protein levels

  • Thread starter Thread starter sentricyphen
  • Start date Start date
S

sentricyphen

Guest
Ok, so I've been in the body building game for quite a while now...
One thing I've always stayed with is a 30-40-30 (PCF) ratio for bulking. (and a seperate one for cutting, if im not carb cycling)
Clearly on this site it is advocated that one consume nothing more than 20-25% protein.
Shall I take the step of faith and drop my protein levels down (significantly upping the carbs) to say 25-55-20 (PCF) ??
To be honest I am very afraid of fat gains, even though my staple carb sources include w.w. pasta, oats, etc. I am certainly not a endomorph, but fat gain is nothing strange to me.
Perhaps someone can calm my fears, or possibly tell me to just stick with what I've always done.
Whatever it may be, I simply want the most optimal approach.
 
If you want my opinion, forget all the ratios. There is nothing magical about any macro ratio anyone has ever come up with. Just stick with 1g of protein per lb. of LBM and leave it at that.
 
It's just an organized way of raising or lowering carb levels....
How else are you going to balance macro levels?
With no ratios you could be eating way too much fat, or carbs.
i.e. By doing what you are saying, (1g/lb lbm) that would equate to about 20% protein. Ok, so far so good.
But from there we could have anything from 20-60-20
to 20-20-60...
ratios are rubish? I beg to differ.

...However I am more than willing to hear addtional input, and as always, I appreciate your time :)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (sentricyphen @ Oct. 20 2004,12:19)]It's just an organized way of raising or lowering carb levels....
How else are you going to balance macro levels?
With no ratios you could be eating way too much fat, or carbs.
i.e. By doing what you are saying, (1g/lb lbm) that would equate to about 20% protein. Ok, so far so good.
But from there we could have anything from 20-60-20
to 20-20-60...
ratios are rubish? I beg to differ.
...However I am more than willing to hear addtional input, and as always, I appreciate your time :)
Click to expand...
Dude, have you read the "Eating for Size" article or read any of the FAQ regarding diet. All of the information you are seeking is found there.
 
Yes I have. And again, I am not a newbie.
But from Blade's own mouth, reads the following:
"Figure out the rest of the diet dependent on the person. If they are active, have decent insulin sensitivity, and enjoy eating lower GI carbs, a moderate to higher carb diet will probably be sufficient. Something like 50/25/25 or 40/30/30. If they are very inactive, highly insulin resistant and/or simply won't remove the high GI crap from their diet, reducing carbs further or removing them competely may be the only workeable approach to get calories/hunger under control."
Here he is alluding to several approaches, vis a vis macro-ratios.
Clearly there is no "magic" ratio. Yet, as I stated above, it is a useful mechanism which allows one to balance carbs and fat beyond the gram/lb BW method, such that you can precisely know your intake of each source.
I was not supporting the notion that the zone diet is better than 40-40-20 or vice versa.

In the inital post, I was seeking advice on CARB content of my diet. Not a magic ratio.

To each his own way.
 
I am not able to grasp your idea that the use of ratios somehow "balances" your macros any better than figuring by any other method. You can figure to the gram in what amounts you should be eating protein carbs and fat just by using the BW method. This is the easiest and, i feel, most effective way of struturing a good mass gain diet:

1 g/lb LBM
30% cals from fats
fill the rest with carbs

Easy as that. Besides like you said in a post above, everything figures into a "ratio" anyways.
 
Fair enough :D

To me it is easier to establish that I am eating 20%-50%-30%
(Reason being, as aforementioned, I often carb cycle...)

Rather than "1 g/lb LBM
30% cals from fats
fill the rest with carbs"

But it is all in the same.

Cheers
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (sentricyphen @ Oct. 21 2004,6:19)]ratios are rubish? I beg to differ.
...However I am more than willing to hear addtional input, and as always, I appreciate your time :)
Click to expand...
Ratios are worthless, because htey relate to calories, not actual requirements, or the bodyweight of the individual

ratios are worthless
 
I wil be trying this method out soon...
I have a question though.

How does this apply to the individual, meaning, say lifter A has enomorph tendencies; he gains too much fat when carb levels are over 40%, vs lifter B, an ecto, who could go as high as 60%...?

Lastly, how can I use this method in conjunction with a normal carb cycle, say, TP's method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top