Confused

O

Owndawg

New Member
Some say that the ideal macronutrients profile is 30pro 30fat 40carb others say 30pro 20fat 50carbs,
The question is which is more right than the other, when were talkin bulk?

And a friend of mine has an high carb day (I think its every 12 days) on bulk, but he refuses to tell me why, his personal trainer hos told im to do that(DC trainer).
Anyone know what a high-carbday would do on bulk?

I know it can boost your metabolism when cutting carbs..
cool.gif
 
There is no ideal macronutrient profile.

Just get around 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyfat, get at least 20-30% of your calories from fats and fill in the rest with carbs. Don't worry about percentages or ratios so much.
 
<div>
(Totentanz @ Oct. 15 2006,14:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is no ideal macronutrient profile.</div>
True, what's perfect for me would not be perfect for you. Perfect for you would be wrong for someone else.

A general guideline which you then have to adapt to your own individual needs, goals, and results would be something like this:

Bulking: start with 16 calories/lb of bodyweight. If not gaining the way you want start adding 250 calories/day once each week until you are. You may end up eating as much as 20 calories/lb of bodyweight - if on gear, upt to 25. If you are gaining more fat than you'd like simply reduce calories the same way 250/day once each week until gaining muscle but not getting fat.

A good starting place for macros is:
Carbs - 45%
Protein - 35%
Fat - 20% with emphasis on healthy fats, but not forsaking saturated fat completely - because it helps with hormone production.

Then if you find this much carbs makes you fat - eat less, if you find you don't have enough energy, eat more. If you find that you can't eat enough because the fat is too satisfying - eat less fat. If you find you are hungry all the time - eat more fat.

To keep track of it all, open a free account at www.fitday.com and plug everything that goes into your mouth into it. It will then tell you how close to your macro goals you are.

There are other calculators that exclude bodyfat from the formula and base your needs on LBM only since fat isn't metabolically active - go to T-Nation and search for &quot;Massive Eating&quot; to use one of those and be even more specific.
 
My body likes to burn fat so I'm considering this a good sign that I need a higher fat diet than Joe Dieter who say only gets 30% of his diet from fats.

I'm not a huge fan of lots of carbs anyway....my body reacts very quickly to them and if I eat too many I REALLY feel it quickly. (zzzzz)
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(Key Of David @ Oct. 15 2006,17:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My body likes to burn fat</div>
You lucky bastard.

There's some theory about &quot;hunters&quot; and &quot;agrarians&quot;, two different groups of humans that evolved differently, 1 eats mainly meat (and hence process fat and protein easily) and 1 that eats mainly grains (leaner, process carbs better)

Sounds like you're a &quot;meat-eater&quot; type, so you're probably better suited genetically to bulking up. You can thank your ancestors for that one.
 
I don't personally believe that theory...I think we're all the same, just with the 3 different body types, henceforth requiring different ratios to achieve the same ends. Wasn't that from some of the Atkins hype?
 
The bodytyping thing is also bunk. Read what it is actually based on sometime. Ectomorphs = nerds who are introverted and skinny, mesomorphs = natural atheletes and basically all around good people who inspire others, are leaders, etc etc,

Also, how would you know if your body 'likes to burn fat'? Do you use pee on ketone sticks constantly?
 
I think there's some truth in every theory. I think some people had ancestors who only ate meat for thousands of years, hence their digestive system evolved slightly differently from someone who's ancestors only ate grains. However most people have eaten both for thousands of years, so for most people it is bunk.

As for somatotyping, again there is truth to it, there are people who are naturally &quot;endomorphic&quot; (big fat strong powerlifter type dudes), naturally &quot;meso&quot; (atheletic build) and naturally &quot;ecto&quot; (skinny people who are better at long-distance sports). Of course training, diet, lifestyle and drugs can change that significantly, but they are still visible in most people. Again many people are ecto-meso or endo-meso so it isn't as clear cut in real life as it was originally explained.

Not sure about ectos being nerds who like book learning more than other people though...
 
Yeah and there are just as many exceptions to those rules as there are people who fit into them, so they aren't really valid. That makes them a waste of time. Read the actual theories the guy had who came up with them originally, they are crazy as hell.

For what it is worth, I'm a naturally lean guy and I suck at endurance stuff. I excel at sprinting, etc etc. Doesn't really fit in with the ectomorph thing. Did I mention that I operate best on less carbs, more meat and fats? Kinda goes opposite of that hunter/agrarian thing too. I'd bet you that you could find a dozen other guys here who don't fit into any of those definitions properly either.
 
Well, I think you're partially right there...because I've seen many consider themselves to be &quot;ecto-meso&quot; or &quot;meso-endo&quot; or whatever. I'm thinking that the 3 types are valid because there seems to be 3 different ways, or levels of fat processing in people. My wife eats a TON of sugar and garbage every day (I'm working on her, believe me) and she's 5'7&quot; and 120lbs. with almost no fat. Most of us would explode on her diet.

