PDA

View Full Version : trainer gave me macro nutrient advice seems off, your advice?



zack3334
06-24-2012, 04:08 AM
hey guys new to the forums (so no rep power haha) i can usually find what i'm looking on here but no luck so i'm posting my own, i was at my gym and was speaking to the personal trainer and they said for fat loss goals my carbs:protein:fat ratio should be 50:30:20 and for me i have to have 2700 calories a day which and with a 500 calorie deficit is 2200 which equals to about 275 g carbs:165 g protein:49 g fat my weight lifting program is pretty intense i do two 20 minute sessions of HIIT training a day but for the rest of the day i'm pretty much sedentary i'm 5 foot 7 150 pounds, and what i was wonder is it just me or does 50 percent of your macros coming from carbs seem high for losing weight , what is your take on it what should be the proper ratio be, and any other advice nutrition wise would be a great help

thanks!

WonderPug
06-24-2012, 04:09 AM
Fire that trainer. Seriously.

To learn the basics about nutrition, please see:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136691851

nobrah
06-24-2012, 05:20 AM
hey guys new to the forums (so no rep power haha) i can usually find what i'm looking on here but no luck so i'm posting my own, i was at my gym and was speaking to the personal trainer and they said for fat loss goals my carbs:protein:fat ratio should be 50:30:20 and for me i have to have 2700 calories a day which and with a 500 calorie deficit is 2200 which equals to about 275 g carbs:165 g protein:49 g fat my weight lifting program is pretty intense i do two 20 minute sessions of HIIT training a day but for the rest of the day i'm pretty much sedentary i'm 5 foot 7 150 pounds, and what i was wonder is it just me or does 50 percent of your macros coming from carbs seem high for losing weight , what is your take on it what should be the proper ratio be, and any other advice nutrition wise would be a great help

thanks!
Amazingly enough, your trainer stumbled on some numbers that aren't unreasonable. Usually those guys make the average nutritionist look like a genius.

I'd still second Pug's advice that you calculate your own numbers and try to understand why it's done the way it's done. Knowledge is power. :)

miacanesfan25
06-24-2012, 05:33 AM
I'm curious to know how your trainer came up with 2700? Did he just pick a number out of thin air? I 3rd what Pug said. Read the stickies and lean to properly calculate your needs then go from there. This stuff is simple. If you want to eat a lot of carbs that's your personal preference to decide. Once you meet fat and protein minimums you're free to spread the rest however you choose.

tlancione505
06-24-2012, 01:54 PM
I used macro nutrient ratios to lose some weight last year...but after throwing them to the wind I feel that (IMO) it's a waste of time to obsess over them....bottom line is you'll lose weight if you keep calories in < calories out...and you'll burn fat if you train in the right heart rate (try reading up on "fat-burning state" vs "glycogen burning state" or similar topics) you will feel/look bloated if you never empty your carb stores, but I've seen results with high carb levels as well as low....at the end of the day science says that protein and carbs have a positive correlation between ingestion and oxidization (i.e. as you consume more of each your body will utilize it), but that fat's correlation is a straight line (i.e. if you cross your fat threshold you're f***ed and new fat tissue just came to say "hai!!"), but everyone's body is different...so who the hell knows what your thresholds for protein/fat/carbs truly are until you try it right?

moral of the story, keep your calories below maintenance and exercise to create an additional deficit....and once in a while eat over maintenance to avoid plateaus....

My advice is to fill your calories this way:

First, get your minimum amount of protein (.7g/lb bodyweight), then fill the rest with starchy carbs (breads, etc) and healthy fats on workout days; on cardio/non-lift days use non-starchy carbs like low glycemic fruits, veggies, and milk/yogurt

Keep fat intake to less than 25% of calories

do that and save money on your trainer

PBateman2
06-24-2012, 02:49 PM
Did he just pick a number out of thin air? I 3rd what Pug said.

Fourth it.

