Do you think macronutrients matter?

[Ronin4help]

Nutrition is one of those subjects people feel very strongly about. I don't know why but it's a hot button. People call others who believe differently derogatory names as if that person is truly trying to be negligent and ignorant. The fact is, none of us truly knows what happens to macros in the body. We know what we read, what makes sense and what correlates with results achieved by clients and ourselves. It's why we preach carbs in one era, then high protein in another, this diet and then that, proteins are good but now gluten is bad, veggies are good now only organic veggies are good, egg whites only now egg whites with yolk, fats are worse than carbs now carbs are worse than fats, ketosis is bad now ketosis is good and on and on and on... Heck we can't even get CPR right. Now you are supposed to start with the heart pumps but for decades the AHA taught breaths first. It's ever evolving and we are all trying to do our best.

[klaximilian]

Intrigued by the maximum levels of broscience being spewed by our good friend Ramsden, I decided to check out his website and stumbled across a couple videos that fit his M.O. - crapping on the fitness industry and it's professionals in an attempt to prop himself and look better. He's doing a damn good job in this thread of discrediting all the hard work he's put in to separate himself from these "bad" trainers.

But I digress.

The video on the front page is conveniently (and ironically) named "Pathetic Trainer of the Day." There are also a couple other "blogs" for lack of a better term in which he also attempts to take a dump on the fitness industry's "uneducated professionals" or by declaring Personal Trainers as a top 10 "worst things about the gym." Holy insecurities, Batman! But back to this pathetic trainer of the day....

Now, unfortunately I only got 13 seconds into the video before Francis (Ramsden) over here mentioned his super important post-workout protein drink, followed up with a post-workout recovery drink. At that point I spit coffee all over my keyboard. The broscience is very, very strong in this one.

Now, Pal, no one is going to attempt to argue with you because you're arrogant and entirely misinformed - An absolute Broscientist if you will. They'd probably have a better shot at teaching an ISIS extremist about Jesus Christ and converting them.

And for the record since you referenced him in post #21, the highest protein needs as said by Mr. Alan Aragon himself is 2.7g/kg OR 1.23g/lb. I'm surprised you don't seem to know this.

[RamsdenF]

Intrigued by the maximum levels of broscience being spewed by our good friend Ramsden, I decided to check out his website and stumbled across a couple videos that fit his M.O. - crapping on the fitness industry and it's professionals in an attempt to prop himself and look better. He's doing a damn good job in this thread of discrediting all the hard work he's put in to separate himself from these "bad" trainers.

But I digress.

The video on the front page is conveniently (and ironically) named "Pathetic Trainer of the Day." There are also a couple other "blogs" for lack of a better term in which he also attempts to take a dump on the fitness industry's "uneducated professionals" or by declaring Personal Trainers as a top 10 "worst things about the gym." Holy insecurities, Batman! But back to this pathetic trainer of the day....

Now, unfortunately I only got 13 seconds into the video before Francis (Ramsden) over here mentioned his super important post-workout protein drink, followed up with a post-workout recovery drink. At that point I spit coffee all over my keyboard. The broscience is very, very strong in this one.

Now, Pal, no one is going to attempt to argue with you because you're arrogant and entirely misinformed - An absolute Broscientist if you will. They'd probably have a better shot at teaching an ISIS extremist about Jesus Christ and converting them.

And for the record since you referenced him in post #21, the highest protein needs as said by Mr. Alan Aragon himself is 2.7g/kg OR 1.23g/lb. I'm surprised you don't seem to know this.

Soooo you're not going to follow me on Instagram then?

[Mcfreako]

Intrigued by the maximum levels of broscience being spewed by our good friend Ramsden, I decided to check out his website and stumbled across a couple videos that fit his M.O. - crapping on the fitness industry and it's professionals in an attempt to prop himself and look better. He's doing a damn good job in this thread of discrediting all the hard work he's put in to separate himself from these "bad" trainers.

But I digress.

The video on the front page is conveniently (and ironically) named "Pathetic Trainer of the Day." There are also a couple other "blogs" for lack of a better term in which he also attempts to take a dump on the fitness industry's "uneducated professionals" or by declaring Personal Trainers as a top 10 "worst things about the gym." Holy insecurities, Batman! But back to this pathetic trainer of the day....

Now, unfortunately I only got 13 seconds into the video before Francis (Ramsden) over here mentioned his super important post-workout protein drink, followed up with a post-workout recovery drink. At that point I spit coffee all over my keyboard. The broscience is very, very strong in this one.

Now, Pal, no one is going to attempt to argue with you because you're arrogant and entirely misinformed - An absolute Broscientist if you will. They'd probably have a better shot at teaching an ISIS extremist about Jesus Christ and converting them.

