Is there a single comprehensive meal plan out there that isn't garbage

[Vegiter]

Recipes you can find online typically have either garbage micros/macros or both, don't measure them at all, or are impossibly expansive and time consuming. Maybe I'm being unrealistic but is there anything out there that displays and provides :

- All our minerals and vitamins DV (Calcium, Copper, Zinc, Magnesium, Iron, Manganese, Phosphorus, Potassium, Selenium, vitamin E, D, B1-2-3-5-6-12, A, C, K, Folate, Choline)

- 200-250g of protein for optimal muscle synthesis

- Omega 3s and fibres

- Decent fat/carb ratio

- Cheap, quick and easy to prepare in bulk

- Delicious

Basically what any health conscious bodybuilder, that doesn't want to either spend 3 hours a day in the kitchen or eat canned raw tuna, would want. Yet it's oddly difficult to find, as if people are fixated on only one of those criteria at a time never looking at the big picture.

[blissful88]

I don't know of any specific plans but I will say that getting every vitamin you need without supplementing, in a day, is virtually non-existent. That's why it's important to eat different kinds of foods throughout the week, variety is key to a complete diet.

Also why the 200-250g protein per day? You'd have to be carrying 250-300lbs of lean body mass to justify that much protein.

[AdamWW]

I don't know of any specific plans but I will say that getting every vitamin you need without supplementing, in a day, is virtually non-existent. That's why it's important to eat different kinds of foods throughout the week, variety is key to a complete diet.

Totally false... if you eat 2 servings of fruit and several servings of veggies with the majority of other proteins/fats/carbs from whole food sources, you can easily hit your needs.

The only supplement I take is D3 because it's cloudy where I live... you do not need supplements.

[Vegiter]

I don't know of any specific plans but I will say that getting every vitamin you need without supplementing, in a day, is virtually non-existent. That's why it's important to eat different kinds of foods throughout the week, variety is key to a complete diet.

Also why the 200-250g protein per day? You'd have to be carrying 250-300lbs of lean body mass to justify that much protein.

That's not true, you can, I'm managing it right now keeping track with cronometer and using nutrient dense vegetables and lean meats. The problem is that what I'm eating boils down to stews and other mushes which gets really tiresome after a while.

You can absolutely synthesize 200-250g of protein in a day even below 150lbs of body mass. With 4-5 meals spaced out by 4-5 hours, protein synthesis constantly takes place at a rate of roughly 10g per hour. It will vary by individuals but most healthy males are in that range.
You can still build muscles at 100g, but why go two times slower?

[Vegiter]

Totally false... if you eat 2 servings of fruit and several servings of veggies with the majority of other proteins/fats/carbs from whole food sources, you can easily hit your needs.

The only supplement I take is D3 because it's cloudy where I live... you do not need supplements.

That's where I'm at right now. The problem is that I have 0 culinary skills or instincts, so transmuting those raw ingredients into a decent meal that can be split into 4 courses for the day is out of my skill set. And I'm just not the kind of guy that can go on eating simple ingredients for long without becoming edgy and frustrated over time. I've tried it for a few months but I'm still not getting used to it and if there's a way to turn healthy ingredients into simple easy to make comfort foods while keeping strict track of your daily macros and micros intake I'll immediately grab that opportunity.

[AdamWW]

You can absolutely synthesize 200-250g of protein in a day even below 150lbs of body mass. With 4-5 meals spaced out by 4-5 hours, protein synthesis constantly takes place at a rate of roughly 10g per hour. It will vary by individuals but most healthy males are in that range.
You can still build muscles at 100g, but why go two times slower?

Well there's an issue with this statement...

It's been shown that gains in net lean mass can be optimized with no more than .75g/lb of bodyweight per day.

Additionally, marginal increases in MPS from protein feedings seem to top out on average around 30g-40g per feeding of high quality protein, and this elevation persists for 3-5 hours depending on the individual (bodyweight, lean mass, etc)

So if a 200lb person were to consume 160g of protein per day (which is actually OVER the recommendation), spaced into 4 feedings of around 40g of protein, this is be more than enough to fully optimize both MPS from protein feedings and actual tissue repair from the total daily allotment of 160g.

