A more in depth guide to nutrition

[RyanDS]

Hi all,

I've read the nutrition sticky available and I must say, I disagree with it. Along with my qualifications in the subject, I have 14 years experience in bodybuilding. I'm also working as a PT and dietitian at the moment. So I'm not just going by what I've read, I'm practicing what I preach and have been doing so for many years.

Let me give you a bit more insight into nutrition, as it seems alot of people cannot grasp it.

The simple rules of thumb are; to gain muscle you should bulk (eat more than your body needs to maintain its current weight) and cutting fat is eating slightly less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight.

You will need a sufficient portion of protein and fats. You don't need to monitor your carbohydrates as they are not a mandatory macronutrient. You should also get a decent spread of micronutrients to ensure there is no deficiency there.

Lets start with the basics.


1). How many calories do I need per day?

Firstly, this will all depend on your weight, age, height, activity, excercise level and ofcourse goals (mainly). Males generally need more than females. Below I will provide a couple of methods you should do to calculate a rough estimation. I must stress that these will never be accurate and you must adjust accordingly depending on how much you gain/lose per week

Katch-McArdle - Said to be the most accurate formula for those who are relatively lean. Use this formula only if you have a good estimate of your bodyfat percentage.
BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

Mifflin-St Jeor - Said to overestimate your results.
MEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] + 5WOMEN: BMR = [9.99 x weight (kg)] + [6.25 x height (cm)] - [4.92 x age (years)] -161

Harris-Benedict formula - Said to be very inaccurate and is recommended you don't use this unless absolutely necessary.
BMR = 66 + [13.7 x weight (kg)] + [5 x height (cm)] - [6.76 x age (years)]
WOMEN: BMR = 655 + [9.6 x weight (kg)] + [1.8 x height (cm)] - [4.7 x age (years)]


2). Now that I know how many calories I should be having, what about my macronutrients?

I recommend you take 1g of protein per lb of total bodyweight, .5g of fat per lb of total bodyweight and you can fill the rest with any combination of proteins, fats and carbohydrates aslong as you get your micronutrients (see below)!

Example: Lets say I want to build muscle. I'm 216lbs. I'll shoot for 216g protein (minimum), 108g fat (minimum). This gives me a total of 1836. I want to consume around 3,000 calories. I need 1164 calories now so I'll definitely throw in veg and fruit here. So, lets say I get around 900 calories worth of veg and fruit (as I do eat quite a bit of veg and fruit). Veg and fruit are an excellent source of micronutrients and you definitely shouldn't neglect them, so that would leave me with 264 calories to play around with. I might have a muffin worth 300 calories (I went over by 36 calories, its no big deal). The muffin isn't made purely out of carbohydrates, so lets presume the muffin has 2g protein (8cals), 10g fat (90 calories) and 202g carbs (50.5 cals) - this would raise my protein, fat and carbohydrate intake but still keep me within range of my calories and my macronutrients have already been met.

1g of protein - 4 calories
1g of carbohydrates - 4 calories
1g of fat - 9 calories
1g of alcohol - 7 calories


Great, I have both my calories and macronutrients figured out - now what about my micronutrients?

Micronutrient RDAs include vitamins and elements, or minerals. Some micronutrients have RDAs; others have AIs. Vitamins and minerals that have RDAs established include vitamins A,C, E, B-6 and B-12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin and folate. RDAs exist for the following minerals: copper, iodine, iron, magnesium, molybdenum, phosphorous, selenium and zinc. Specific micronutrient RDAs vary by age and gender, and are available on the U.S. Department of Agriculture website.


Links that you might want to read!
forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=121703981&page=1
forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=136691851&page=1
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2955880/?tool=pubmed
lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/multivitamin-mineral.htm


Do I need to get my macronutrient sources from lean chicken breast, brown rice and oats etc?

Absolutely not. By eating these same foods you can actually be putting your body into a micronutrient deficiency by not experimenting with other foods. Unless, ofcourse, you're spending lots of money on supplements that you can really get from fruit, which is more optimal.

Its an age-old myth that bodybuilders must eat bland food all day. But thats all it is. A myth.

Your body does not know that you're putting a Goodfella's (TM) Pizza into it or a piece of lean chicken and brown rice. Pizza sounds 'unhealthy', right? But bread, cheese and tomato doesn't and thats exactly what a cheese pizza is made out of.

