I dont agree either. Could you explain this further. Im not trying to upset you.

And, lifting to tone, what do you mean by that? Toning (or looking toned, flexed, etc) is "primarily" a function of low body fat, with composition considerations.

When your body has broken muscle tissue, it can take up to a week to completely repair it ( I know lifters do it twice a week but that's because the skeletal muscle is repaired in only 48 hours, amino's are the building blocks for that muscle tissue and you need 1 to 1 and a half grams of protien per 1lb of lean body mass or so i've read in multiple places) and on a cutting diet if you are lifting and are 150lbs of lean body mass you need around 200g's of protien to repair the various tissues in your body (you won't use all of that protien for muscle reapir but you need that much to make sure your body gets enough), any excess protien not uses is ussually excreted. I've also read hte mechanism (gluconeogenesis and lipogenesis) turning aminos into fat and glucose has little net gain of energy it takes almost as much energy to convert an amino into glucose as that glucose then would supply. I'm not saying it doesnt EVER turn to fat .... of course it can be turned into fat, i'm saying most of the time it won't it'll either be used for muscle tissue, excreted or supply glucose in small amounts that are needed when there is a low carb intake.

when I say lifting to tone.. that was bad choic of words i should of said lifting to sustain during a cutting phase

IF you guys think im wrong you could maybe like show me some sources... I mean i won't get upset it's just what i've read in different places being wrong is just being unluckily misinformed it's not really a big deal... All I care about is being fit not being right but if there is a source that shows that the mechanism converting aminos into glucose or fat has a considerable net gain of atp that would be MORE than you need on a cutting phase then show me o_O

OF course there is a net gain of atp in lipogenesis or gluconeogenesis but if the body has enough energy to sustain itself it won't initilize this process unless it's really needed because it's so inefficient, so protien would be excreted, if protien is used in these processes, then the energy it supplies will be in high demand from the lower carb intake.

just another thing gluconeogenesis can be applied to fat as well but the atp net gain is vastly different so make sure it's from protien if you show me some info o_O lol well of course you would just want to remind ya..

s okay i'm on an endorphin rush xD can't get upset right now neway ^_^
also I know there is alot of debate in the air about whether protien can be turned to fat or not
but from what i believe in a cutting phase 50% protien won't

Also I do know that the National Academy of Sports Medecine (which is what ur profile says your certfied in) reccomends a diet similiar to roughly 50-70% of your diet should be carbohydrates, 15-35% should be protein, 15-25% fats but the arguement that (biologically a 16 carbon fatty acid molecule will provide about 140 units of ATP a similar chained glucose molecule will provide less units of ATP. 1 grams of amino acids provides 1 unit of ATP) protien is to inefficient as an energy source when converted is more biological rather than theory, so I agree with those that argue from a medical standpoint.

I don't

Well, I advocate a high carb approach when it comes to training - at least for the average gym rat.

Carbs are the primary fuel for weight training and for intense levels of cardio. And for most gym rats, insulin / fat issues are not significant IMO. For most gym rags, most of their body's protein needs can easily be met at around 25% +/- of our total daily calories....so there is no added significant benefit to athletic performance by having protein at much higher levels - i.e 50%.

As for high carb diets significantly promoting undue fat storage due to insulin - I don't really embrace that notion. To me, even though some carbs might bump insulin more than others and the higher insulin might ( as you say ) enhance fat storage in certain circumstances, that's usually in the context of when glucose is in excess IMO. So as it pertains to fat, from an excess point of view, the issue is the high number of ( excess ) calories from carbs - not the carbs themselves.

That's interesting you cite " increasing testosterone ", because most of what I've read suggests that a low fat diet will actually contribute to lowering your various testosterone levels while a diet with a moderate to high fat intake actually raises your testosterone levels.

Which is odd - because I've never heard of 20% being one number consistently being cited more often than any others.

If anything, the numbers I see most often - in the context of strength and other athletes - is a fat % somewhere between 25% - 35%.

Yes it is...why wouldn't it be ?


Not sure I follow.