Fire his ass. Save your money.

tden99
06-24-2012, 02:49 PM
I used macro nutrient ratios to lose some weight last year...but after throwing them to the wind I feel that (IMO) it's a waste of time to obsess over them....bottom line is you'll lose weight if you keep calories in < calories out...and you'll burn fat if you train in the right heart rate (try reading up on "fat-burning state" vs "glycogen burning state" or similar topics) you will feel/look bloated if you never empty your carb stores, but I've seen results with high carb levels as well as low....at the end of the day science says that protein and carbs have a positive correlation between ingestion and oxidization (i.e. as you consume more of each your body will utilize it), but that fat's correlation is a straight line (i.e. if you cross your fat threshold you're f***ed and new fat tissue just came to say "hai!!"), but everyone's body is different...so who the hell knows what your thresholds for protein/fat/carbs truly are until you try it right?

moral of the story, keep your calories below maintenance and exercise to create an additional deficit....and once in a while eat over maintenance to avoid plateaus....

My advice is to fill your calories this way:

First, get your minimum amount of protein (.7g/lb bodyweight), then fill the rest with starchy carbs (breads, etc) and healthy fats on workout days; on cardio/non-lift days use non-starchy carbs like low glycemic fruits, veggies, and milk/yogurt

Keep fat intake to less than 25% of calories

do that and save money on your trainer

Ignore this post.

The fat burning zone? come on man.

Follow the stickies

tlancione505
06-24-2012, 03:25 PM
Ignore this post.

The fat burning zone? come on man.

Follow the stickies

Lol obviously my advice rubbed someone the wrong way (come at me bro)

Yes, the fat burning zone....I wasted months of my life obsessing over 40% of this, 30% of that, 55% on this day, blah blah blah....when I took the time to read up on the actual scientific evidence behind it, I found that all that's necessary for muscle growth is progressive overload & a certain amount of aminos/protein in relation to the size of the individual (positive nitrogen balance).

For fat loss, all that is necessary is a net calorie deficit and the body's use (oxidization) of existing fat tissue for energy. Our bodies use the glucose that we've stored from previous meals as the first source of energy during movement/exercise...these stores exist in the muscles, liver, and fat tissue....once the body has exhausted those stores, it will go straight to using fat stores for energy, IF you don't over-exert yourself.

Instead of paying someone to give you math homework to do before you feed yourself each week, I am simply advocating sound nutrition principles and fasted training in the right ways as better ways to lose fat

Different heart rates trigger the body to use different energy stores for energy....too high of a heart rate = muscle tissue consumption. This is (IMO) why there are at least a handful of people that have been going to your gym for years, looking like they're about to die on the treadmill/elliptical for hours at a time, and yet look the same as they did X years ago.....they skip the fat oxidization zone and waste their muscle away (in addition to failing to strength train - "I don't want to get too big" - LOL)

Yes... "the fat burning zone"..

Aerobic exercise done at a percentage of the individual's target HR, usually around 65%-75% depending on the information source (often characterized by a "conversational pace", where one can almost hold a discussion during the activity) triggers the body to use fat stores for energy, not glycogen (muscle tissue). If you do cardio/weight training fasted, then you spend less time burning through what's stored in your muscles/liver from the last meal, and are quicker to use your existing fat stores for energy. By avoiding training at too high of a heart rate, you can ensure that the body spares muscle (which I'm assuming is important to you since this is BB.com and not a runner's forum)

I AGREE with the last bro's post; follow the stickies!

I don't think I said anything that goes against them other than not buying into excessive macro calculations...I was simply offering what has worked for me, because it has been proven first hand in my life, and is scientifically sound.

Once I quit obsessing over macros and started training fasted & using methods of intermittent fasting (leangains, eat stop eat, warrior diet), the pounds and bodyfat began to drip away, and my strength has increased (progressive overload regardless of diet, ftw)

Invest $12 in "Slow Burn" by Stu Mittleman it will increase your efficiency and happiness tenfold

Or just ignore everything I've said like the other brah said (u mad?)

Apex702
06-24-2012, 06:33 PM
Lol obviously my advice rubbed someone the wrong way (come at me bro)

Yes, the fat burning zone....I wasted months of my life obsessing over 40% of this, 30% of that, 55% on this day, blah blah blah....when I took the time to read up on the actual scientific evidence behind it, I found that all that's necessary for muscle growth is progressive overload & a certain amount of aminos/protein in relation to the size of the individual (positive nitrogen balance).