The reason for this is all down to macronutrients. 1g of protein is still 1g of protein, whether you got it from a expensive piece of meat from the butchers or a frozen pizza at your local store.

Today, this far, I had double cheese pizza, cottage pie with a side of veggies, ate fruit throughout the day, bowl of chocolate wheetabix mixed with kraves and alot of diet coke.

Today, this far, my body has benefited from 220g protein, 120g fat and alot of carbs.


Do I need to split my macronutrients up, into 6-12 meals per day? Eg, every x amount of hours.

Again, absolutely not. This is another age old bodybuilding myth. It does NOT benefit your metabolism, it does NOT benefit your body in any way. You can have all of your macronutrients in one meal per day and still benefit. Its all about calories being met, macros being met and a nice consumption of micros.. not frequency. Some people use expressions such as 'to keep the fire burning you throw small twigs in at a time, not logs, because that will take all day to burn'. Well, I'm sorry - your body isn't a fire.

The following is links to studies that will debunk the myth:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15806828
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1905998
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11319656
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053311
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9504318
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15085170
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17228037
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15640455
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578205

And thats it. Thats how simple nutrition is in terms of bodybuilding.

I don't think I've forgotten anything, but if I have I will certainly add in due course.

 

[DreDay187]

Someone that gets it lol. Not a bad read. One comment I'll make is where you said "1g of protein is still 1g of protein". Not exactly, assuming they're complete sources of protein then yes but not if you're comparing a gram of incomplete protein to a gram from a complete source.

 

[Black Beard]

Very nice post Ryan. You got it right.

 

[Protobuilder69]

You're just preaching IIFYM, and i 100% do believe in the concept of it, BUT i have some problems with this "You don't need to monitor your carbohydrates as they are not a mandatory macronutrient", just because its not an essential macronutrient does not mean you dont need it for recovery and muscle growth, if i eat fat and protein for all my meals and do this for over a month, i feel smaller and weaker because of the deleted glycogen, even with the same caloric intake, also the protein will get burned as energy if your glycogen stores are empty.

I also do not believe you can eat 1 meal and get the same results as 5-6 meals, heres why: if your macros calls for 250g protein, 600g carbs and 60g fats, your body will NOT utilize all that protein to build muscle its not efficient, i do not need a study for his its common fuking sense, you can not absorb all the nutrient in one huge fuking meal, also layne norton study has shown after 4 hours protein synthesis goes back to baseline, so you can stimulate it again by eating another protein meal, he recommends larger dose of protein every 4 hours instead of smaller every 2 hours.

 

[Noob84]

Good read. However, common sense tells me, that meat from the butcher is healthier than a processed pizza...

 

[Black Beard]

There are metabolic advantages to having full liver and muscle glycogen stores. Being able to maintain a high level of intensity in your workouts is one of them. I've done low carb/paleo/ketogenic, and workouts will suffer, even with low volume.

 

[DreDay187]

You're just preaching IIFYM, and i 100% do believe in the concept of it, BUT i have some problems with this "You don't need to monitor your carbohydrates as they are not a mandatory macronutrient", just because its not an essential macronutrient does not mean you dont need it for recovery and muscle growth, if i eat fat and protein for all my meals and do this for over a month, i feel smaller and weaker because of the deleted glycogen, even with the same caloric intake,

Your statement doesn't make sense. Just bc you feel smaller and weaker doesn't mean you lost muscle. You lost glycogen which is easily replaced in less than 24hrs of eating a carb rich meal. Having no carbs can affect training intensity and some ppl just cannot adapt to ketosis but that's irrelevant, carbs are not an essential nutrient period. You can recover with or without carbs and you can grow muscle with or without carbs.

also the protein will get burned as energy if your glycogen stores are empty.

No it won't. Protein will only be turned into glucose via gluconeogensis if you drop dietary fat intake too low in this situation. If around ~65% of your calories are coming from fat than you'll avoid turning protein to glucose.

I also do not believe you can eat 1 meal and get the same results as 5-6 meals, heres why: if your macros calls for 250g protein, 600g carbs and 60g fats, your body will NOT utilize all that protein to build muscle its not efficient, i do not need a study for his its common fuking sense, you can not absorb all the nutrient in one huge fuking meal, also layne norton study has shown after 4 hours protein synthesis goes back to baseline, so you can stimulate it again by eating another protein meal, he recommends larger dose of protein every 4 hours instead of smaller every 2 hours.