Stimulating MPS per feeding and consuming enough total protein to facilitate repair in a 24 hour period are not the same thing.

[Vegiter]

It's been shown that gains in net lean mass can be optimized with no more than .75g/lb of bodyweight per day.

I found that there is no consensus whatsoever on protein synthesis, so I'm going for the worst case scenario. I've researched this topic for days in the past and you basically have hundreds of studies, meta analysis and vulgarizing articles contradicting one another. But one school of thought would have it that 200-250g is optimal therefore I would rather be on the safe side than risk it the other way. Nutritionists can't even agree on whether OMAD works as well or worse than spacing out protein intake over 5 meals.

So if a 200lb person were to consume 160g of protein per day (which is actually OVER the recommendation), spaced into 4 feedings of around 40g of protein, this is be more than enough to fully optimize both MPS from protein feedings and actual tissue repair from the total daily allotment of 160g.

Stimulating MPS per feeding and consuming enough total protein to facilitate repair in a 24 hour period are not the same thing.

160g is still pretty close to 200g, and we're talking ideal conditions. Your body might not always function optimally, what you eat alongside may affect synthesis through some complex mechanism, you may not space your meals properly in a day, you may not have the time to eat 4 times a day, you may swallow too quickly... I would rather be on the safe side again and give myself a few dozen additional grams as a margin of error than be missing on gains and wasting time.

[AdamWW]

I found that there is no consensus whatsoever on protein synthesis, so I'm going for the worst case scenario. I've researched this topic for days in the past and you basically have hundreds of studies, meta analysis and vulgarizing articles contradicting one another. But one school of thought would have it that 200-250g is optimal therefore I would rather be on the safe side than risk it the other way. Nutritionists can't even agree on whether OMAD works as well or worse than spacing out protein intake over 5 meals.



160g is still pretty close to 200g, and we're talking ideal conditions. Your body might not always function optimally, what you eat alongside may affect synthesis through some complex mechanism, you may not space your meals properly in a day, you may not have the time to eat 4 times a day, you may swallow too quickly... I would rather be on the safe side again and give myself a few dozen additional grams as a margin of error than be missing on gains and wasting time.

Do what you want, the studies show what I said.

[Vegiter]

Do what you want, the studies show what I said.

I hope you realize sooner than later that 'studies' aren't enough to obtain certitudes and build an actual consensus. And nutrition unfortunately is a science with too little of the latter, yet.

Regardless of this, 160g vs 250g would not help here. Meal plans integrating macros are not lacking, but those also combining both the daily macro needs and 'micro' needs without boiling down to "Eat those raw broccoli then 40g of raw almonds then a cup of cottage cheese at 9am then two apples and 25g of whey at 10am [...]" are seemingly impossible to find.

[AdamWW]

I hope you realize sooner than later that 'studies' aren't enough to obtain certitudes and build an actual consensus. And nutrition unfortunately is a science with too little of the latter, yet.

Nutrition as a whole? Sure.

But we have tons and tons of verified and repeated studies on MPS and hypertrophy showing what I said.

If you don’t believe them, then why not eat 1000 grams of protein? Couldn’t hurt right? After all, what does science know?

[Vegiter]

Nutrition as a whole? Sure.

But we have tons and tons of verified and repeated studies on MPS and hypertrophy showing what I said.

If you don’t believe them, then why not eat 1000 grams of protein? Couldn’t hurt right? After all, what does science know?

Because I've never seen anything serious stating that eating over 250g in a single day would be remotely beneficial. But I've seen studies stating that it is possible to synthesize 10g of protein per hour with meals being spaced out every 4 hours. I'm not even taking a side, but do you lose anything by going slightly overboard? If say you stockpile food for winter, is there anything wrong with stocking 1.5x more food than you would actually need just in case.

There's another thing we're not talking about, protein synthesis for muscle building is one thing, but your other bodily functions also have their protein needs. So while you may synthesize 150g of protein at most your body would still want to absorb an extra 50-70g just to operate adequately.

[AdamWW]

Because I've never seen anything serious stating that eating over 250g in a single day would be remotely beneficial. But I've seen studies stating that it is possible to synthesize 10g of protein per hour with meals being spaced out every 4 hours. I'm not even taking a side, but do you lose anything by going slightly overboard? If say you stockpile food for winter, is there anything wrong with stocking 1.5x more food than you would actually need just in case.