But she's not a nurd by a long shot!
 
i go along with what totz is saying, so far as its impossible to fit all (most) in into neat catagories like ecto. meso etc (or even the combos endo/meso) as the list of exceptions is far too great.

i think most use the main terms ecto, meso and endo to describe the basic overall structure you found yourself with going thru/finishing puberty. usually well before worrying about things like diet, wgt lifting etc. weve all been to high school and its obvious whos being asked to go out for the football team, whos being asked to join the cross country team and whos being told they better start watching what they eat. being naturally lean doesnt make you a good runner as much as being naturally more muscular (or fatter) make you a better football player its just that your starting out &quot;closer&quot; to what those participants look like. i think thats where most are going wrong. bodytyping is, at best, a general statement about your basic body composition in an normal activity/average diet setting (ie: no endurance running or serious lifting or bulk/cut diets etc). forget all the other steriotypical &quot;traits&quot; that go along with being one or the other.

what you decide to do with it from there makes all the diff. depending on your goals your &quot;bodytype&quot; can be an asset, an excuse, a crutch or just an obstacle. its all up to you.

as far as the hunter vs agrarian thing still hoding sway even today i dont know. i havent heard that one before so i couldnt intelligently respond.
 
I read once that the body type you generally have by around age 16 is what your bod will try to be for the rest of your life...if that's true, a lot of american kids are in trouble! (unless they discover HST of course...)
 
I am not sure what type I am, I am pretty sure though that I am a skinny, but muscular, and a little fat type. Also I would bet I am a hunter type, but also some grazer in there and probably a little fast-food eater ancestors. It is not proven, but some of my ancestors liked apple pie ala mode I am pretty sure. Also probably my ancestors liked to have sex and sleep alot too, because I sure do!!!!
smile.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Oct. 17 2006,18:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am not sure what type I am, I am pretty sure though that I am a skinny, but muscular, and a little fat type. Also I would bet I am a hunter type, but also some grazer in there and probably a little fast-food eater ancestors. It is not proven, but some of my ancestors liked apple pie ala mode I am pretty sure. Also probably my ancestors liked to have sex and sleep alot too, because I sure do!!!!
smile.gif
</div>
Lol, funny reply, SM. I have analyzed this and determined that you are of type homo sapiens.
tounge.gif


As for all this stuff that people are saying about &quot;my ancestors were probably this or that&quot;...has anyone stopped to think about how many ancestors have an influence on a person's genetics? The likelihood of having ancestors mostly of one particular type or tribe is probably small unless you come from a tribe that was separated from the rest of the world for thousands of years up until the present.

Probably we need a geneticist to explain how silly it is, but those guys are all ectomorphs and not going to hang around a place full of muscle bound people like us
wink.gif
. I'm thinking 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, etc. A mathematician would probably call it an exponential function (curving upward until it goes almost straight up) but that'd be more nerd-ectomorphs and we can't have them.

The whole discussion reminds me of one from another forum where someone was expounding on their view of how having a father who did manual labor and built up his forearms made one more likely to have big forearms (look up Lamarckism). I prefer science to such silly speculations myself.
 
just to be a gimp
smile.gif


the terms ectomorph, endomorph etc are actually observational descriptors, not by anything to do with genetics in the slightest.

It rolls pretty close to phrenology

biggrin.gif
 
Yeah those things are just meant to be a guide, and to explain phenomenon like why some guys naturally respond well to powerlifting type training, and some respond well to endurance type training. And also to explain why some people process fat better and why some people process carbs better.

I haven't actually read about the crazy details of the somatotype theory (most scientists are crazy folk so it doesn't surprise me), when I learnt about it in my course I just learnt about the 3 categories, and guidelines for what training and diet they respond too best (generally).
 
somatotyping...

it was origonally used to describe temperments and their related body-type. Unfortunately in the measuring of them, somebody can change their dominant type. Diet a lot, become a ectomorph, gain muscle become a mesomoprh. Eat a lot get fat and become an endomorph
 
I always thought that somatotyping was a big generalisation. It's a bit like saying that there are tall people, middle-sized people and short people, oh, plus the ones in-between!

I'm pretty certain that if you were able to take a reasonably large sample of a population you would find a normal distribution (bell curve thingy) of body types, assuming that there was a readily available and affordable supply of food.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Oct. 18 2006,08:00)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I always thought that somatotyping was a big generalisation. It's a bit like saying that there are tall people, middle-sized people and short people, oh, plus the ones in-between!</div>
Exactly! Assigning a label to those who have certain characteristics doesn't yield any insight or provide any explanation.

Tell you what, I'm going to categorize people another way, by intelligence. It's controversial to some, but I'll use a standard IQ test. I'll call some smarters, some middlers, and some dullers. Now, take a random sample from each group and send them to a Calculus class. I predict that members of the &quot;smarters&quot; will do better (unless the others are taught by etothepii from this board
wink.gif
) . Pretty insightful, huh? I should write a book based on this revolutionary discovery.
tounge.gif


Assigning people to a category or label doesn't explain anything. Think of the people &quot;diagnosed&quot; with ADD--Attention Deficit Disorder. Well, exactly what virus or gene causes this? As far as I know no one knows and it's just a label assigned to people who tend to be hyperactive or have a hard time concentrating. If you have those problems certain medications may be helpful, but attaching a label to a set of characteristics as though it explained anything is not too useful IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top