If it's calories in vs calories out why do macro ratios matter?

[Connor1226]

macros dont matter in the sense that if you cant meet your minimums you are absolutely screwing around and eating nothing but cake and cheetos. Its far too easy to get the REAL minimums, thats why macros dont matter because its a joke to meet them.
Common sense is greater than science.
Science to people is "eating big to get big", and eating a lot of protein.
Another reason why science doesnt matter is because that extra protein is doing absolutely nothing for you except making you lighter...because your wallet now weighs less. People WANT to hear that the extra protein is helping them, thats all they are after.
Unless you are a real endurance athlete (real), the body simply isnt under a significant amount of stress to warrant these protein requirements people WANT to hear.

So...with that said, what does science have to offer that meeting your minimums cant already do? or are we talking about people that say "oh he has a PhD so he knows how to get big'. lol


edit: its medical knowledge (science lol) that carbohydrates in fact do not cause diabetes type II if one cares to search.

Without science, common sense wouldn't exist. Or at least I hope you need evidence and facts to support your logic behind something. Although it's not sounding like it. Sounds like you just believe what you want and call it common sense. Do you know what the scientific method even is?

The OP is talking about cutting, minimums aren't the issue here. It's making sure you aren't over consuming any macro. I also don't think there is ever such thing as too much protein on a cut. It's better to have a protein focused diet with moderate carb and fat, and be taking in more protein than your body can utilize, rather than over consume in carbs.

Note I never said carbs cause type II diabetes. Over consumption is the concern.

Maybe I'll take you seriously once you can pass a logic course.
"They don't matter, because it matters that you hit minimums. So they don't matter because they matter" [paraphrase]
"Common sense is greater than science"

[Jnewman011]

truth is, the industry wants you to think this whole diet thing is way more complicated than it is. if more people knew the truth, diet coaches trying to sell you meal plans wouldnt exist and supplement companies would be way less successful. for the average person looking to lose weight and get in better shape, all you need to do is lift weights, eat a balanced diet, and have an idea of your caloric intake. unless youre eating like an immature 12 year old, youll be getting in plenty of protein. and stop obsessing over how big your caloric deficit is, youre not going to lose muscle.

[Serpentarius]

Without science, common sense wouldn't exist. Or at least I hope you need evidence and facts to support your logic behind something. Although it's not sounding like it. Sounds like you just believe what you want and call it common sense. Do you know what the scientific method even is?

The OP is talking about cutting, minimums aren't the issue here. It's making sure you aren't over consuming any macro. I also don't think there is ever such thing as too much protein on a cut. It's better to have a protein focused diet with moderate carb and fat, and be taking in more protein than your body can utilize, rather than over consume in carbs.

Note I never said carbs cause type II diabetes. Over consumption is the concern.

Maybe I'll take you seriously once you can pass a logic course.
"They don't matter, because it matters that you hit minimums. So they don't matter because they matter" [paraphrase]
"Common sense is greater than science"

The thing is, you are new here, less than a month, there is no reason to be worried about being taken seriously in any way by a novice, especially one without any real lifting history or impressive transformation. Hard work will earn respect, but you havent produced any.
Also, there are many benefits to a high carbohydrate diet, sounds like you need to read upon the effects it has on the thyroid and how it lowers the actual protein requirement as well.
Your science isnt going to help you in the gym or out of it though, at the end of the day common sense about everything and finding out what works through EXPERIENCE and what has worked for others (we are all the same so what works for one will work for the other) always prevails. A deficit and meeting your nutrition requirements (which are very little) are all that is needed, it really is that easy.

You say its better to have a protein focused diet, please tell me how i am supposed to spend my 4000 calories on a protein based diet, let me guess, 500g a day? You speak as if a higher protein intake "diet" is superior when there are 0 benefits other than satiety.