What you believe and what the body does are two different things. Just bc you can't believe it doesn't make your beliefs right nor negate the fact that the body WILL process most of the protein in a meal REGARDLESS of how much it is. Intermittent fasting, the warrior diet, etc all advocate very few meals and their dieters can have tremendous success.

By saying you don't need a study to know this it's common sense you are really saying "I don't know how the body works, I won't accept evidence contrary to my beliefs, and I have no evidence supporting me". If you want to stick to that by all means to ahead. Eating more meals won't hurt you but those who prefer fewer meals will be smiling while accomplishing jus as much as you do eating more meals.

If you want reading material, look up the 'ileal tract' in the small intestine, look up a physiology or nutrition text book or just read the following link:

Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal? | Wannabebig

I personally don't care what you'd like to believe, you're welcome to keep your opinions, but the spreading of inaccurate information is what I'm trying to dispel here

 

[Rida5d]

Dre..
do u agree with 1 gm / lb protein? I thought protein intake should be related to lbm not weight !

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Lol you guys are lucky to have someone like Dre on these forums - info based on science not bullshit

I wanted to add that the "1g/lb protein" recommendation is not entirely accurate; it should be related to lbm.
The only reason its recommended to the general public is because they don't know how to calculate their lbm in the first place.

Protobuilder69:
I find it interesting that you dismiss studies showing you what works but then decide to preach about a Layne Norton study on protein synthesis.
First of of all, protein synthesis is not the most important thing for building muscle - a positive net protein balance is. All the studies talking about how much protein you should consume over how many hours were done on a short term basis (sometimes only 12hrs). Over the long term (more important for bulking) it all evens out.

 

[Protobuilder69]

Your statement doesn't make sense. Just bc you feel smaller and weaker doesn't mean you lost muscle. You lost glycogen which is easily replaced in less than 24hrs of eating a carb rich meal. Having no carbs can affect training intensity and some ppl just cannot adapt to ketosis but that's irrelevant, carbs are not an essential nutrient period. You can recover with or without carbs and you can grow muscle with or without carbs.

Why would you replace the glycogen if carbs are not necessary as you said? Yes, so carbs are actually necessary, I have tried it myself, i went 1 full month with a high fat and protein zero carbs eating the same calories as 1 month of high carb high protein, and with zero carb diet i lost muscle not just water or fat but actual muscle tissue and my strength suffered on the zero carb diet, my fat calroies were higher than protein also. people say carbs are not imporatnt but they carb up once or twice a week, so it is important after all.
There are study showing muscle swelling increases protein sysnthesis and thats what carbs do, they bring water inside the muscle cell and make them bigger, 75% of muscle is water.

No it won't. Protein will only be turned into glucose via gluconeogensis if you drop dietary fat intake too low in this situation. If around ~65% of your calories are coming from fat than you'll avoid turning protein to glucose.

Good point. i still believe carbs are a better energy source for wight training than dietary fat.

What you believe and what the body does are two different things. Just bc you can't believe it doesn't make your beliefs right nor negate the fact that the body WILL process most of the protein in a meal REGARDLESS of how much it is. Intermittent fasting, the warrior diet, etc all advocate very few meals and their dieters can have tremendous success.

By saying you don't need a study to know this it's common sense you are really saying "I don't know how the body works, I won't accept evidence contrary to my beliefs, and I have no evidence supporting me". If you want to stick to that by all means to ahead. Eating more meals won't hurt you but those who prefer fewer meals will be smiling while accomplishing jus as much as you do eating more meals.

If you want reading material, look up the 'ileal tract' in the small intestine, look up a physiology or nutrition text book or just read the following link:

Is there a limit to how much protein the body can use in a single meal? | Wannabebig

I personally don't care what you'd like to believe, you're welcome to keep your opinions, but the spreading of inaccurate information is what I'm trying to dispel here

Watch layne nortons study on protein synthesis. Layne Norton 2012 ISSN Research Poster Presentation - YouTube
I still do what i believe, also IF, they eat atleast 3 meals in their window not 1, IF is not an optimal way to build muscle, its good for fat loss but not muscle gain, theres a difference between getting results and getting the BEST results, I eat 6 meals a day, not because of the metabolism bullshit or whatever but because i cant get my calories in 1-2 or even 3 meals, also after 4 hrs of eating a high protein meal protein synthesis goes back to baseline.

