Updated recommendations from Alan Aragon

[EiFit91]

Maybe some will find this interesting.



Apparently it's from the newest edition of the book "Advanced Personal Training: Science to Practice"

Does this mean we should update the current sticky? (Inb4 heated argument about carbs?)

[Heisman2]

There is research suggesting a ketogenic diet is suboptimal for muscle building and muscle retention when cutting, and there is also research suggesting that when glycogen stores are low it can impair muscular contraction, so I'm going to guess that is where this comes from.

[EliKoehn]

Not aiming to initiate an argument about the performance advantages and utility of eating them, but are there are data on how or why these specific numbers were arrived at that you can bullet point (if you own the book or have access to it)?

Seems rather high. For me, the low end of that middle recommendation would still be over 300g of carbs per day. That's about what I eat ad-libidum and after which I get sick of them, personally. The high end for me would be a whopping 880g (and 3,520 calories of just carbs) per day. If I was only eating the minimum on fat and the minimum on protein, that'd still be well over 5,000 calories per day, which seems extreme for someone who's not an endurance athlete.

[EiFit91]

Not aiming to initiate an argument about the performance advantages and utility of eating them, but are there are data on how or why these specific numbers were arrived at that you can bullet point (if you own the book or have access to it)?

Seems rather high. For me, the low end of that middle recommendation would still be over 300g of carbs per day. That's about what I eat ad-libidum and after which I get sick of them, personally. The high end for me would be a whopping 880g (and 3,520 calories of just carbs) per day. If I was only eating the minimum on fat and the minimum on protein, that'd still be well over 5,000 calories per day, which seems extreme for someone who's not an endurance athlete.

Unfortunately not. I found it on Twitter and it was retweeted by Alan Aragon. I am very curious myself how those numbers were derived. I think Heisman's point about keto is very relevant, but I don't know if that literature alone is the basis for deriving the particular daily amounts in the above figure - i.e. if the numbers are based on a simple derivation from certain empirical studies or if it's based on a more formal model + data

I agree it seems high. For me more carbs works up to a point, particularly for pressing strength, but if I add more carbs on top of that it doesn't really do anything.

But maybe it's like with protein that you should use target body weight or lean body mass, so the numbers will be inaccurate for someone at higher BF percentages - and then more and more inaccurate the higher the BF%?

[Tommy W.]

I don't think you can have a cut and dried answer as there are too many other dietary and training factors to consider. I would consider these numbers guidelines only just as calorie calculators are just suggestions.

[desslok]

As somebody who has been lifting and training people for over 30 years and been involved in various sports/activities, i would say anecdotally that I agree with these numbers from my experience after doing the math. I have suboptimal results all around in strength and growth if i eat under about 250g (close to the 3gm/kg number). When I go on long mountain bike rides, etc i need to crank that number up to a minimum of close the the 5gm/kg number. But my long bike rides aren’t at the level of performance distance athletes.