[ironmaniac508]

truth is, the industry wants you to think this whole diet thing is way more complicated than it is. if more people knew the truth, diet coaches trying to sell you meal plans wouldnt exist and supplement companies would be way less successful. for the average person looking to lose weight and get in better shape, all you need to do is lift weights, eat a balanced diet, and have an idea of your caloric intake. unless youre eating like an immature 12 year old, youll be getting in plenty of protein. and stop obsessing over how big your caloric deficit is, youre not going to lose muscle.

Couldn't agree more....It seems like everyone overcomplicates healthy eating by obsessing over minute details and using studies to base their opinions as opposed to using common sense/intuition. I am not saying science isn't important, but people who may be potentially bias will choose a study that reinforces their own belief systems, in regards to diet, and completely overlook other alternatives/possibilities that do not coincide with their own ideals.

[jimsmith9999]

Without science, common sense wouldn't exist. Or at least I hope you need evidence and facts to support your logic behind something. Although it's not sounding like it. Sounds like you just believe what you want and call it common sense. Do you know what the scientific method even is?

The OP is talking about cutting, minimums aren't the issue here. It's making sure you aren't over consuming any macro. I also don't think there is ever such thing as too much protein on a cut. It's better to have a protein focused diet with moderate carb and fat, and be taking in more protein than your body can utilize, rather than over consume in carbs.

Actually, you are wrong here. The science is indeed clear, but what it says is that the highest amount of protein shown to have a benefit is 0.64g/lb (adjusted up by 25% to account for error to 0.82g/lb). Adequate fats to support hormonal balance are also needed, but those amount are not that high either. After those minimums are hit, there is no physiological benefit to consuming more of one than the other. Satiety and dietary compliance are another story, but once a person hits the minimums - in a deficit, there is very little difference physiologically between choosing to consume another 100g or protein instead of another 100g of carbs.

[jimsmith9999]

truth is, the industry wants you to think this whole diet thing is way more complicated than it is. if more people knew the truth, diet coaches trying to sell you meal plans wouldnt exist and supplement companies would be way less successful. for the average person looking to lose weight and get in better shape, all you need to do is lift weights, eat a balanced diet, and have an idea of your caloric intake. unless youre eating like an immature 12 year old, youll be getting in plenty of protein. and stop obsessing over how big your caloric deficit is, youre not going to lose muscle.

You show wisdom beyond your years, young grasshopper :-)

[hamworld05]

Actually, you are wrong here. The science is indeed clear, but what it says is that the highest amount of protein shown to have a benefit is 0.64g/lb (adjusted up by 25% to account for error to 0.82g/lb). Adequate fats to support hormonal balance are also needed, but those amount are not that high either. After those minimums are hit, there is no physiological benefit to consuming more of one than the other. Satiety and dietary compliance are another story, but once a person hits the minimums - in a deficit, there is very little difference physiologically between choosing to consume another 100g or protein instead of another 100g of carbs.

What about the thermic effect? The point being that eating 100g of protein will burn more calories than eating 100g of carbs.

[T3mpest]

Actually, you are wrong here. The science is indeed clear, but what it says is that the highest amount of protein shown to have a benefit is 0.64g/lb (adjusted up by 25% to account for error to 0.82g/lb). Adequate fats to support hormonal balance are also needed, but those amount are not that high either. After those minimums are hit, there is no physiological benefit to consuming more of one than the other. Satiety and dietary compliance are another story, but once a person hits the minimums - in a deficit, there is very little difference physiologically between choosing to consume another 100g or protein instead of another 100g of carbs.

Was that error the margin of error in calculation or accounting dor differences in people? Not everyone has the same protein synthesis rate. Metabolisms in people are wildly different or we would all have similar body compositions with the same diet and routines and thats just not reality. Is that per lb of lean mass or total weight? There is a big difference there if they used overweighr untrained individuals vs someone who is well trained and decently lean looking to get shredded. Did they measure fat with dexa, that's the most accurate way, but can't match the numbers without the machine. Good luck figuring out your lbm compared to the standard they used even bod pods underestimate fat levels vs dexa...