Why ?

Excess fat, protein or carbs may all be stored as fat - so, when it comes to adding fat, the key issue is excess calories - not carbs.

How many grams of protein per 1lb of lean body mass do you need , in your view, if you are NOT on a cutting diet, but rather, you are on a maintenance or bulking diet ?

O.K. then - under what conditions is there a very high probability that excess protein WILL in fact get stored as fat ?

Theres no debate, an excess amount of protein IS stored as fat.
The biological mechanism, which is pretty obvious - exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan04



Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan04
Well I advocate a lean protien diet that is higher protien than carbs like 50%, 30%, 20% p/c/f because it lowers your insulin levels and there's a far lower chance of glycogen turning to fat in periods of rest

Well, I advocate a high carb approach when it comes to training - at least for the average gym rat.

Carbs are the primary fuel for weight training and for intense levels of cardio. And for most gym rats, insulin / fat issues are not significant IMO. For most gym rags, most of their body's protein needs can easily be met at around 25% +/- of our total daily calories....so there is no added significant benefit to athletic performance by having protein at much higher levels - i.e 50%.



----Well of course for aethletic performance I would agree to build stamina strength and such a higher carb macronutrient ratio is better but from what i've read the competition bodybuilders and some male models are on a lean protien diet during cutting phases and it centers around controlling insulin. --



As for high carb diets significantly promoting undue fat storage due to insulin - I don't really embrace that notion. To me, even though some carbs might bump insulin more than others and the higher insulin might ( as you say ) enhance fat storage in certain circumstances, that's usually in the context of when glucose is in excess IMO. So as it pertains to fat, from an excess point of view, the issue is the high number of ( excess ) calories from carbs - not the carbs themselves.



----Apparently there is debate among this, but a lot of the competitors use higher protien macronutrient ratios to hit that single digit and I personally like how a lean protien diet works with me so I do believe controlling insulin promotes fat loss everyone is different though so maybe it just affects me better than others, I heard tony freeman the bodybuilder goes as far as cutting his carbs completely in cutting phases ---

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan04
(with the right exercises it also is better for increasing testosterone). Also I don't know the biological reasons behind 20% but that's typically what you need for the right hormone production and for your skin.

That's interesting you cite " increasing testosterone ", because most of what I've read suggests that a low fat diet will actually contribute to lowering your various testosterone levels while a diet with a moderate to high fat intake actually raises your testosterone levels.


--I do know sat fat helps in the production of testosterone and that weight lifting helps promote that, whether 20% is the right macronutrient ratio I do not know the biology behind it >< it's just what several credible people have told me. People with degrees in exercise science and nutrition and a couple models.--


Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan04
Except in keto diets i've always heard 20% for all other types of diet.. but I don't know the reasoning behind 20%... what would you use that other 5% fat for?

Which is odd - because I've never heard of 20% being one number consistently being cited more often than any others.

If anything, the numbers I see most often - in the context of strength and other athletes - is a fat % somewhere between 25% - 35%.


-- i'm aware of that nasm reccomends 25-35 and most personal trainers also recognize such, I prolly should look more into the biology and detail about that number, 20% is just what i've heard many times and except for a few pro bodybuilders that resort to keto, is what they use.--


Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan04
and there is a higher chance of obtaining excess glycogen. If you obtain excess protien it goes right through you most of the time anyway.

Excess fat, protein or carbs may all be stored as fat - so, when it comes to adding fat, the key issue is excess calories - not carbs.



---No I don't agree that protien turns to fat so easily, I don't believe it CAN't ever either I know that is a myth, but the process in which amino's are converted to glycogen is extremely inefficient at supplying atp--

I'm not saying there isn't... infact i even said the name for them lipogenesis or gluconeogenesis are the biological processes in which protien is converted into fat and glyco, i'm saying though, that you need extreme amounts in excess for their to be a signficant net gain of atp in gluconeogensis for excess energy to be converted to fat.