 

[Rida5d]

Watch layne nortons study on protein synthesis. Layne Norton 2012 ISSN Research Poster Presentation - YouTube
I still do what i believe, also IF, they eat atleast 3 meals in their window not 1, IF is not an optimal way to build muscle, its good for fat loss but not muscle gain, theres a difference between getting results and getting the BEST results, I eat 6 meals a day, not because of the metabolism bullshit or whatever but because i cant get my calories in 1-2 or even 3 meals, also after 4 hrs of eating a high protein meal protein synthesis goes back to baseline.

Get ready for 200 studies to debunk urs.
U messed with the wrong guy (dre)

 

[DreDay187]

Dre..
do u agree with 1 gm / lb protein? I thought protein intake should be related to lbm not weight !

Rida, just as RippedZilla posted underneath you, the 1g/lb BW is a general figure. Fat mass doesn't require protein nor can protein be stored in fat mass so in reality it's only your lbm (skeletal muscle tissue) that's absorbing the protein. 1g/lb LBM is a great place to begin with for protein requirements. Studies have shown as little as .8g/lb is sufficient to build muscle mass (RippedZilla may remember the exact number). On a bulk the requirements aren't as necessary as on a cut but that doesn't mean you should drop your protein intake during a bulk just because.

 

[DreDay187]

Lol you guys are lucky to have someone like Dre on these forums - info based on science not bullshit

I wanted to add that the "1g/lb protein" recommendation is not entirely accurate; it should be related to lbm.
The only reason its recommended to the general public is because they don't know how to calculate their lbm in the first place.

Protobuilder69:
I find it interesting that you dismiss studies showing you what works but then decide to preach about a Layne Norton study on protein synthesis.
First of of all, protein synthesis is not the most important thing for building muscle - a positive net protein balance is. All the studies talking about how much protein you should consume over how many hours were done on a short term basis (sometimes only 12hrs). Over the long term (more important for bulking) it all evens out.

Thanks for the kind words my friend but I am only 1 member. You and I have had a few discussion and debates and I've learned a lot from you as well. I was going to add to my post the point you made here lol but I thought about it after the fact. Once again bro, it is great to have you back here.

 

[Rida5d]

Thnx dre..
Ur info is priceless.
For sure I know more now, all the credit goes to u.

 

[banzi]

Just to chuck something in the mix, science doesn't always pan out in reality with the body.

 

[Rida5d]

And what's up with this fking permethrin cream in every thread all day long?

 

[Protobuilder69]

Get ready for 200 studies to debunk urs.
U messed with the wrong guy (dre)

Layne nortons sutdy is more accurate. People thinking you can eat all your protein in one meal were looking at nitrogen balance, NOT muscle anabolism.
Watch that and watch this, its basically the same but he goes more in depth with this one.

The need for Protein throughout the day - YouTube

 

[Protobuilder69]

I myself read a ton of studies and actually apply it on myself, i dont just read something and tell everyone its the truth, i preach what i say.
And i dont tell people to do what works for me, they should find what macro nutrient works best for their body.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Layne nortons sutdy is more accurate. People thinking you can eat all your protein in one meal were looking at nitrogen balance, NOT muscle anabolism.
Watch that and watch this, its basically the same but he goes more in depth with this one.

The need for Protein throughout the day - YouTube

Yea...if your going to make a point in the future about an accurate study, don't choose one based on ANIMALS! It has no practical application to humans until it is replicated on us.
Next time your researching, I suggest you ignore all studies done on rats or other animals - they won't help you.

 

[DreDay187]

Watch layne nortons study on protein synthesis. Layne Norton 2012 ISSN Research Poster Presentation - YouTube
I still do what i believe, also IF, they eat atleast 3 meals in their window not 1, IF is not an optimal way to build muscle, its good for fat loss but not muscle gain, theres a difference between getting results and getting the BEST results, I eat 6 meals a day, not because of the metabolism bullshit or whatever but because i cant get my calories in 1-2 or even 3 meals, also after 4 hrs of eating a high protein meal protein synthesis goes back to baseline.