There's another thing we're not talking about, protein synthesis for muscle building is one thing, but your other bodily functions also have their protein needs. So while you may synthesize 150g of protein at most your body would still want to absorb an extra 50-70g just to operate adequately.

Uh, no, the 150g is the total amount to consume, not the amount OVER basic biological need.

Do what you want man, I’m just saying you do not have evidence to support the reason.

And no, going over is unlikely to hurt anything unless it’s extremely high, I’m just saying the reason behind it shouldn’t be more muscle growth because the science does not support that.

[boo99]

I found that there is no consensus whatsoever on protein synthesis

Have you read this by Jorn (Trommelen)?

He is a brilliant PHD bro when it comes to MPS


As far as I'm concerned, this IS the Ultimate guide to MPS

https://www.nutritiontactics.com/mea...ein-synthesis/


Jorn also has some awesome YT Videos delving deeply into answers about MPS to to questions about MPS from Jeff Nippard.

You can Google them

[Vegiter]

Uh, no, the 150g is the total amount to consume, not the amount OVER basic biological need.

Do what you want man, I’m just saying you do not have evidence to support the reason.

And no, going over is unlikely to hurt anything unless it’s extremely high, I’m just saying the reason behind it shouldn’t be more muscle growth because the science does not support that.

The collective body of evidence indicates that total daily protein intake for the goal of maximizing resistance training-induced gains in muscle mass and strength is approximately 1.6 g/kg, at least in non-dieting (eucaloric or hypercaloric) conditions [6]. However, 1.6 g/kg/day should not be viewed as an ironclad or universal limit beyond which protein intake will be either wasted or used for physiological demands aside from muscle growth. A recent meta-analysis on protein supplementation involving resistance trainees reported an upper 95% confidence interval (CI) of 2.2 g/kg/day [6]. Bandegan et al. [7] also showed an upper CI of 2.2 g/kg/day in a cohort of young male bodybuilders, although the method of assessment (indicator amino acid oxidation technique) used in this study has not received universal acceptance for determining optimal protein requirements. This reinforces the practical need to individualize dietary programming, and remain open to exceeding estimated averages.

In line with this hypothesis, Moore et al. [39] mentioned the caveat that their findings were estimated means for maximizing MPS, and that the dosing ceilings can be as high as ~ 0.60 g/kg for some older men and ~ 0.40 g/kg for some younger men. Importantly, these estimates are based on the sole provision of a rapidly digesting protein source that would conceivably increase potential for oxidation of AA when consumed in larger boluses. It seems logical that a slower-acting protein source, particularly when consumed in combination with other macronutrients, would delay absorption and thus enhance the utilization of the constituent AA. However, the practical implications of this phenomenon remain speculative and questionable [21].

htt ps://jissn.biomedcentral. com/articles/10.1186/s12970-018-0215-1

Again, this article's conclusion may be wrong, the meta analysis they're quoting may also be wrong, just like the studies you've read may or may not be right/wrong, pertinent/impertinent (which is another thing entirely), or their conclusions adequately interpreted. It's complex.

I'm fine autistically going on back and forth since it keeps my thread bumped, although I don't have much hopes. It seems the general population as a whole, including nutritiously conscious people, have the collective IQ of a wet fart. I can't for the life of me comprehend why anyone wouldn't consider meeting DVs the #2 priority after macros and why there doesn't seem to be a demand for all encompassing recipes that can be cooked in bulk and eaten over several days, considering the sheer amount of overworked busy people.

The best I can find are all in one meal powders, which is something, I guess.

[Mrpb]

You're barking up the wrong tree. Maximizing MPS takes about 2.5 or 3 gram leucine per meal/shake with whole protein, 4 or 5 times spread over the day.

Whether it leads to more muscle gain than just 0.7 gram per lb no one knows but it won't hurt to try.

[BIGNHYOOGE]

Nutrition is overrated.

[faithbrah]

You can still build muscles at 100g, but why go two times slower?

probably been said already, but there's no way you think it works like this, right?