In the real world figures like that get very messy and are limited in their usefulness.

Idk, I just can't see why everyone is so concerned about hitting minimum protein requirements. It's like having a racecar and trying to use the absolute lowest octane you can and have the car run normally.. sure you can so that, but if high performance is the goal is rather do a bit more than needed than not enough.. protein can't hurt your cut.. it has the lowest cLories per gram its filling and has the most positive effect on body composition. Eat as much protein as you can comfortably afford, imo.

[Grelko]

stop obsessing over how big your caloric deficit is, youre not going to lose muscle.

Yes and no

It also depends on glycogen etc, if you go out and do a ton of cardio you can potentially burn off a good amount of muscle with a HUGE calorie deficit. Everyone's different though, but look at alot of the "real" marathon runners. Alot of them are skinny-fat with little muscle but tons of endurance.

Alot of people say that starvation mode is a myth, but there is some credible information regarding it.

http://www.4hbtalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=1748 If you are interested in reading, plus more links/references.

(edit) - It also gets into discussing about insulin and cortisol

From the link -
( My understanding of these sciences is limited as well so take what I say with a grain of salt, read the sources cited and feel free to correct me where applicable. As far as I know energy sources are used differently depending on your activity level. At rest you use much more fat then carbohydrate (CHO) for fuel, in terms of % but amount you use very little. When exercise you first use energy from glycogen stored in the muscle via the phosphate system via Phosphocreatine[1]. Next you would use glycogen from the liver via Glycolysis[2][3]. Then when that runs out your body will create glycogen via Gluconeogenesis[4][5]. Gluconeogenesis uses both fat and protein and I have not been able to find good explanation as to when one is preferred over the other. I THINK at rest you will prefer fat. But when active you will catabolize more protein/amino acids/muscle. If anyone has some additional info on this please let us know.)

[jimsmith9999]

Was that error the margin of error in calculation or accounting dor differences in people?

Nope - plain old statisics. It's double the standard deviation to provide a more conservative estimate.

Not everyone has the same protein synthesis rate. Metabolisms in people are wildly different or we would all have similar body compositions with the same diet and routines and thats just not reality.

Don't confuse protein synthesis rate with metabolism. They are two very different things.

Is that per lb of lean mass or total weight? There is a big difference there if they used overweighr untrained individuals vs someone who is well trained and decently lean looking to get shredded. Did they measure fat with dexa, that's the most accurate way, but can't match the numbers without the machine. Good luck figuring out your lbm compared to the standard they used even bod pods underestimate fat levels vs dexa...

Based on total body weight, not lbm. But the studies were conducted on strength athletes, not overweight untrained individuals.

I posted this earlier, but here is an article from a very reputable source discussing this. Studies are referenced if you want more details:

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-...-bodybuilders/

Idk, I just can't see why everyone is so concerned about hitting minimum protein requirements. It's like having a racecar and trying to use the absolute lowest octane you can and have the car run normally.. sure you can so that, but if high performance is the goal is rather do a bit more than needed than not enough.. protein can't hurt your cut.. it has the lowest cLories per gram its filling and has the most positive effect on body composition. Eat as much protein as you can comfortably afford, imo.

.

Yes you are correct that it is the most filling, but you are wrong that it has the most positive effect on body composition. What will result in the best body composition is meeting your minimums and filling in the rest of you calories in such a way that it increases dietary compliance over the long term and fuels your training performance and recovery adequately. Note - higher carbs tend to benefit the fueling the training component better than higher protein.

But you are missing the point. The goal isn't to figure out the minimums for the sake of just hitting that. It's to figure out the minimums to cover your basis and allow you to comprise the rest of your diet beyond the basis in way that works based on performance goals, compliance and personal preference. Case in point, you see people all the time thinking they need, say 200g of protein. So they eat 120g from food and drink the rest in protein shakes to make up the difference when in actuality they would be better off sticking with the 120 grams of protein and eating a big bowl of oatmeal.

