Any benefit to specific carb/fat/protein targets?

[Predderz]

I'm a little confused, because I know most people on these forums advocate the approach of meeting minimums for fat and protein, and then filling the rest of calories with personal preference. But in Alan Aragon's book "The Lean Muscle Diet" he gives a specific target for protein (1g/lb target body weight), and only a range for fat (0.4-0.7 g/lb tbw). He doesn't say to hit protein and fat minimums then fill the rest. I think the book is aimed at the general layperson looking to lose weight/build muscle, so why the range? Is there any benefit to getting close to specific numbers every day? I also noticed the sticky for calculating calories and macros has the same range for fat (0.4-0.7 g/lb)
I would find it much more enjoyable being able to fluctuate my macros (whilst hitting minimums) every day because i don't fancy eating the same types of foods every day.

[Mrpb]

I'm not sure why Alan mentions 0.7 gram fat as an upper limit.

I like the way Lyle does it: Fat 0.45-1 g/lb (1-2.2 g/kg)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...gains-qa.html/

[Predderz]

Yeah that range seems a lot more lenient than 0.4-0.7. I forgot to mention that I saw a video in which Alan aragon says "I typically throw out a range of 0.3-0.6g/lb" when referring to fat intake, which seems pretty restrictive.

Using the range that Lyle gives, is there any benefit to picking a specific number in that range and sticking with it? (im speaking with regards to body composition as opposed to adherence/ performance/ etc)
Or can you just vary the amount within that range on a day to day basis?

[Mrpb]

Unless you're planning on competing soon I wouldn't worry about it.

Some people may say it has an advantage but afaik there's no science to support it.

[alan aragon]

I'm a little confused, because I know most people on these forums advocate the approach of meeting minimums for fat and protein, and then filling the rest of calories with personal preference. But in Alan Aragon's book "The Lean Muscle Diet" he gives a specific target for protein (1g/lb target body weight), and only a range for fat (0.4-0.7 g/lb tbw). He doesn't say to hit protein and fat minimums then fill the rest. I think the book is aimed at the general layperson looking to lose weight/build muscle, so why the range? Is there any benefit to getting close to specific numbers every day? I also noticed the sticky for calculating calories and macros has the same range for fat (0.4-0.7 g/lb)
I would find it much more enjoyable being able to fluctuate my macros (whilst hitting minimums) every day because i don't fancy eating the same types of foods every day.

The 0.4-0.7 g/lg range is directed specifically at the LMD audience, which essentially is the Men's Health Magazine audience, the majority of whom are concerned with fat loss primarily, muscle gain secondarily. I've found that imposing this structure with this audience has been beneficial for not letting them accidentally overshoot EITHER carbs or fat (& thus total kcals). That, plus Lou's training program goes well with a diet that's not severely carb-restricted. I personally could not give a sh!t if anyeone decides to go significantly beyond 0.7 g/lb in fat if they are enjoying their diet and making progress toward their goals. One thing the book needs more of, in retrospect, is more discussion of dietary adjustment and individualization outside of the typical MH reader. That's an idea for my next book, which will be out hopefully some time before I'm 50.

[gbullock32]

The 0.4-0.7 g/lg range is directed specifically at the LMD audience, which essentially is the Men's Health Magazine audience, the majority of whom are concerned with fat loss primarily, muscle gain secondarily. I've found that imposing this structure with this audience has been beneficial for not letting them accidentally overshoot EITHER carbs or fat (& thus total kcals). That, plus Lou's training program goes well with a diet that's not severely carb-restricted. I personally could not give a sh!t if anyeone decides to go significantly beyond 0.7 g/lb in fat if they are enjoying their diet and making progress toward their goals. One thing the book needs more of, in retrospect, is more discussion of dietary adjustment and individualization outside of the typical MH reader. That's an idea for my next book, which will be out hopefully some time before I'm 50.

A wild Alan Aragon appears!

[alan aragon]

A wild Alan Aragon appears!

Wild and uncensored!!!!1

PS - I edited your quote of mine to reflect my edit (lol, OCD).

[CMStephens93]

Unless you're planning on competing soon I wouldn't worry about it.

Some people may say it has an advantage but afaik there's no science to support it.

What advantage are you referring to?

[Mrpb]

What advantage are you referring to?

Maximising carb intake can have performance benefits in those with good insulin sensitivity, optimising fat intake can have hormonal benefits etc.

[CMStephens93]

Maximising carb intake can have performance benefits in those with good insulin sensitivity, optimising fat intake can have hormonal benefits etc.

Not to derail the thread, but have you seen any substantial evidence showing that outside of caloric intake itself, manipulation of carb intake vs fat intake is necessary when trying to optimize body comp? For example, the leangains/martin berkhan way of lowering carb intake/raising fat intake on off days and keeping fat lower/carbs higher on training days?

I cant ever find any real evidence aside from anecdotes where people say they can keep insulin sensitivity in check by manipulating carb/fat calorie allocation, especially during a bulk or gaining phase

[Mrpb]

Not to derail the thread, but have you seen any substantial evidence showing that outside of caloric intake itself, manipulation of carb intake vs fat intake is necessary when trying to optimize body comp? For example, the leangains/martin berkhan way of lowering carb intake/raising fat intake on off days and keeping fat lower/carbs higher on training days?

I cant ever find any real evidence aside from anecdotes where people say they can keep insulin sensitivity in check by manipulating carb/fat calorie allocation, especially during a bulk or gaining phase

I haven't come across relevant studies.

I do believe it's beneficial to eat more calories on workout days as opposed to rest days, especially in more advanced lifters.

I do not believe in raising fat intake on rest days.

[CMStephens93]

I haven't come across relevant studies.

I do believe it's beneficial to eat more calories on workout days as opposed to rest days, especially in more advanced lifters.

I do not believe in raising fat intake on rest days.

Right. I have always eaten less calories on rest days as well.

I guess my question was, a simple reduction in carbs should suffice on rest days

[Mrpb]

I guess my question was, a simple reduction in carbs should suffice on rest days

That's what I think too.

[Predderz]

Didn't expect a reply from Alan himself, awesome!
Thanks for the help

[CasnOwns]

A wild Alan Aragon appears!

And not for the first time. I think he's s closet lurker. Frequently searching for himself being mentioned in new threads.

[alan aragon]

And not for the first time. I think he's s closet lurker. Frequently searching for himself being mentioned in new threads.

Well, I *am* a moderator - I gotta pay some degree of attention to what goes on around here & help keep the place clean.

[dbx]

Well, I *am* a moderator - I gotta pay some degree of attention to what goes on around here & help keep the place clean.

Cheesy reply!

[CasnOwns]

Well, I *am* a moderator - I gotta pay some degree of attention to what goes on around here & help keep the place clean.

Ahh, fair enough. Just messin' anyway. Do your thing bossman.

[dbx]

And fwiw, it's pretty eye-opening after being here for "X" number of years. Nothing really changes. Newbies all ask the same questions (pretty much), and BBing nutrition myths still rule the day, despite some of them finally being put to rest.

And for you newest members, you can't imagine the patience that it takes for the MODs and other senior members here to answer what amounts to 'the same old, same old" on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. Be aware of what you're told, but always....always...do some of your own research!