[blissful88]

You guys took what I said out of context, show me *YOUR* daily meal plan that provides a 100% complete daily value for every vitamin from whole food sources. I'm not saying you will die without consuming every vitamin on a daily basis, because most people don't without a very expansive diet, that's why things like vital vitamin-K are thrown into common carbohydrate sources in North America. Because no one gets a 100% daily completion like OP was asking for, that was my point.

While protein synthesis limitations are not known(especially on gear) studies have shown for decades that anything over 0.8g per pound of body mass in a day does not aid in muscle development or retention.

I don't believe for a second that a 165lbs person ingesting 250g protein vs 150g will develop noticeably faster. All of the credible research shows it's a waste of money and needless strain on the liver.

[Vegiter]

It was interesting at first but could you all please stfu about protein synthesis, getting into that debate is not why I made this thread. I get that it's a topic that will get a reaction since the more protein you need to account for, the less carb heavy McDo meals you can justify gorging yourself on but I would rather make a separate thread later today to share what I've read on that topic myself. Again, I don't even care to be right, I just like going overboard with anything I do as long as it doesn't come with any negative impacts.

You guys took what I said out of context, show me *YOUR* daily meal plan that provides a 100% complete daily value for every vitamin from whole food sources. I'm not saying you will die without consuming every vitamin on a daily basis, because most people don't without a very expansive diet, that's why things like vital vitamin-K are thrown into common carbohydrate sources in North America. Because no one gets a 100% daily completion like OP was asking for, that was my point.

Not to offend you bro and maybe I'm not getting your point right but you have to be a little slow to assert getting all your micros from whole foods is impossible. Some vegetables on their own pack like half the vitamins and minerals you need not to mention lean animal products. See pics in attachment as one example.

Vitamins are thrown into cereals because Americans are genetic duds and will not touch a single serving of vegetables or lean meat for months sometimes. If they didn't a good proportion of young children probably wouldn't make it to adulthood.

[blissful88]

It was interesting at first but could you all please stfu about protein synthesis, getting into that debate is not why I made this thread. I get that it's a topic that will get a reaction since the more protein you need to account for, the less carb heavy McDo meals you can justify gorging yourself on but I would rather make a separate thread later today to share what I've read on that topic myself. Again, I don't even care to be right, I just like going overboard with anything I do as long as it doesn't come with any negative impacts.



Not to offend you bro and maybe I'm not getting your point right but you have to be a little slow to assert getting all your micros from whole foods is impossible. Some vegetables on their own pack like half the vitamins and minerals you need not to mention lean animal products. See pics in attachment as one example.

Vitamins are thrown into cereals because Americans are genetic duds and will not touch a single serving of vegetables or lean meat for months sometimes. If they didn't a good proportion of young children probably wouldn't make it to adulthood.

I didn't say you couldn't reach complete micros on whole foods, I said it doesn't happen on a daily basis because no one's diet is that expansively complete. You're looking for a miracle food plan. My daily diet has been a healthy mix of carbs, fats, lean proteins for years and yet I still have to supplement vitamins every day to cover all 13 essentials to 100% daily values. I don't eat cereal.

Genetic duds is a fair statement. Not many people know this but a large shirt in Europe is in-between a small/medium in North America. Recently heard a 25%+ body fat guy in the gym say anyone under 200lbs is a "chick" to his buddy and that pretty much embodies the United State's ignorance.

[Vegiter]

I said it doesn't happen on a daily basis because no one's diet is that expansively complete.

Why not. I have not obtained the certitude that it is impossible yet. Only that google's algorithm will consistently link us to lowest common denominator websites because they're the ones generating more ad revenues and benefiting from established traffic momentum and advanced search algorithm manipulation.
That's why I'm trying forums. Because occasionally some enthusiasts really know their field.
You should try vegetables rather than fruits or grains (unless by cereals you mean grains overall), then fill in the remaining calories with whole grains (quinoa and wheat pack a serious punch that will fill most of the missing values). And some vegetables kinda suck compared to others, like lettuce or onions being nutritionally mediocre while Broccolis cover almost the entire spectrum in high quantities.

Also fat solluble vitamins can be stored (I still haven't figured out if some minerals can actually be stored and reused in a healthy way), which simplifies your constraints because you can load up with a dedicated meal for the entire week and focus on other nutrients afterwards.