[KramericaInd]

-Sips on 0 cal a&w-

[Grelko]

-Sips on 0 cal a&w-

Not cool lol, I JUST stopped drinking soda a couple days ago. I actually dropped 2 lbs this week from the lowered sodium even though it was 0 cal diet soda. I know I'm still holding water weight. Trying to find out exactly where I'm at without all the bloating from carbonation.

[JohnnyTheGoat]

Idk, I just can't see why everyone is so concerned about hitting minimum protein requirements. It's like having a racecar and trying to use the absolute lowest octane you can and have the car run normally.. sure you can so that, but if high performance is the goal is rather do a bit more than needed than not enough.. protein can't hurt your cut.. it has the lowest cLories per gram its filling and has the most positive effect on body composition. Eat as much protein as you can comfortably afford, imo.

Because protein is expensive and with 1900 calories I'd like to eat something else besides solely chicken breast & eggs. And so would my wallet.

[Connor1226]

The thing is, you are new here, less than a month, there is no reason to be worried about being taken seriously in any way by a novice, especially one without any real lifting history or impressive transformation. Hard work will earn respect, but you havent produced any.
Also, there are many benefits to a high carbohydrate diet, sounds like you need to read upon the effects it has on the thyroid and how it lowers the actual protein requirement as well.
Your science isnt going to help you in the gym or out of it though, at the end of the day common sense about everything and finding out what works through EXPERIENCE and what has worked for others (we are all the same so what works for one will work for the other) always prevails. A deficit and meeting your nutrition requirements (which are very little) are all that is needed, it really is that easy.

You say its better to have a protein focused diet, please tell me how i am supposed to spend my 4000 calories on a protein based diet, let me guess, 500g a day? You speak as if a higher protein intake "diet" is superior when there are 0 benefits other than satiety.

My problem isn't what you are saying, it's how you say it.
You ARE saying macros are important. What is important is meeting the minimums, and that the minimums are so easy to meet you don't need to be super strict to be confident in meeting them.
Then you turn around and say "Oh science doesn't matter" yet want to turn around and talk about "evidence" and "research" (Uhhh science) to back up your views. If science is so stupid to you, don't try to use it to back you up.
Another one: Instead of saying "You have to find out what works for you" (Which I agree with 100% btw) you say "Science won't help you, you have to figure out what experience tells you"

I want to bang my head into a desk. Your ability to logically reason is very poor and it makes reading your comments very difficult. You say one thing but it makes no logical sense.
Science is the basis for logic and reasoning. You shouldn't believe something without real life evidence. That is the EXACT same thing as using experience as evidence.

So yes, you do use science to back up your beliefs, and yes you do believe that macros matter.

Science does help me in the gym as well as out of it. Studying to be a physician. Unless you think doctors should say "**** science" just like you [think you do].
By saying science doesn't matter you are saying no research, no study, no data complied to show us how the body works, is worth anything. Sorry but there couldn't be a more asinine insinuation.

[Serpentarius]

Science does help me in the gym as well as out of it. Studying to be a physician. Unless you think doctors should say "**** science" just like you [think you do]..

Ok so knowing "nutrition" timing is irrelevant, and its not about what you eat, getting macro minimums is extremely easy, and the only thing needed to build muscle is progressive overload and increased workload, how will being a physician help you?
Is that degree going to physically help you move a weight? Does it multiply how fast your body can heal? Elaborate please.

[tonyflo04]

I eat at a deficit and endure I get ample protein...beyond that I dont count carbs...I still have plenty of torso mass to lose and that will go away with cutting calories and workouts. Doing exactly that has gotten me from 430+ to 218 in about 11 months

From This


to this


since 13 May 2013. calories in/calories out matters

(i dont even recognize that guy in the 1st photo)

[ironmaniac508]

I eat at a deficit and endure I get ample protein...beyond that I dont count carbs...I still have plenty of torso mass to lose and that will go away with cutting calories and workouts. Doing exactly that has gotten me from 430+ to 218 in about 11 months

From This


to this


since 13 May 2013. calories in/calories out matters

(i dont even recognize that guy in the 1st photo)

Excellent progress....What I like is how you didn't obsess about tiny details to lose weight, you looked at the big picture and applied basic nutritional concepts using your intuition.