For fat loss, all that is necessary is a net calorie deficit and the body's use (oxidization) of existing fat tissue for energy. Our bodies use the glucose that we've stored from previous meals as the first source of energy during movement/exercise...these stores exist in the muscles, liver, and fat tissue....once the body has exhausted those stores, it will go straight to using fat stores for energy, IF you don't over-exert yourself.

Instead of paying someone to give you math homework to do before you feed yourself each week, I am simply advocating sound nutrition principles and fasted training in the right ways as better ways to lose fat

Different heart rates trigger the body to use different energy stores for energy....too high of a heart rate = muscle tissue consumption. This is (IMO) why there are at least a handful of people that have been going to your gym for years, looking like they're about to die on the treadmill/elliptical for hours at a time, and yet look the same as they did X years ago.....they skip the fat oxidization zone and waste their muscle away (in addition to failing to strength train - "I don't want to get too big" - LOL)

Yes... "the fat burning zone"..

Aerobic exercise done at a percentage of the individual's target HR, usually around 65%-75% depending on the information source (often characterized by a "conversational pace", where one can almost hold a discussion during the activity) triggers the body to use fat stores for energy, not glycogen (muscle tissue). If you do cardio/weight training fasted, then you spend less time burning through what's stored in your muscles/liver from the last meal, and are quicker to use your existing fat stores for energy. By avoiding training at too high of a heart rate, you can ensure that the body spares muscle (which I'm assuming is important to you since this is BB.com and not a runner's forum)

I AGREE with the last bro's post; follow the stickies!

I don't think I said anything that goes against them other than not buying into excessive macro calculations...I was simply offering what has worked for me, because it has been proven first hand in my life, and is scientifically sound.

Once I quit obsessing over macros and started training fasted & using methods of intermittent fasting (leangains, eat stop eat, warrior diet), the pounds and bodyfat began to drip away, and my strength has increased (progressive overload regardless of diet, ftw)

Invest $12 in "Slow Burn" by Stu Mittleman it will increase your efficiency and happiness tenfold

Or just ignore everything I've said like the other brah said (u mad?)

FYI: "Fat burning zone" = myth.

tlancione505
06-24-2012, 09:51 PM
FYI: "Fat burning zone" = myth.

troll?

determined4000
06-24-2012, 09:56 PM
troll?guess we know why your red

tlancione505
06-24-2012, 10:27 PM
yeah because i'm definitely not red due to the fact that i'm barely on here...that couldn't be it...it's definitely because of this

ok, how about this....this should make everyone here happy...

I'll man up and admit that body composition, diet, and v02 max of the individual ALL affect fat oxidization.

You can burn fat at ANY heart rate, given the right conditions

What I call the "fat burning zone" is simply fasted anaerobic training at a pace that does not overexert the individual - this is dependent on the physiology of the individual, and not a set formula...many fat oxidization studies have shown variation in trained vs untrained individuals, that v02 max and diet might play a role in fat burning during different intensities of exercise.....one could argue that the results are essentially inconclusive....

I'll retract what I said about the fat burning zone and let's just say that I advocate fasted training and caloric intake over macro manipulation... with the exception of keeping your total fat below 25%, and getting enough protein to maintain a positive nitrogen balance

Fasted anaerobic training 3-4x a week and moderate intensity fasted aerobic training worked great for me in dropping 24 lbs and reducing body fat by almost 8% (hydrostatic weight/bf tests 18 months apart come at me bro)...

The Stu Mittleman book I mentioned is still a treasure chest for body recomp and learning to enjoy cardio

These are some tools for burning more fat that i've enjoyed using, and I wanted to share them with you

I enjoy trollin, but it's definitely not the right way to start off in the forums...so here you have it, I'll humble myself, stfu and walk away, the bros above me have saved the world and set me straight in my ways...they can sleep better knowing they electronically bitch slapped some sense into me and now the bb.com community can all rest assured their malleable minds are safe from wrongdoing of people like me ;-)

WonderPug
06-24-2012, 10:32 PM
yeah because i'm definitely not red due to the fact that i'm barely on here...I don't know what you're "red", but I do know that the much of the information that you've posted in this thread is clearly erroneous.