And for the record since you referenced him in post #21, the highest protein needs as said by Mr. Alan Aragon himself is 2.7g/kg OR 1.23g/lb. I'm surprised you don't seem to know this.

lol

Game over.

[doughnut91]

Soooo you're not going to follow me on Instagram then?

Rumbled

[WoofieNugget]

Again, there are a lot of college graduates who may not be the brightest of the brightest because not all schools are created equal. However, the fact that they were smart enough to at least get accepted into college and had the ambition, focus and determination to not only finish but graduate with a degree is an accomplishment no one who didn't attend can ever know the meaning of. An industry filled with college graduates is an industry everyone wants to be associated with. An industry filled with certificate holders and high school drop outs is not. That is why those with a degree scream it out loud. They want others to know not everyone holds a weekend cert. It helps the industry's image. Surely you can agree with that.

I definitely agree and support that. My degree is in psychology because I got it a few years before I got into the fitness industry (and before you say that it taught me to learn - it didn't - it taught me how to party and pass exams hung over). I do not believe, however that any trainer should be defined by whether or not they have a piece of paper on the wall. When I decided to get into fitness I took a two year college diploma in fitness instead of doing another full four year degree, and I can honestly say that it taught me far more practical information that I was able to apply to clients than people I worked with who had degrees.

Book knowledge is one thing, but I think the best trainers are a good balance of both book smarts and practical application - many excellent and very knowledgeable trainers I consider colleagues don't have degrees, but they constantly upgrade their knowledge and are always learning and they are amazing with their clients.

[jonmd123]

It's kind of sad this topic has to be discussed in this detail.

Every personal training, strength and conditioning, and government organization recommends (roughly) the same protein requirements - anywhere between 0.5-1.2g/pound. Do you think they pull these numbers out of thin air? Every textbook has multiple research articles footnoted, so all you have to do is open a book if you want research that refutes your arguments.

Furthermore, it's silly to even talk about protein in terms of grams/pound because everyone is going to have different calorie requirements based on their activity level - not to mention, the quality of protein plays a huge role as well. My recommendation was based off general assumptions that would fit for 95% of our adult clients that we work with. To compare a fairly sedentary adult to an athlete that might need 2-3x the calories per pound of body weight is extremely misguided.

I don't normally like to get involved in these type of arguments, but I feel it's important that people get the facts, not some anecdotal recommendation of "optimal" protein consumption based on their own experience.

[RamsdenF]

Jon...Id like to pick your brain and have a logical discussion about some things.

Every personal training, strength and conditioning, and government organization recommends (roughly) the same protein requirements - anywhere between 0.5-1.2g/pound.

First off the high portion of the range you listed is right in the range that I recommend, so we are not THAT far off from one another. But why do you have this "blind trust" in what some association or even worse THE GOVERNMENT says? These are the same people responsible for the RDA, etc and these numbers are way off.

Furthermore, it's silly to even talk about protein in terms of grams/pound because everyone is going to have different calorie requirements based on their activity level - not to mention, the quality of protein plays a huge role as well.

Dead on about the "quality" of protein.

If you think its "silly" to base protein guidelines based upon bodyweight....then what do you base it off of? Do you base it off "activity levels"?

My recommendation was based off general assumptions that would fit for 95% of our adult clients that we work with. To compare a fairly sedentary adult to an athlete that might need 2-3x the calories per pound of body weight is extremely misguided.

Ok....your going to have to clarify this one for me.

Do you really classify 95% of your clientele as "fairly sedentary"? I think you are exaggerating greatly here to try to make your point sound stronger. By having structured workouts in their weekly lives, they will be atleast moderately-vigorously active. You are severely underestimating your clients here.

Just by looking at your gym....it's a "sports performance" style gym. Lots of turf, free weights, platforms etc. Any individual training 2,3,4, times a week in an environment like this is certainly close to the vigorously(highly) active end of the spectrum. I'd go as far as to even say they classify as "athletes". I think this term is being confused with "Elite Level Athlete". For instance....I workout 1-1.5 hours 5-6 days a week. I would consider myself an "athlete" under these circumstances.

I don't normally like to get involved in these type of arguments, but I feel it's important that people get the facts, not some anecdotal recommendation of "optimal" protein consumption based on their own experience.

Well considering I am the only one who posted any studies in this thread, I don't see how you can say I am using "anecdotal" evidence and somehow not using "facts", but everyone on your side of the debate is.

[jonmd123]

Jon...Id like to pick your brain and have a logical discussion about some things.

First off the high portion of the range you listed is right in the range that I recommend, so we are not THAT far off from one another. But why do you have this "blind trust" in what some association or even worse THE GOVERNMENT says? These are the same people responsible for the RDA, etc and these numbers are way off.

