| Author | Post |
|---|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2008 11:24 am |
|
Hello :)
In the past I've only ever tracked calories, and occasionally protein. But until the past few days I'd never tracked the macronutrient ratios. It adds an extra element to the numbers game!
I'm currently aiming for 30:50:20 [protein:carb:fat]. But being particularly mindful of the amount of fat I am consuming often the carbs come in higher, and it's a bit of a puzzle how to bring that down.
So what I'm wondering is, what are the limits? Which macronutrients above a certain percentage adversely affect weightloss? I've heard mention that fat % over a certain level significantly reduces weightloss, not sure of the number. Is there a similar thing for others?
Or should I not worry too much about it and just make sure I'm under my calories? ;)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2008 05:14 pm |
|
Fat: apparently 10% is too low and ideally it should be between 15% and 20%.
Carboyhydrates: start at 50%. So long as they are unrefined (i.e. veg, fruit, legumes, whole-grains) this can be higher, unless you are carb-sensitive (which is a minority of people)
Protein is a somewhat controversial topic. (My current belief is that we trivially consume more than is healthy for us. It has taken me quite a while to come to this point of view, though.)
On a low-carb diet, fat and carb flip: you eat more fat and less carbs and yet people can lose weight on such a diet. That is, in the absence of many carbs, extra fat is not detremental to weight loss. In fact some people (those who are carb-sensitive, and those who are already very lean) might lose weight on such a diet whilst they might not lose on an isocaloric diet (diet with the same number of calories) which was lower-fat, higher-carb. To re-state: low-carb diets work for everyone, but for some people (a minority) they work wheras low-fat diets do not work as well for them.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2008 05:15 pm |
|
| Coincidentally as of today I'm increasing my fat calories from 15% to 20%
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 09:55 am |
|
Okay then :D So as long as the majority of the carbs aren't refined sugars I'll shouldn't worry too much about them. I certainly don't think I'm carb-sensitive, I don't think I'd have lost any weight over this past year if I was!
Flipping fat and carbs for a low-carb diet seems the complete opposite of what is natural and healthy. Although often it is tempting to try that approach as Tom would be more willing to join in! I'm not sure I could do it; having been vegetarian for several years previously and the fact I get bad breath when I'm dieting anyway ;) You win some you lose some I guess!
As for protein, I'm always interested in what you have to say regarding nutrition since you put so much emphasis on it. What are your new views on protein consumption?
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 10:12 am |
|
For the low-carb angle it can be vegeterian basically lots of raw and cooked non-starchy vegetables and rounding up calories with nuts and seeds (with hardly any grains, legumes, fruit or starchy vegetables). So the debate isn't about whether you need to eat meat and fish but whether it is OK to eliminate entire food-groups. I've already more or less eliminated grains (with Dr Fuhrman's blessing) but eliminating the other groups could leave one open to micronutrient deficiencies.
Regarding protein: well for some time I was sitting on the fence, telling people to eat between 1.5g and 1.8g per kilo of body weight, with 1.8g being the amount Dr Peter Lemon established for nitrogen balance for strength athletes (i.e. body builders). However, I have recently been re-reading Eat To Live and on this (second, I think) reading I am more open to the suggestion that our body does not require that much protein. There have also been recent studies published that show that animals live longer when given less protein. I have therefore decided to aim for 1.0g per kilo. Note that this is still higher than the RDA which is set at 0.8g per kilo and even that figure reportedly has a built-in safety margin. For now I have decided to be less vein and more health-concious. Interestingly with the healthy foods I eat I find it difficult to hit my protein target, I overshoot it every day - with the exception of last Friday where a quarter of my calories were from vodka and chocolate truffles, where I had to conciously supplement protein to get it up to the target level. So ironically with my new protein level, so long as I eat healthy foods protein has become a non-issue and I can generally just count calories 
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 10:36 am |
|
I'm not sure I could cut out legumes, they've stayed somewhat of a habit since being vegetarian. Which is no bad thing seing as they are relatively cheap. I want to reduce my carbs somewhat, trying to aim to only have bread, pasta, rice or potato only once a day, based on well-rounded and obvious suggestions with the emphasis of living naturally in one of the books I have [not strictly a diet orientated book I must add].
That protein goal seems far more achievable, I had been going on the 1.5g - 1.8g you informed me of last year. I've always been mindful that I eat protein sources [again, due to having been vegetarian in that past] but the goal of 108g was often very difficult to attain, and when eating an otherwise well balanced diet I wondered how natural that was. Reducing my protein target to 1.0g per kg [60g] plays havoc with my percentages... 20:60:20 comes out for instance at, 80g:166g:36g based on my maximum calories in a day.
For now I have decided to be less vein and more health-concious.
So the higher protein target was more designed for those building muscle? I seemed to have missed that. Although, I know eating enough protein is important in maintaining muscle during weightloss.