The only time someone should be super obsessed with their nutrition is if they are competing for a bodybuilding contest, and want to win. Other than that, obsessing about dieting leads to nowhere in the long term.

[KramericaInd]

My problem isn't what you are saying, it's how you say it.
You ARE saying macros are important. What is important is meeting the minimums, and that the minimums are so easy to meet you don't need to be super strict to be confident in meeting them.
Then you turn around and say "Oh science doesn't matter" yet want to turn around and talk about "evidence" and "research" (Uhhh science) to back up your views. If science is so stupid to you, don't try to use it to back you up.
Another one: Instead of saying "You have to find out what works for you" (Which I agree with 100% btw) you say "Science won't help you, you have to figure out what experience tells you"

I want to bang my head into a desk. Your ability to logically reason is very poor and it makes reading your comments very difficult. You say one thing but it makes no logical sense.
Science is the basis for logic and reasoning. You shouldn't believe something without real life evidence. That is the EXACT same thing as using experience as evidence.

So yes, you do use science to back up your beliefs, and yes you do believe that macros matter.

Science does help me in the gym as well as out of it. Studying to be a physician. Unless you think doctors should say "**** science" just like you [think you do].
By saying science doesn't matter you are saying no research, no study, no data complied to show us how the body works, is worth anything. Sorry but there couldn't be a more asinine insinuation.

Connor, it's time for bed son.

[blacksage83]

I eat at a deficit and endure I get ample protein...beyond that I dont count carbs...I still have plenty of torso mass to lose and that will go away with cutting calories and workouts. Doing exactly that has gotten me from 430+ to 218 in about 11 months

From This


to this


since 13 May 2013. calories in/calories out matters

(i dont even recognize that guy in the 1st photo)

Awesome progress, great thread.

[mavajo]

Lots of silliness in this thread.

Calories in v. calories out are all that matter in terms of weight loss. For optimal fat loss, macros play a part.

However, Serp's right - we tend to over-obsess about macros. This is primarily because we exaggerate protein needs. Most recommendations around here would have people eating 150-250g of protein. That's just overkill. 100g is plenty for most - likely even 50g. Once you put protein needs into a more reasonable light, you realize that most people will hit their protein needs without really paying much attention to macros.

NOTE: For a guy near his genetic potential and/or significant muscle mass, protein would likely be higher. But even then, I can't imagine anyone that would need more than 150g per day. Most people on here are just fat guys trying to get lean, and there's no way they need 150g+ of protein per day to maintain their muscle mass.

Now with all of that said, we all put a lot of work into maintaining our diets. So if spending a little time monitoring macros helps ensure that you're hitting them, then that's time reasonably spent, IMO. But it's nothing worth agonizing over, unless you just have a monumentally retarded diet. Or you're a vegetarian/vegan.

[ConnorKershaw]

For weight loss ratios are not important it's all down to deficit but having structure to your diet will help

[th3pwn3r]

My protein intake has been in the 50-100 range a day for a long time now, I haven't noticed any real difference in comparison to the 150-200grams I used to take in.

[TheLongRun]

My protein intake has been in the 50-100 range a day for a long time now, I haven't noticed any real difference in comparison to the 150-200grams I used to take in.

Yeah, I've been keeping it in this range usually too. The only difference I noticed was an increase in appetite. How's your hunger been with the lower protein intake?
I'll add that if I want to keep calories really low for a few days, lots of lean meat and green veggies is the only way I can do it.

[th3pwn3r]

I'd say just the same but I'm pretty used to just ignoring a hungry feeling.

