T Nation

2600 Calories not Enough?

I’ve got a dilemma. I’m taking in 2600 calories as maintenance and I still feel hungry. I’m drinking a lot of water between breaks at work and I still feel I need more food. I’m 5’7" and 160lbs, my macro’s are set at 40% protein, 40% carbs, and 20% fats.

I cut carbs in half on days I don’t work out. Right now I’m lifting 3 days a week and in a few weeks it’s going to jump to 4 days a week. Should I really be taking in more calories?

I want to start cutting a little because I’ve got 11mm of fat on my stomach am I nitpicking or is 11mm not really much? Just doesn’t seem like 2600 calories is enough, but it seems “too much.” The only meals that fill me up is breakfast and when I have a protein drink. Any advice?

you shouldn’t be ‘cutting’, you should be eating clean & healthy while training hard.

If you want to drop a bit of fat, instead of cutting, just only eat carbs at these times: Breakfast/Post workout & within 1 hour of post-workout.

If necessary eat a lot of carbs at those times so you don’t get hungry doing the rest of the day.

And yes 2600 is not enough, I think you should be at around 3000 if you are getting hungry atm.

Haha, no! it is not enough. I’m 171.25 as of this morning. I eat 4500 cal/day on training days. Still see abs.

Eat up, Lift Hard!

I am the same exact height and weight as you and I am eating to GAIN while lifting 3x a week, cardio on off days and will add in cardio post-lift as well.

More food, more activity…can’t go wrong.

For the first half of the day. Yes

Shit I didn’t think so because I was just m…food. How does my macro’s seem as far as percentages wise? I load up on carbs breakfast, pre/post workout…

[quote]Kalle wrote:
For the first half of the day. Yes[/quote]

Explain this.

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Kalle wrote:
For the first half of the day. Yes

Explain this.[/quote]

He means 2600 the first half of the day and 2600 the second.

so 5200 total, its a joke.

Shit I didn’t think so because I was just mowing food. I was doing good one week trying to gain but I said screw that I gained 4lbs and lost it all in two weeks doing nothing, my metabolism is through the roof. How does my macro’s seem as far as percentages wise?

I load up on carbs breakfast, pre/post workout. I don’t know how I can afford more chow, where I’m from we just have SuperOne and Econo…

There is no exact answer, you just have to try it with your own body.

In terms of hunger, for me, that isn’t a reliable indicator of anything. Unless, you have been on a set in stone routine for your meals for some time.

I think chugging a bunch of excess water can work against you too. I always feel like it stretches out my stomach and keeps it from shrinking to fit my diet.

You basically stretch your stomach with water, then it’s gone in a matter of minutes leaving you with a large and empty stomach. (just experience, nothing I know to be fact)

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Kalle wrote:
For the first half of the day. Yes

Explain this.[/quote]

I was just sarcastically saying eat more as in double the calories.

Half kidding…

Everyone is different but while dieting I was eating 2600-2800 calories.

I do notice that I can push more weight, when I was on a college football team I was having a hard time benching. My chest is weak and now I can def. push out some more weight. Basically I’m just trying to maintain and gain some strength for football this summer and hockey this winter.

Football and hockey both don’t have weight classes. At 5’7’’ and 160, putting on weight couldn’t hurt you at all. Eat a ton more and lift hard; most of it will go to muscle.

Where are your carbs coming from? Should be fibrous veggies/oats/brown rice etc, basically low gi, high fibre foods which should keep you full longer, you could also try splitting your meals down so you’re eating lots of small meals/snacks.

However you could try upping your calories, by a couple fo hundred and see how you respond to that, both in fullness and body composition.

It really depends on your age, BF%, fitness goals, etc.

If you want to bulk for football and don’t mind putting on some extra fat, you might try gradually increasing your caloric intake by 200-500/day each week.