Dead on about the "quality" of protein.

If you think its "silly" to base protein guidelines based upon bodyweight....then what do you base it off of? Do you base it off "activity levels"?

Ok....your going to have to clarify this one for me.

Do you really classify 95% of your clientele as "fairly sedentary"? I think you are exaggerating greatly here to try to make your point sound stronger. By having structured workouts in their weekly lives, they will be atleast moderately-vigorously active. You are severely underestimating your clients here.

Just by looking at your gym....it's a "sports performance" style gym. Lots of turf, free weights, platforms etc. Any individual training 2,3,4, times a week in an environment like this is certainly close to the vigorously(highly) active end of the spectrum. I'd go as far as to even say they classify as "athletes". I think this term is being confused with "Elite Level Athlete". For instance....I workout 1-1.5 hours 5-6 days a week. I would consider myself an "athlete" under these circumstances.

Well considering I am the only one who posted any studies in this thread, I don't see how you can say I am using "anecdotal" evidence and somehow not using "facts", but everyone on your side of the debate is.

Honestly are you just trolling now?

1. I "blindly" trust these organizations because their recommendations are based off research. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there is a world-wide protein conspiracy to get personal trainers to recommend lower than ideal protein consumption to their clients.

2. I base it primarily off percentage of total calories. Should a 160lb woman that works out 3x/week have the same protein requirements as a 160lb man that does ultra marathons?

3. My clients don't matter - my recommendation was for OP's client. Furthermore, this is a personal training forum and I would say 9/10 adults that hire personal trainers are doing so because they don't workout on their own. However you want to look at it, I was implying that an adult that wants to put on a few pounds of muscle needs nowhere near as many calories as an athlete that is training multiply hours a day.

4. Your studies were not even relevant to OPs clients and half of them refuted your own recommendations. In the nutrition section alone of my NSCA book there are over 100 citations. If you are as serious about research as you say you are, I'm sure you'll be able to find a few of these on your own.

[WoofieNugget]

Honestly are you just trolling now?

1. I "blindly" trust these organizations because their recommendations are based off research. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there is a world-wide protein conspiracy to get personal trainers to recommend lower than ideal protein consumption to their clients.

2. I base it primarily off percentage of total calories. Should a 160lb woman that works out 3x/week have the same protein requirements as a 160lb man that does ultra marathons?

3. My clients don't matter - my recommendation was for OP's client. Furthermore, this is a personal training forum and I would say 9/10 adults that hire personal trainers are doing so because they don't workout on their own. However you want to look at it, I was implying that an adult that wants to put on a few pounds of muscle needs nowhere near as many calories as an athlete that is training multiply hours a day.

4. Your studies were not even relevant to OPs clients and half of them refuted your own recommendations. In the nutrition section alone of my NSCA book there are over 100 citations. If you are as serious about research as you say you are, I'm sure you'll be able to find a few of these on your own.

[SerpentHearted]

i lost interest in reading all the bickering but my understanding is that recent research suggests 1.8g per kg of lean bodyweight is the optimum for athletes.
with that being said i find that my clients tend to see better results on around 30% of whatever I decide is an appropriate total calorie target. 1.8g per kg is definitely adequate though.

grams to lb of body weight is too confusing to even contemplate. metric system or gtfo not mix and match!

[RamsdenF]

Honestly are you just trolling now?

Lol no....I happen to just challenge people on their tightly held beliefs. I want to elicit rational, thought-out, intelligent responses instead of having individuals just drone on and on saying the same things. I like discussions. It's how people evolve their beliefs and thoughts. I don't think you would have liked a fellow by the name of Socrates too much....

For the record, I think you are doing a pretty good job of articulating your points.

1. I "blindly" trust these organizations because their recommendations are based off research. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there is a world-wide protein conspiracy to get personal trainers to recommend lower than ideal protein consumption to their clients.

Do me a favor...I want you to watch this video starting at the 3minute mark.(whole thing is good too)

http://youtu.be/KnCJJD4ior0

What you are going to notice is a pattern in recommendations from all these "organizations" that you inherently follow. Its an UPWARD trend. Alan goes on to say "most organizations get stuck at 1.2-1.7 g/kg" and don't acknowledge anything like 1g/lb. It all depends upon the individual. People seeking to gain muscle mass need to be on the upper range to optimize results. As opposed to a 250lb man looking to lose weight. Im not going to make him eat 300g+ of protein.

Does this make any sense? Do you see why I question your adherence to a textbook without thinking outside of that book? I'm ACSM certified, but that doesn't mean I stick to every recommendation in the ACSM textbook.

2. I base it primarily off percentage of total calories. Should a 160lb woman that works out 3x/week have the same protein requirements as a 160lb man that does ultra marathons?

