Macronutrient ratios

H

Hardrock

New Member
Need help determining the proper macronutrient ratios to help with my goals of dropping bodyfat (30%) whlle maintaining lean mass. I've been using approximately 45% carbs/35%pro/20%fat which gives me close to 1.2 gram/lb lbm but has not helped budge bf%. I understand there is something about the ratio of carbs to protein or carbs to fat (or something) that affects the hormones involved in fat burning so 45%/35%/20% may not be optimal. I have even considered doing Lyle McDonald's protein sparing modified fast but I am concerned about doing HST workouts on such low carbs. Anecdotal reports or info pointing me to research is appreciated.
(p.s.- to paraphrase Aaron F- does the ratio even really matter?!)
 
Manipulating your hormones with food isn't the most effective way to lose weight. There may be an optimal macro ratio, but I highly doubt it would be the same for everyone. The easiest way to deal with it is to bulk and cut. HST is great for cutting. Keeping your body as anabolic as possible while dropping calories is basically the exact thing guys do when they cut with steroids. With HST you just do it naturally and this, losses are slower and more muscle will be lost in the end.

But, without using artifical hormones, the best way to lose weight is to simply cut calories, burn more than you take in. Just not too much more.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (xahrx @ Oct. 25 2005,5:25)]But, without using artifical hormones, the best way to lose weight is to simply cut calories, burn more than you take in. Just not too much more.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with that. Why do PSMF's and so on work so well then? You cut the fat very fast and, according to Lyle's board and my own experiences, don't seem to lose any muscle.

Maybe when you start getting close to competition it would be more of a problem, i havn't been that lean before. But anecdotal and Lyle's studies have showed it worked well.
 
I did a PSMF for two weeks and worked out while on it. I lost no lean mass that I could tell. I think going on it longer than that might be a bad idea though for someone already relatively lean.
 
Never looked into it, the last thing I read by Lyle was UD2. I guess it could be possible to manipulate hormones enough through food consumption to lose weight while gaining or at least keeping most muscle, I just haven't seen anything that shows that without severe qualifications. But, I am heading over to the recomp boards now to check that out.
 
Here's my take on the matter:

Weight loss (neglecting water weight) is simply a matter of calories in vs. calories out.

However, we're interested in the type of weight lost, i.e. maximizing fat loss and minimizing muscle loss. This is a matter of nutrient partitioning, which is affected by both diet and training.

In the Ultimate Diet 2.0, Lyle says that he doesn't recommend UD2 for men above 15% body fat (something like 23% or so for women) simply because it's not necessary. If you're over 15% body fat then any non-idiotic hypocaloric diet will work, non-idiotic meaning you satisfy 1g/lb. of protein and enough fat (whatever "enough fat" entails). You don't need to use fancy diet tricks to try to improve nutrient partitioning, because with that much body fat most of the weight lost should be fat.

Simply put:

If you're not losing weight, you're eating too much.

Conversely, if you're not gaining weight, you're eating too little.

This is the bottom line, regardless of whatever macronutrient ratios you use. However, macronutrient ratios do play a role in determining whether it is muscle or fat that is lost/gained.

If I understood right, Hardrock is 30% body fat. In that case, any non-idiotic hypocaloric diet should work, and it should be effective for preserving muscle. Keyword "non-idiotic."

Totentanz, whose body fat is lower, did well with a PSMF but might have done poorly with a more simple, traditional diet because at his BF%, partitioning becomes more of an issue.

That said, I don't know much about PSMF. About all I know is that it involves low calories, with a good percentage of them coming from protein. Perhaps if Hardrock wants to lose weight FAST then the best way to do it would be a PSMF. But what I said before about calories in vs. calories out and nutrient partitioning would still apply because a PSMF would simply allow him to create the greatest caloric defecit while maintaining good nutrient partitioning, resulting in a lot of weight loss with most of that weight being fat.

So that's my side of the story. Now I wait for Aaron to come along and either reaffirm it or tear it to shreds.
 
Thanks for the replies. I am at 30% bf by the way. I did manage to lose a lot of weight once- before I even kept track of macro ratios and started tinkering with them. But I did concentrate on protein then. To be honest I gained alot of the weight back when I began HST and started eating much more carb to support the energy required. I guess I could try PSMF for a couple of weeks to get things jump-started.
 
There are different types of PSMF, you'd be better off buying the ebook if you have the $20 to spare. But essentially what it entails is eating only protein, about 1.5 grams per lb for people who workout, and nothing else. That creates a massive calorie deficit and facilitates rapid weight loss while sparing lean mass fairly well. It can work well enough for people with higher bodyfat. Plenty of people on Lyle's site are in that group and doing well on a PSMF. If I were you, I would not do it for more than a few weeks without taking a break and dieting normally for a couple weeks afterward. Also, needless to say, a PSMF is a bit difficult for most people to stick to, so depending on your discipline and willpower, that may be something to consider.
 
a PSMF is better for fatter than leaner people, because of the way the body works.


Ultimately it depends on what you want.
 
Yeah, I probably recommend UD2.0 over a PSMF for leaner people. I'm going to be doing UD2.0 eventually myself.
 
There have always been tons of different diets. But the reason for diets like UD2.0 stems from the fact that once you are already lean, it becomes despicably difficult to lose more fat without sacrificing heaps of muscle or turning to drug usage.
 
Anything under 15% really could be considered lean, since "normal" is right around 15%. For the average person, that's about the point where your body won't want to give up anymore bodyfat. Unless you are naturally lean. For instance, my 'set point' seems to be around 10%, it was like 6-8 when I was a teenager. Yours could be around there too... but either way, as you hit 15% and start going lower, it's going to start to get more and more difficult to lose the fat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top