Will have to do some reading around myself on the topic, anywhere in particular you've found interesting?
I don't know. It's all rather confusing :)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 10:46 am |
|
Where to go rather depends on which way you wish to be influenced.
If you read anything related to body building (Lyle McDonald, Tom Venuto etc) you will be stirred towards high protein. (also there are high-protein diets such as Atkins and the Zone which prescribe protein)
If you read from the healthy eating direction (Joel Fuhrman books/websites; calorie restriction websites/lists) then it is mostly the other direction.
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 11:05 am |
|
Okay, well I am definitely a more healthy-eating inclined person :)
Back to the macronutrient ratios. To eat the lower guideline of 60g protein, and the ideal 15% fat, my percentages would be 15:70:15
The carbs seem incredibly high, but it makes a lot of sense, especially when I think back to the food wheel that was ever-so-popular in food tech at school:
A third from bread, rice, potatoes etc and a third from fruits and vegetables, both essentially carbs. With the rest split between protein sources and fats.
So I guess regardless of what my calorie goal is [weight loss or maintenance] the ratios should pretty much be the same. Except for the minority of carb-sensitive people you mention.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 11:14 am |
|
Yes.
As you say, both the fruit/veg sector and the starches/grains sectors are mostly carbs but the health angle would have me redraw that portion to emphasize vegetables (non-starchy and starchy), legumes and fruits whilst de-emphasizing grains (wheat, pasta, rice) and ruling out the refined (non-whole) grains altogether.
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 11:24 am |
|
Your suggestion makes a lot of sense. I was thinking about just how many calories that equates to for me in real terms. 535 from grains, which is easy to do, but that would mean two full portions [going on packaging guidance] of pasta, rice etc a day and that seems quite a lot.
But that may just be because I am in conscientious mode.
So you would include potatoes and legumes in the vegetable department? That's interesting. I always lumped potatoes with the rice/pasta, and legumes kind of floated somewhere in the middle of everything else.
I don't really know where I'm going with this now, or what I'm getting at. But it has been very insightful, thank-you for the feedback :D
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2008 11:40 am |
|
I guess I'm saying the disc isn't all bad but that I'd redraw some boundaries. The disc has the legumes with the meat (I guess for the benefit of vegeterians) even though they're mostly-carbohydrates.
I like this pyramid, even though it is a bit unclear about where starchy vegetables fit in:
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Mar 2008 08:23 am |
|
Yeah I quite like that pyramid, except for the once and twice weekly bits - you can have a healthy diet without limiting those items that much!
Where would something like Quorn fit in? [Made from vegetables, but very processed].
This week I've come to the conclusion that worrying too much about macronutrients makes food unenjoyable...
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 20 Mar 2008 08:58 am |
|
For Quorn (and TVP, which is manufactured from soy beans) I guess count it as vegetable but don't eat it too often due to it being a processed food.
I have had a love/hate relationship with macronutrient tracking which goes back about 4 years!
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 20 Mar 2008 09:08 am |
|
Okay :) I'm not really a fan of TVP/soya mince any more, it smells funny [like opening a bag of balloons] and last time I used it the food was horrible. But that might have been because it was chilli, and I've been tweaking my homemade chilli for a while now trying to get the flavour just right [without using expensive shop bought packets].
If I went back to being vegetarian I reckon my macronutrients would sort themselves out since my diet would be much lower in fat. It's tempting, and I could easily go back to it, but I'm not sure Tom would be happy about that! Need to get through the stuff in the freezer first though!
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 20 Mar 2008 09:35 am |
|
| Tell me about it. I have so much chicken, turkey, ham and fish, all packged in tiny 50-calorie portion mini-bags (the type your bank hopes you'll put coins in) and perhaps occupying a third of my freezer space; then there are tins of tuna, pilchards, salmon and sardins in the cupboards. Arghhh. I hate wasting food, especially when I've paid for it.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 21 Mar 2008 07:00 pm |
|
| Topical: on the 20th of March, Dr Joel Fuhrman posted about percentage of calories that should come from fat at http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/weight-loss-food-scoring-guide-multifaceted-needs.html
|
Aimless
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 21 Mar 2008 07:21 pm |
|
I really hate waste also, especially when I frequently can't afford and/or deny myself other things that I need. I would say this is probably one of the main factors in me putting on weight in the first place, I just finish the portion I'm given. It's like "there are people starving in the world, be grateful" sort of thing is really ingrained in my behaviour. Tom's mum serves far larger portions than my mum, so I think over the years my stomach was substantially enlarged!
Interesting article. I bought a bag of pumpkin seeds to have on hand as a snack, but so far I haven't had enough of a low-fat day to justify having them - so the band of 15 - 40% is interesting. So long as they're 'healthy' fats, I guess.
|
Current time is 03:32 pm | |
|