The problem isn't so much that it's hard to figure out recipes, or even make them (it can be absurdly simple and almost more time efficient than even waiting in line for your daily soylent dose) but if your palate sensibilities work like mine, having grown exposed to decent cuisine since childhood, it will taste and feel like ass. Plain broccoli and chicken breast taste like actual feces and cleaning products, not matter how ****ing popular it is on this board and other fitness communities. Topping it with random spices does not turn it into a real meal either.

You're looking for a miracle food plan.

You don't believe in miracles?

[blissful88]

Broccoli is definitely up there on the god-tier list of nutrition, but I'll never recommend someone eats a broccoli/chicken staple, that's "bro diet" 101 and it started on these forums in the early 2000's. It's a tasteless lack-of-fiber nightmare, reserved for the ultra-budget lifter that doesn't know how to cook yet.

I do eat vegetables, 8-16oz daily, as well as various fruits for snacks. I'm also a big believer in whole grains and that carbs are your friend. Anything less than 150g per day and I turn into a motionless, sick statue, personally.

Yeah Google has turned into a monopolized ad revenue click-bait engine, showing the same 20 sites every time. Even looking up scientific articles/studies is a nightmare now, with most being paid conjecture.

[Mrpb]

I didn't say you couldn't reach complete micros on whole foods, I said it doesn't happen on a daily basis because no one's diet is that expansively complete.

FYI: you don't have to hit 100% of every micro everyday. If you hit your targets on a weekly basis it will be fine.

And it's not nearly as hard as you think. You can easily check this yourself on www.cronometer.com

[Vegiter]

FYI: you don't have to hit 100% of every micro everyday. If you hit your targets on a weekly basis it will be fine.

You're thinking fat sollubles vitamins, only a fraction of all the micros you need to hit... Water sollubles are not stored in the body past roughly a day's window at most. Your body needs a dailz amount of them to perform daily functions. Minerals are stored somewhat, but only what your body structure needs to hold together. Withdrawing from that store comes with consequences.

[Mrpb]

You're thinking fat sollubles vitamins, only a fraction of all the micros you need to hit...

and minerals.

And no it won't be a problem if you only hit 80% of a certain vitamin 1 day lol.

[AdamWW]

You're thinking fat sollubles vitamins, only a fraction of all the micros you need to hit... Water sollubles are not stored in the body past roughly a day's window at most. Your body needs a dailz amount of them to perform daily functions. Minerals are stored somewhat, but only what your body structure needs to hold together. Withdrawing from that store comes with consequences.

That’s only true for long term/chronic deficiencies. You don’t have to hit 100% every day, there isn’t a 24 hour clock.

People have fasted for days with no vitamins and they didn’t develop long term problems because once they reintroduce food, they get back on track.

If you get 50% vitamin C one day, and 200% the next, you’re not going to feel any different

[Vegiter]

That’s only true for long term/chronic deficiencies. You don’t have to hit 100% every day, there isn’t a 24 hour clock.


If you get 50% vitamin C one day, and 200% the next, you’re not going to feel any different

No you won't die indeed but that's not what's being discussed here. Yes, long term wise, you have to hit the clocks every day. And it should be a high priority fitness related preoccupation for anyone who isn't completely clueless.

[Vegiter]

and minerals.

No that's not how mineral storage works.

[Mrpb]

No that's not how mineral storage works.

You're clueless to how it works. You're also suffering from a condition called vitamania.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blo..._vitamins.html

[Vegiter]

You're clueless to how it works. You're also suffering from a condition called vitamania.

Did you even read this article. The only thing they say is that there's a variance of roughly 30% around the DVs and that some people may get away with eating slightly less. Now how the **** do you figure out whether you're part of that group or not. That's right. And even if you do, 70% isn't 15%. You still have to meet a large required amount.

Here's a snippet

The vitamins we need more regularly are Vitamin C and the seven B complex vitamins.

Which is precisely what was written a few posts again, along with the distinction between fat soluble and water soluble.

Finally nowhere does this article talk about mineral storage. Again did you even read the **** you posted? Were you desperate enough to prove me wrong that you just went by the title and the first lines hoping someone more intelligent might prove me wrong?

Or, you might be suffering from a condition called illiteracy.