# Confusion over calorie intake ??



## rick84 (May 11, 2008)

Ok, tyrin to work out my calories for gainin lean mass. Jumped on the old tanita scales this mornin before breaky and got my lean mass of 76.6kg.

Just been on the CNP website and inputted my lean mass in the macro counter and got the following figures:

protein - 252g

carbs - 504g

fats - 84g

total - 3786 cal's

Are these reasonable figures to go off????

I also worked out my calories via the 'diet for begginers' link on this site and the figures were more like 4300 calories????

Any suggestions as to where i should be roughly aiming for as the two differ quite alot, cheers:thumb:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Those figures both seem a lot to me for a lean bulk... a rough calorie calculation I like for lean bulking based on LBM rather than total BM is lean mass in kg x 45... so in your case:

76.6 x 44= 3370.4 kcals

Unless extremely active on top of the weight training, I can only see daily kcals above around 3500 adding considerable fat to someone with an LBM similar to yours. If that's not a problem then fine, but if you want to stay lean I wouldn't go that high.


----------



## rick84 (May 11, 2008)

Which is exactly whats happening, BF has shot from 12% to 16%. How would u recommend splitting the macro's down for best result??

Appreciate the reply fella, cheers.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Look, there is a lot of room for different opinion on this - but one thing no one can argue with, is that calorie requirements are determined by activity.

So, with that in mind, you CANT use a template for anything other than a (very very VERY) rough guide.

You could take two physically identical guys and put them on your outline above. One guy doesnt work tho, and sits on his ar$e all day, only activity he has, is when he goes to the gym 3x per week.

His twin is the opposite, works a physical job (building site labourer say), takes all the over time he can get, doesnt own a car, so walks a good part of the way to work, and his missus is a fat lazy cow so when he gets in from working his long shifts, he has to make his own tea, then run about after the kids.

It is perfectly conciveable that guy 1 will get fat very quick, and guy 2 won't gain any wieght at all - might even lose.

And this is without taking possible differences in individual metabolism into account in real life.

IMO, protein requirement is fairly consistent. Your body turns over a certain amount to maintain everything, so logic follows that you need more than this to grow - not too much more tho, as the body can only grow so fast (regardless of meds used), and any extra risks being stored as fat or used as expensive energy.

For your wieght, my reccomendation would be to pin protein - for now - at around 305ish g, certianly no less. This allows for roughly 1.8g per current lb, which since you arent stage shredded, means there should be some extra there hopefully for growth.

Fats... I know its against current convention and fad, but I don't pay a massive amount of attention to them, I try to use decent oils in cooking, and egg yolks, but other than that, my fats are incidental from meat etc. Just now on a really low day, they may be 35-40g, but sometimes as high as 90ish.

Now the carbs is the one that is variable, even on a day to day basis, if your activity changes... you want to pick a good set amount, say, 350-400g - and there is no quick way round this, no template that can give you a magic number - tweak from there. If you get fatter after a couple of weeks, knock carbs back just a shade. If you don't gain any size, put them up a bit, because protein should be ample - if you aren't growing its because you arent taking enough fuel, and the protien is getting robbed for that purpose instead.

And the calories? Who cares - if you follow the above, they will take care of themselves.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

rick84 said:


> Which is exactly whats happening, BF has shot from 12% to 16%. How would u recommend splitting the macro's down for best result??
> 
> Appreciate the reply fella, cheers.


I would forget about tracking bf% too, its utterly meaningless. I mean you could have ate something that made you hold subcut water, all the mainstream means of measuring bodyfat (usually calliper based) will msitake this for fat gain... notoriously innacurate.

In fact I could rant all day about this - too many folks are using BF% like some sort of braggin rights. No one CARES - its how you look that matters in this game, not what wieght you are, not what bf% you are, these are silly numbers that just distract the greater nubmer of people from the job at hand... go by the mirror.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

That's a good post from rs007 - reps buddy.

The formulae are, as I see them, only ever a starting point which are at best a 'good guess'. The way I've treated them in the past is to start with one that looks to be fairly realistic, stick with it for a few weeks and then change it up every few weeks if it's not doing what I want until it does.

I'm a bit of a hypocrite actually as I don't really follow formulas anymore at all, especially for calories but do recommend them....I tend to nowadays eat more on training days and less calories on non training days. Protein, EFAs, and low kcal/high nutrient fruit & veg stay the same but energy fats and carbs I vary.

Actually no, am not a hypocrite, lol, as the formulas I normally suggest are what the numbers turn out to be when I analyse diets that have worked that I've come to from trial and error and express them as a formula.


----------



## rick84 (May 11, 2008)

rs007 said:


> Look, there is a lot of room for different opinion on this - but one thing no one can argue with, is that calorie requirements are determined by activity.
> 
> So, with that in mind, you CANT use a template for anything other than a (very very VERY) rough guide.
> 
> ...


Someones touchy!!!!

The whole point of sites such as this is for ppl without the knowledge to ask questions about the subject/topic they dont understand and for ppl with that knowledge to give it without being a complete and utter tube about it so inividual can put tha knowledge into practice and see what best suits him/her.