I’m close to you in height/weight (5’6, weight was between 153-160 this week). For me, leanness with a gradual muscle increase is the goal. I eat light during the week (around 1500-1800 calories) and have a high cheat day on the weekend (4-5k calories).

[quote]Muggz wrote:

I want to start cutting a little because I’ve got 11mm of fat on my stomach am I nitpicking or is 11mm not really much?[/quote]

11mm? Jesus Christ man! WTF. Your arteries are beyond clogged.

[quote]forlife wrote:
It really depends on your age, BF%, fitness goals, etc.

If you want to bulk for football and don’t mind putting on some extra fat, you might try gradually increasing your caloric intake by 200-500/day each week.

I’m close to you in height/weight (5’6, weight was between 153-160 this week). For me, leanness with a gradual muscle increase is the goal. I eat light during the week (around 1500-1800 calories) and have a high cheat day on the weekend (4-5k calories).
[/quote]

1500-1800 calories a day isn’t even maintenance for the average, inactive adult. He could up his intake by 200 a week and worry about all the minute details, or he could simply start eating a lot more, training hard, and actually put on some weight.

People need to stop worrying about getting fat. You’ll be surprised at how much lean muscle you can put on if you’re eating big and lifting hard. You’re not just going to wake up fat one morning.

If you’re having trouble eating more, just put down like an extra half gallon of milk a day.

Yes, it’s below maintenance during the week because a) I still want to lose 5 pounds of fat, and b) I am eating way over maintenance on my cheat day each weekend. It balances out.

Like I said, it’s about your goals. I know I’m in the minority, but I don’t want to put on fat, period. I realize it takes longer to gain muscle this way, but I’m fine with that. I’m still increasing my lifts, it just takes longer to get there.

In the case of the OP, given his involvement with strength-based sports it probably makes sense for him to keep his calories high as you suggest.

Yup, being short is good for hockey, but a 160lb guy is going to get plowed no matter if it’s fat or muscle. Get up to 200+, emphasis on the “+,” and you’ll be a tank, even if it’s not all muscle. Don’t get turned off though; most of it will be muscle.

I’ve never really played team sports seriously, but I did always suck horribly at them. I’m almost to 200lbs now and I dominate at football and somehow got very good at basketball as well. I played for the first time in a few years a few weeks ago and was surprised at how well I could ball-handle and shoot. I’m also a lot quicker at shifting directions and bursts of speed.

tl;dr:
Gaining weight will not make you slow and bulky. It can only benefit you in your situation. Start putting down some quality calories and training hard. That’s the third time I’ve said this and I don’t know if you’re still reading this thread, but that’s my advice for what it’s worth.

[quote]Artem wrote:
Yup, being short is good for hockey, but a 160lb guy is going to get plowed no matter if it’s fat or muscle. Get up to 200+, emphasis on the “+,” and you’ll be a tank, even if it’s not all muscle. Don’t get turned off though; most of it will be muscle.

I’ve never really played team sports seriously, but I did always suck horribly at them. I’m almost to 200lbs now and I dominate at football and somehow got very good at basketball as well. I played for the first time in a few years a few weeks ago and was surprised at how well I could ball-handle and shoot. I’m also a lot quicker at shifting directions and bursts of speed.

tl;dr:
Gaining weight will not make you slow and bulky. It can only benefit you in your situation. Start putting down some quality calories and training hard. That’s the third time I’ve said this and I don’t know if you’re still reading this thread, but that’s my advice for what it’s worth.[/quote]

200 + for hockey at 5’ 6" or something? What a joke.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/statshome.htm?navid=NAV|STS|League

Not that 200 is bad, but the way the game is now, it doesn’t seem like a good idea. Unless your men’s league or whatever is full hitting and almost no penalties, there’s no reason to be that big.

-----Of course you also have to balance your goals. If getting huge and football are your top two goals, then go ahead and get to 200, or get bigger even. It would not appear to be optimal for hockey. Eat more, get strong, get fucking huge. Kick ass.