40/40/20 vs 40/30/30

[pinkpink]

Hello

Whats everyones macro ratios? Look fwd to hearing ur opinions

I wanna know the difference btwn 40/40/20 and 40/30/30  P/C/F

[Dominique · Accepted solution]

"bulk" means you would eat at a surplus. "lean bulk" means that surplus would be moderate. I would set a target for protein in grams per body weight (e.g. 0.8 to 1.2 g per lb) and split the rest between carbs and fat as per your personal preferences, as long as total calories are in check (ie. result in the kind of moderate surplus you’re after in order to minimize fat gains).

[Dominique]

There are 9 calories per gram of fat vs. 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate. Therefore a diet higher in fat will be higher in calories. This may or may not fit your goal, depending on what you’re after.

[GershonSurge]

Not much. Either one will help cancer cells multiply, lead to heart disease, kidney problems, intestinal problems, etc.  Still, big muscles might be worth all that.

[shipo]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Not much. Either one will help cancer cells multiply, lead to heart disease, kidney problems, intestinal problems, etc.

---

A matter of opinion, an opinion which is highly controversial.

[Dominique]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Either one will help cancer cells multiply, lead to heart disease, kidney problems, intestinal problems, etc.

---

Gee, that’s a lot of nasty diseases you would get from merely eating (not even overeating) food... Gladfully, this isn’t supported by any serious research.

[GershonSurge]

---

@Dominique wrote:

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Either one will help cancer cells multiply, lead to heart disease, kidney problems, intestinal problems, etc.

---

Gee, that’s a lot of nasty diseases you would get from merely eating (not even overeating) food... Gladfully, this isn’t supported by any serious research.

---

Actually, it is, but people don't want to read bad news about their bad habits. I've given references to Dr. McDougall's work many times, but people refuse to read it or watch the videos. Instead, they read third party information about him that isn't correct. The research is decades old, and supported by loads of evidence. 

[shipo]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

---

@Dominique wrote:

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Either one will help cancer cells multiply, lead to heart disease, kidney problems, intestinal problems, etc.

---

Gee, that’s a lot of nasty diseases you would get from merely eating (not even overeating) food... Gladfully, this isn’t supported by any serious research.

---

Actually, it is, but people don't want to read bad news about their bad habits. I've given references to Dr. McDougall's work many times, but people refuse to read it or watch the videos. Instead, they read third party information about him that isn't correct. The research is decades old, and supported by loads of evidence. 

---

And therein lies the problem, Dr. McDougall's body of work is not generally accepted by the medical community; many of us, me included, use his advice as what not to do.

[GershonSurge]

I have no respect for a medical community that puts people on blood pressure medication, choresterol lowering medication, insulin and other drugs for life when these are easily fixable by diet for most people. I have no respect for a medical community that puts in stints and doesn't teach the patients how to avoid more stints in the future. I have no respect for a medical community where doctors get next to no nutrition training in medical school. I have no respect for a medical community who is just now discovering milk causes osteoperosis and is pretending it is new research. 

If people choose do the opposite of the solid research that shows the cause of heart disease and other diseases, that is their business. I am open to true moderation, but not a "eat what you like" diet and everyone will be healthy. 

[shipo]

I'm not saying you're wrong on many of your points; but be advised, Dr. McDougal is considered to be a quack in many circles.

Personally I feel some of his advice may work for a normal sedentary adult; for an athlete, his advice is decidedly unsustainable and will lead to a run down body, and a much higher likelihood of injury.

[GershonSurge]

---

@shipo wrote:

I'm not saying you're wrong on many of your points; but be advised, Dr. McDougal is considered to be a quack in many circles.

Personally I feel some of his advice may work for a normal sedentary adult; for an athlete, his advice is decidedly unsustainable and will lead to a run down body, and a much higher likelihood of injury.

---

You mean athletes like Carl Lewis whose diet was directly managed by Dr. McDougall? Scott Jurek, who won the Western States 100 six times and set the record for running the Appalachian Trail? He is vegan because he finds recovery time to be shorter.

I have never found anyone who suggested Dr. McDougall is a quack who could even start to explain the basis of his research.