Obviously no. Every individual is different which is why "blanket nutritional programs" are trash.

Although there is nothing wrong with a 160lb woman trying to intake close to 160g of protein a day whether she is losing weight or gaining weight.

Lets bring focus back to the OP since that is what started the whole thing; not a 160lb woman or some elite athlete.

You say you base your macro splits on %.....so for the 147lb male looking to gain muscle, what % macro split does he get in your book?

3. My clients don't matter....Furthermore, this is a personal training forum and I would say 9/10 adults that hire personal trainers are doing so because they don't workout on their own. However you want to look at it, I was implying that an adult that wants to put on a few pounds of muscle needs nowhere near as many calories as an athlete that is training multiply hours a day.

Can we kill this comparison to an elite athlete yet? Nowhere was it ever recommended that OP's client eat a 4k+ diet.

These 9/10 adults you mention that don't workout.....do they continue to not workout after hiring a personal trainer or do they begin to workout?

You can no longer treat them as "fairly sedentary" when they no longer are. Basing their protein intake/caloric needs upon "wellllll they used to be sedentary" is not valid. They are now moderate to vigorously active and nutrition should reflect that. As a note, this is not a sudden or "haul over" change. But to keep repeating this theme that "the average population are fairly sedentary and don't need a lot of protein" is based upon false premises.

4. Your studies were not even relevant to OPs clients

"This review supports our protein spread and change theories [11] as possible explanations for discrepancies in the protein and resistance training literature. In our previous review, we demonstrated that spread and change in study protein intakes may be important factors predicting potential to benefit from increased protein during a weight management intervention. In studies from the present review that showed greater muscular benefits of higher protein, there was a greater % spread between the g/kg/day intake of the higher protein group and control. Additionally, that the higher protein group’s during study g/kg/day protein intake is substantially different than baseline is important. With minimal spreads and changes from habitual intake there are little additional muscular benefits from higher protein interventions. Evidence weighs heavily toward muscular benefits from increased protein [1-10]. "

"A randomized controlled trial of 39 adults assigned the subjects diets providing protein at 0.8 (recommended dietary allowance; RDA), 1.6 (2×-RDA), and 2.4 (3×-RDA) g kg(-1) d(-1) for 31 d. A 10-d weight-maintenance (WM) period was followed by a 21 d, 40% ED. Body composition and postabsorptive and postprandial muscle protein synthesis were assessed during WM (d 9-10) and ED (d 30-31). Volunteers lost (P<0.05) 3.2 ± 0.2 kg body weight during ED regardless of dietary protein. The proportion of weight loss due to reductions in fat-free mass was lower (P<0.05) and the loss of fat mass was higher (P<0.05) in those receiving 2×-RDA and 3×-RDA compared to RDA."




Quotes taken directly from the studies I posted. Bring your attention the BOLD AND UNDERLINED. "Weight management intervention" and "adults" is NOT interchangeable for ELITE ATHLETE.

[RamsdenF]

with that being said i find that my clients tend to see better results on around 30% of whatever I decide is an appropriate total calorie target.

This is good critical thinking ^ ....even if you don't agree with me Serpent.

You have to use BOTH research/studies and REAL RESULTS.

So for an individual who is consuming a 3000 calories diet you would have about 225g as a target protein goal correct? Someone on a 2,200 calorie diet shoots for about 165g?

[jonmd123]

Just to stir the pot with Ramsden and Ronin

http://www.ericcressey.com/how-much-...ou-really-need

[RamsdenF]

Just to stir the pot with Ramsden and Ronin

http://www.ericcressey.com/how-much-...ou-really-need

I'm still waiting for your responses to above questions. We all know you don't REALLY want a discussion.

You'd rather do your little "hit n run" comments and be a mouthpiece for others. It's called critical thinking. Think for yourself and articulate your own points.

[Ronin4help]

Just to stir the pot with Ramsden and Ronin

http://www.ericcressey.com/how-much-...ou-really-need

Before I even consider clicking....Who the fuk is Eric Ressey and why should anyone care what he thinks?

[Endevorforever]

Okay so some non broscience:

4 kcals for every gram of protein. 1.5 grams for a 200lb person = 1200 kcals.

A typical caloric intake for a 200lb male is 2400 to 2800 kcals a day. So 300g of protein is high but it is a high protein or protein focused diet.

Now people should be concerned about the side effects of a macro-nutrient ratio like this (where half of your calories are coming from protein) rather than is it "optimal". You obviously would rather have a client getting 50% of their Calories from protein than from carbs or fat because, it is more difficult to store protein as fat. The potential effect from a high protein diet is Ketosis, and that would be a decision the client and doctor would want to discuss. the 1.0-1.5g per pound of body weight is a "keto" like diet.