How many grams of protein per 1lb of lean body mass do you need , in your view, if you are NOT on a cutting diet, but rather, you are on a maintenance or bulking diet ?

carbs and fat are the most efficient form of supplying atp to the body, with such energy available your body is more efficient in muscle repair, but the idea is to lose fat not to gain muscle, so your body needs atp from somewhere and if there is a lack of glucose, and a lean 20% of fatty acids then the only other place it can get atp from is protien or fat bodies but It won't get it from the protien if your doing exercises that promote muscle growth. In addition to being a calorie consuming process of converting protien to atp, protien is also the most thermogenic of foods when consumed, so it burns the most calories just by simple digestion ( I don't advocate metabolic flux and negative calories, but higher thermogenic foods cost more atp to absorb) In all cases protien is VERY inefficient as an energy source, and your body has no other way to get energy but from the fat bodies and by controlling your insulin levels in this way your body is more likely to utilize those for atp.



O.K. then - under what conditions is there a very high probability that excess protein WILL in fact get stored as fat ? you would have to be eating quite a bit of protien for the glycogen produced by it to be stored as fat. When protien is converted to glycogen, it uses almost as much atp as the glycogen produced supplies, so then you would also have to have enough glycogen from that process to not be more than enough so that it is triggered to be stored as fat rather than it being used for energy.

"that you need extreme amounts in excess for their to be a signficant net gain of atp in gluconeogensis for excess energy to be converted to fat"

That really doesnt make much sense at all..

It isnt ATP that is the precursor for conversion of protein to fat its the substrate itself.

This is just what i've read and heard from diff credible people... I mean I'm not a personal trainer like u two o_O just average joe so your opinions are probably more credible than mine but some biology would help me understand your thoughts on protien being converted to fat more easily.

hmm mab i'm not very articulate >_<

ATp is energy, if there is a need for it your body will do what it takes to get it I don't understand what your saying >_<... and converting protien to glycogen is a process it uses if carbs and fats or atp from the muscles or liver is not availble... but it has little net atp gains.


What I meant is gluconeogensis by protien into glycogen, costs almost as much atp as that GLYCOGEN produced by the proccess will than supply, so your body needs so much atp, then during the conversion needs even more atp, but after the conversion is over has some glycogen to have a net gain of atp, this process isn't used very often because it;s inefficient at supplying a net gain of atp, and in addition isn't used very often for protien conversion. so your body would lets say needs so much energy for it to fullfill it's bodily functions through gluconeogensis it would have to produce enough energy to fullfill those functions and have enough left over for that glycogen to be stored. OR so i've come to think >_<

JUST simply protien is to inefficient as an energy source ><

Like okee I'm trying to explain why protien isn't easily converted into fat, are you understanding why?? Or am I not explaining right? >_< and you guys say it is turned into fat just like carbs or protien, why so though? I see it as different from carbs and fat for the biological reasons stated above... Is there a reason why gluconeogensis would occur more often, rather than protien being extcreted in waste? or is there a reason why the conversion of protien would have a higher net gain of atp indirectly? I kinda think you guys put sole importance of diet in a calorie deficient not all calories are equal... the thermogenic value, the gi value of carbs, macro nutrient timing, can be just as important as the cutting of calories.
IF you could are perfectly, you could eat the calories you exerted but manipulate your body in such a way that you lose fat and gain muscle from it although it would be on a very small scale and eating that way is very difficult.

I mean basically i've come to believe
biologically a 16 carbon fatty acid molecule will provide about 140 units of ATP a similar chained glucose molecule will provide less units of ATP. 1 grams of amino acids provides 1 unit of ATP So when those amino's are converted they make very little net gain of fat or glucose.

The primary goal is to LOSE fat as fast as possible not to increase stamina, strength, health, etc.. I mean ketogenic type diets are horrible for your health but for some people they are very efficient at losing fat...So NASM might not reccomend such notions to lose fat because they aren't optimal for health I donno if that's there reason or not though I'm just guessing ><...Although I don't know much about ketogenics so I mostly stay away from it but what i've heard is that macroratio of 5/3/2 p/c/f isn't as risky like ketogenic.