[JamieS_Wisco]

Thank you @shipo and @Dominique for standing up for us meat eaters. 

@GershonSurge, I'd appreciate hearing from anyone other than Dr. McDougal or a person the is affilated with his company, that may or may not have simular opinions.  Still, not eating meat is not sustainable for me.  I come from a hunting family and most of my meat is wild caught venisen, fish and the like. 

For me I like to do a 40/40/20.    This is also key for my body building.  I like to get most of my fat with healthy fats (Almonds, Avacado and the like) Same with my carbs (whole grains, oats and veggies)  although I do cheat from time to time.  Just so I don't go nuts lol.

[GershonSurge]

Dr. Ornish, Dr. Ken Cooper, Neal Pritikin, Dr. Furhman, Dr. Campbell, and the list goes on and on. Some of them do allow small amounts of meat as Dr. McDougall does if you study his information.

The reason I focus on Dr. McDougall is he references countless studies, and all of his information is free on the internet.

[shipo]

At the risk of belaboring this discussion, it is quite simple to do a query on McDougall and come back with a whole host of valid criticisms of his teachings.  There may well be some endurance athletes who can survive on this type of a diet, but for the most part, it is a dangerous diet for follow when competitive endurance events are being attempted.

The reason I'm speaking up on this issue is there have been a number of folks in my running circle who've followed this type of diet for a period of many years and have suddenly been diagnosed with significant heart issues.  There is a lot of emerging evidence which indicates this type of a diet can be a contributing factor to the heart issues in endurance athletes.  Follow this type of diet at your own peril.

I've said my piece and I'm going to leave it at that.

[GershonSurge]

---

@shipo wrote:

At the risk of belaboring this discussion, it is quite simple to do a query on McDougall and come back with a whole host of valid criticisms of his teachings.  There may well be some endurance athletes who can survive on this type of a diet, but for the most part, it is a dangerous diet for follow when competitive endurance events are being attempted.

The reason I'm speaking up on this issue is there have been a number of folks in my running circle who've followed this type of diet for a period of many years and have suddenly been diagnosed with significant heart issues.  There is a lot of emerging evidence which indicates this type of a diet can be a contributing factor to the heart issues in endurance athletes.  Follow this type of diet at your own peril.

I've said my piece and I'm going to leave it at that.

---

@shipo,

What would qualify as "this type of diet?" 

How many people on the Standard American Diet (Sad) do you know who have had significant heart issues?

Whole populations of healthy active people have lived on this diet with scarcely any heart disease. 

Don't follow this way of eating at your own peril.

[JamieS_Wisco]

I did do a basic search of this diet and saw mostly unfavorable reviews.  @GershonSurge, if this works for you keep doing it.  I think that is the name of the game.  I think like anything you are going to find a small population that this may in fact work for.  You are also going to find with any type of "restrictive diet" you are going to have people it doesn't work for.  When I say "restrictive" I mean any diet that cuts out any food group completely.  For me, I think this leads to "binge style" eating when a person eats that forbidden fruit.  Just my two cents.

[GershonSurge]

Stymied by the "cursory search." I give up. I forgot. If it's longer than a text message, people aren't interested. 

If you'd like to do some research, I'd suggest these videos.  This is not new science. 

[JamieS_Wisco]

It's not necessarily that.  Sorry, but I am a single mom of a 16 year old, work full-time, fit in my work outs, donate plasma twice a week  and will be going back to school this winter.  To say I don't have a lot of "spare time" is an understatement most days.  So unfortunately yes, I like to get my information in nugget form, something easily digestible within about 15 minute segments.  Because that is how much personal time I get. 

Plus, as I said before.  Do what works.  So far, what I am doing, works for me.  I don't have high cholesterol, no heart issues and I have yet to get cancer.  I am sure by the luck of the draw one of these things will happen before I pass on.   Studies change from year to year.  Take the egg.  It wasn't long ago they were saying it was completely unhealthy, now it is has magically reverted back to not all that bad even very healthy depending who you talk to.  I am sure before it is all done and said some scientist will have decided that saliva causes cancer but only if one swallows small amounts continually throughout one's life.  That last part is a joke but you can see where I am going. 

