallguyjoe in forum Contest Prep and Competition DiscussionReplies: 15Last Post: 06-27-2009, 01:28 PM
Bookmarks