[stingray72]

truth is, the industry wants you to think this whole diet thing is way more complicated than it is. if more people knew the truth, diet coaches trying to sell you meal plans wouldnt exist and supplement companies would be way less successful. for the average person looking to lose weight and get in better shape, all you need to do is lift weights, eat a balanced diet, and have an idea of your caloric intake. unless youre eating like an immature 12 year old, youll be getting in plenty of protein. and stop obsessing over how big your caloric deficit is, youre not going to lose muscle.

This^^^^

[stingray72]

The thing is, you are new here, less than a month, there is no reason to be worried about being taken seriously in any way by a novice, especially one without any real lifting history or impressive transformation. Hard work will earn respect, but you havent produced any.
Also, there are many benefits to a high carbohydrate diet, sounds like you need to read upon the effects it has on the thyroid and how it lowers the actual protein requirement as well.
Your science isnt going to help you in the gym or out of it though, at the end of the day common sense about everything and finding out what works through EXPERIENCE and what has worked for others (we are all the same so what works for one will work for the other) always prevails. A deficit and meeting your nutrition requirements (which are very little) are all that is needed, it really is that easy.

You say its better to have a protein focused diet, please tell me how i am supposed to spend my 4000 calories on a protein based diet, let me guess, 500g a day? You speak as if a higher protein intake "diet" is superior when there are 0 benefits other than satiety.

I also want to add that excessive protein intake has been proven scientifically to lower testosterone levels. Time to go do my cardio.

[ironmaniac508]

I also want to add that excessive protein intake has been proven scientifically to lower testosterone levels. Time to go do my cardio.

You all might like this site, a lot of credible information that also takes health into consideration...http://www.peaktestosterone.com/

[Dajinn]

Okay, so basically, from reading everything up this point in the thread, macros do matter to some extent, many recommendations for certain macros are exaggerated, and minimum ratios can be met easily without having to kill yourself.

With that said,

what is a generally recommended ratio for someone who wants to cut and have a nice recomp? My primary goal is to cut and retain lean mass, not bulk, not any of that. My body looks like crap and the fat needs to come off. But as was earlier said if macros matter for body comp then I don't want to just cut and be skinny fat. Unless he was just sensationalizing his own opinion, who knows.

Thanks again everyone for the input, it's very enlightening.

[Serpentarius]

what is a generally recommended ratio for someone who wants to cut and have a nice recomp? My primary goal is to cut .

once again, ratios are irrelevant and useless if you have the basic concept of math down

[Dajinn]

no offense sir, but that doesn't make sense to me. ratios are irrelevant if you have basic math down? what good is the math if you're not applying it based on anything. your suggestions are to meet minimum nutrition requirements, which is what presumably you're saying to base the basic math off of. so what are they? a total random guy who is not informed about anything on the subject would be like swatting at a fly in the dark. I am sure that everyone has basic math down. but I guess what I should have asked is, besides 0.64g/lb to 0.80g/lb of the daily recommended intake for protein, what are the other suggestions for fat and carbs?

most of the information in the thread so far has been good but there has also been much arguing over semantics. like that one guy who said "oh yeah, if you hit 100g of protein then you don't need to worry about getting the other 100g, just load up with carbs instead". but what if you've hit 100g of protein from 5 servings of whey which is only 600 calories? do you fill up the other 1200 calories purely with carbs which could easily put you in the 300g range? I am sure that there are plenty of carbohydrate dense foods that also contain fats, but the numbers are important because they are what you base a so called "balanced" diet off of, and not just pure conjecture and "having basic math skills".

i guess what it sounds like is you should focus on hitting the minimums and not focusing on completely filling out your caloric requirements on a 1:1 scale with the exact amount of protein, the exact amount of fat, and the exact amount of carbs that make up that requirement(e.g. hit 100g of protein for 600 calories and then hit the other 1200 with a random/balanced mix of carbs/fats regardless of ratios).

thank you.