I know there can be several good things from following a vegetarian/ vegan lifestyle.  It's just not one that I am prepared to undertake.   There is also a few drawbacks to a vegetarian/ vegan lifestyle, like vitamins and minerals that can only be found in meat. 

This may be one of those things that we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[GershonSurge]

@JamieS_Wisco,

My initial response to the OP was triggered by the 40% protein and @Dominique's response that a person should get .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound. The actual number is .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram. The only way to get either of these numbers is by taking supplements. The body only needs 5% of its calories from protein and up to 15% is safe. 

Women don't have to worry much if they don't smoke and eat what used to be considered a normal diet. A small amount of lean meat or fish, potatoes, vegetables and some fruit during the day or some ethnic equivalent of this. Men have to be a bit more careful.

Truthfully, I had resolved to not make any more comments about food, but I broke that resolution. Thirty-five percent of Americans are obese compared to 10 or 15% in 1990. Seventy-five percent are overweight. I decided these people would save social security by dying young. They will also bankrupt the country by their medical problems. People don't even know what a normal weight looks like or what healthy is. 

I'll crawl back in my hole and let the high protein, high fat, and low carb gurus continue to kill people. The science and research on this extreme is comprehensive and clear. 

[JamieS_Wisco]

@GershonSurge

If you note, what I say I am doing for a diet is not what can be considered High Fat/Low Carb.  I do 40% of my calories from protein, 40% of my calories from carbohydrates and 20% of my calories from fat.  I try to get as much of my fat calories from healthy sources and as close as I can get to those ranges.  I don't beat myself up about a few percentage points one way or another.

It is well known that most Americans over do the meat based protein and therefore have issues with high blood pressure and weight. However, it should be noted that many Americans over do most foods and not just protein.  This is not new science, so I also agree with you there.

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

@JamieS_Wisco,

My initial response to the OP was triggered by the 40% protein and @Dominique's response that a person should get .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per pound. The actual number is .8 to 1.2 grams of protein per kilogram. The only way to get either of these numbers is by taking supplements. The body only needs 5% of its calories from protein and up to 15% is safe. 

Women don't have to worry much if they don't smoke and eat what used to be considered a normal diet. A small amount of lean meat or fish, potatoes, vegetables and some fruit during the day or some ethnic equivalent of this. Men have to be a bit more careful. 

---

Other that the .8 to 1.2 grams per kilogram, I am not sure where you are getting your figures.  But I am going to go ahead and guess straight from Dr. McDougal's mouth. 

Adults  are encouraged to get 10% to 35% of their day's calories from protein foods. That's about 46 grams of protein for women, and 56 grams of protein for men.

It's not hard to get this amount if you eat two to three servings of protein-rich foods a day, according to the CDC.

• A small 3-ounce piece of meat has about 21 grams of protein. A typical 8-ounce piece of meat could have over 50 grams of protein.
• One 8-ounce container of yogurt has about 11 grams of protein.
• One cup of milk has 8 grams of protein.
• One cup of dry beans has about 16 grams of protein.

As already noted, Men need more protein than women as that correlates directly that men need more calories than women.  Not the other way around.  Some people need more protein than that even! Pregnant women are recommended 10% more, Nursing women should aim for 20% more, Endurance Athletes like marathoners and bodybuilders need 50% more than a sedentary person and for the extreme athlete up to double that of a sedentary person.  It should also be noted that unlike animal proteins, most plant-based proteins are "incomplete" meaning they lack some amino acid building blocks on their own and one should eat a combination of them to get them all.  

Again, I am getting close to a healthy weight range.  I have more muscle mass than the average woman.  Is this healthy?  My Cholesterol numbers are good, by blood pressure and pulse are both low.  I wear smaller pants than now than I did in high school.  I feel good and am rarely sick.  I am happy when I see the reflection in the mirror and my doctor sees no cause for alarm.  So, I am going to continue on this path until one of those things changes. As I continually say, If it works for you, it works.  This is working for me.