Proto, an essential nutrient BY DEFINITION, an objective meaning not subjective, is a nutrient that is required for the body's survival and one that cannot be created by the body or not created in sufficent quantities. Fats and protein are the essential macronutrients not carbohydrates. This is fact. This cannot be disputed. Without EFA's and EAA's you will die. This is another fact that cannot be disputed. These nutrients cannot be synthesized by the body and therefor are termed ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS. Try as you might, you cannot make the same argument for carbohydrates. The body will not succumb to death no matter how long it's deprived of carbohydrates. Again, not up for debate, it's everywhere in the studies, the medical literature, etc.

The reason to replenish glycogen stores is one of convenience and it does serve a good but not CRITICAL function. Replenishing glycogen will help your intensity remain high in the gym. If you're dieting down carbs will also help reverse the problems associated with leptin and ghrelin. When you're dieting down without carbs or on a severely carb restricted diet the body will fight back by altering leptin and ghrelin hormones as well as thyroid hormones. 1 big ~200g carb meal is enough to reverse his process and get your hormones to stop 'fighting' you. Although it's a benefit, it is not a necessity and again not an essential nutrient.

Read: A Primer on Nutrition Part 1 | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

What I said above doesn't mean carbs are bad, not to be desired, to be avoided, provide no benefit etc. It's just that they are not essential as defined by the literature. Yes we can make arguments about how carbs are beneficial, can help bulking, etc but that's not the argument here. You had made the claim carbs were "essential for recovery and muscle growth regardless of their essential nutrient status" which is not true bc keto dieters don't need carbs to recover from workouts or build muscle.

In regards to your experiment with running no carbs there are many flaws making it erroneous to draw definitive conclusions from. Loss of Strength is not an accurate indicator of muscle loss (lacking carbs your intensity suffers in the gym making strength loss during a workout a reality, but it comes back), did you do a bodpod or dexa scan to measure body composition BEFORE AND AFTER EACH EXPERIMENT??? I doubt it meaning your claim of losing muscle just a claim. We cannot definitively say one way or another what happened without an accurate body comp assessment (calipers don't count). Patient reported diets are a huge source of error in studies and we've learned that to accurately assess intake in a study it must be done by the researchers not the patients. Patients usually over or underestimate intake. Just bc fat cals were higher than protein cals doesn't mean much, a rough estimate is 65%cals from fat to prevent gluconeogensis but it can vary slightly from person to person. You also didn't have a zero carb intake, almost all foods have trace carbs. you'd need two weeks or so just to get into ketosis meaning your 1 month run was only 2wks of true ketosis which isn't long enough to determine anything. Finally, you may be one of the few who cannot adapt to using ketones as fuel. This doesn't mean you can't run keto or that you NEED carbs for survival it just means you'll perform better with carbs (which no one argued against).

Bullshit on muscle 'swelling' increasing protein synthesis. Protein synthesis can be maximally stimulated with some protein alone, and sweeping the muscle doesn't do jack shit to growth. Ask all the people who run nitric oxide products how much mass it has gained them. Creatine drives intramuscular water storage, by your definition this means creatine is an essential supplement. Yes muscles are 75% water but water doesn't make bigger muscles, it makes bloated muscles.

Muscle hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic hypertoephy (associated with increased muscle mass) is an increase in the cross-sectional area of the muscle tissue. Water has no effect on this whatsoever.


Carbs may be a more efficient source of energy as the body won't need to turn ketones to glucose but that's not better. Some people LOVE low carb diets like keto and do better on that. It's an individualistic issue.

That Layne Norton study is irrelevant to our discussion, it's not about absorbing a days worth of protein in a single meal (if it's the one I'm thinking of). Let me ask you this, why is protein the only nutrient that can't be absorbed if taken all in one meal? What about fats and carbs? Do hose get pissed out like protein? We wouldn't have obesity if that was the case.

IF diet has a 18/6 fasting/feeding window typically. 3 or 1 meals it's the window more than anything. The warrior diet does in fact advocate 1 big meal a day. IF may not be optimal for YOU, you can't blanket statement the whole population bc your results were not great. Again BS on IF not being an optimal way to build muscle. I helped several friends set up IF diets on a bulk and they've gained a minimum of 15lbs lbm in record time.

I ask you to quantify results vs BEST results. Please how much more muscle mass will one gain with the BEST results? You're missing he forest for the trees by focusing solely on protein synthesis and missing out on net protein balance as RippedZilla pointed out. Protein synthesis isn't even the whole part of the equation and not even the most important part.