Agreed, nutrition/fitness is a massive subject with many factors and different ways of going about things so naturally it's gunna get confusing and frustrating as you've just so clearly demonstrated by your lil rant.


----------



## bigbob33 (Jan 19, 2009)

Didn't look like a rant to me....


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

rick84 said:


> Someones touchy!!!!
> 
> The whole point of sites such as this is for ppl without the knowledge to ask questions about the subject/topic they dont understand and for ppl with that knowledge to give it without being a complete and utter tube about it so inividual can put tha knowledge into practice and see what best suits him/her.
> 
> Agreed, nutrition/fitness is a massive subject with many factors and different ways of going about things so *naturally it's gunna get confusing and frustrating as you've just so clearly demonstrated by your lil rant.*


Dude, are you smoking crack? If anything my post should distill the confusion out for you.

You want a rant, oh man I could rant all day - but what I done above is give a full and straightforward account of what I have learned from in the trench experience, is the best way to go about establishing dietary requirements on an individual basis, for an individuals specific needs.

There was no rant?

My post maybe came over a bit drier than normal, but after hovering in show condition for weeks, dieting for 6 months, being ill for most of that, and buggering about with the most horrible drug I have taken to date (DNP :lol: ) I think you can cut me a bit of fvcking slack mate

But I am sorry if that came over as a rant or put down mate, I wasn't putting you down, just trying to give you info I wish someone had gave me, would have saved me years.

Mind you, I was going off a bit about the bf% thing, but tell me where I am wrong, go on...

Once again, sorry if I upset you, just giving you the truth, straight from the hip, so to speak


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

rick84 said:


> Someones touchy!!!!
> 
> The whole point of sites such as this is for ppl without the knowledge to ask questions about the subject/topic they dont understand and for ppl with that knowledge to give it without being a complete and utter tube about it so inividual can put tha knowledge into practice and see what best suits him/her.
> 
> Agreed, nutrition/fitness is a massive subject with many factors and different ways of going about things so naturally it's gunna get confusing and frustrating as you've just so clearly demonstrated by your lil rant.


I dont think you took his post as he intended mate, it wasnt a rant against you personally and was actually very helpful.

I think whats being said is your calulators are for a baseline starting point, you will still have to tweak things to suit your biochemistry and activity levels. You have a start point so work from there and as rs007 said, pin your Protein then adjust your carbs up and down as your visual results suggest.

Personally I keep the carbs the same but swap them out for fibrous instead of starchy carbs.

SD


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

PS did you just call me a complete and utter tube???

Bawbag, cvnt, fvck face, spastic, hippy and knob I can handle, but don't you fvcking dare call me a complete and utter tube, I'll put you on yo ass

:lol:


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

rick84 said:


> Which is exactly whats happening, BF has shot from 12% to 16%. How would u recommend splitting the macro's down for best result??
> 
> Appreciate the reply fella, cheers.


Sorry missed this - personally what works for me is around 40/30/30 (C/P/F) which is pretty much the marcos that I end up following automatically by following the two simple rules of eating clean/nutritious foods and eating with variety.

...

I don't think rs007 was being funny with you, just presenting a slightly different slant on following dietary formulae... a bit of a forum tone misunderstanding I think.

Time to kiss and make up (or make up with an uncomfortable manly handshake, whichever you prefer)


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

rs007 said:


> Look, there is a lot of room for different opinion on this - *but one thing no one can argue with, is that calorie requirements are determined by activity*.
> 
> So, with that in mind, you CANT use a template for anything other than a (very very VERY) rough guide.
> 
> ...


Great post, reps for that

As above OP I don't think rs007 was having a rant, and if he was it wasn't directed at you at all.

Good info rs007 - have you heard of a guy called james levine, current hot topic in physical activity and health research is about his theory on NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogensis), scientific back-up of pretty much exactly what you are saying above


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Unit_69 said:


> Great post, reps for that
> 
> As above OP I don't think rs007 was having a rant, and if he was it wasn't directed at you at all.
> 
> Good info rs007 - have you heard of a guy called james levine, current hot topic in physical activity and health research is about his theory on NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogensis), *scientific back-up of pretty much exactly what you are saying above*


Knew it would take a while for the tefal-heads to catch up :whistling:

:lol:

Can't say I have heard of him, but will have a search about!


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

tefal-heads?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Unit_69 said:


> tefal-heads?


Damn, showing my age again :lol:

Adverts for Tefal appliances on the telly in the 80s... always had these science boffins in white coats, the brains of the operation coming up with new futuristic products - they had these massive foreheads, hence, tefal heads :lol:

Feel old now


----------



## SD (Sep 3, 2004)

rs007 said:


> Damn, showing my age again :lol:
> 
> Adverts for Tefal appliances on the telly in the 80s... always had these science boffins in white coats, the brains of the operation coming up with new futuristic products - they had these massive foreheads, hence, tefal heads :lol:
> 
> Feel old now


How many people you gonna upset today??? :lol: :laugh:

SD


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

yeah pretty sure I should be offended by that considering I'm in science, and my ever receding hair line makes me look as if I have a big forehead

:crying:

anyway sorry OP fftopic:


----------

