[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Chi-Towns-Finest wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Consider the wisdom in creating a caloric surplus with the energy substrate that is most easily stored a adipose tissue.
If you’re worried about getting fat on your bulk, then either don’t bulk or get lean enough beforehand that some fat gain isn’t going to bother you.
You are at least equally likely to get fat from a surplus of fats as I are from a surplus of carbs. Carbs aren’t “stored as fat” (must undergo DNL beforehand) but fat is. Fat doesn’t make you fat without refeed to overall caloric intake, but thats not a golden ticket to eat a much of it as you want.
A low carb diet is great for fat loss, but inadvisable for someone looking to put on muscle. But, when all you’ve got is a hammer…[/quote]
I agree. But (and I think you’ll agree) that a high(er) carb diet can be just as effective for fat loss. [/quote]
How high exactly would be good for fat loss?
Surely you want to get at least 20% of your diet from fat, and a heavy dose of protein to boot. I’ve heard of bodybuilders doing 17% but I don’t think that’s optimal.
40/40/20 works well, but I prefer something along the lines of 45/35/20 or 50/30/20; P/C/F.
[/quote]
Ya 40/40/20 is a good breakdown. It provides adequate protein and fat, and enough carbs to make it more manageable. But I would not agree with the other breakdowns because protein is the dominant nutrient, and though protein is very important you wouldn’t want it as your dominant macro because you’ll increase protein oxidation and the conversion of protein into glucose. [/quote]
I usually don’t delve into science at all and stick with experience. Can you explain what’s wrong with protein being used as glucose/protein oxidation?
Many naturals, myself included, have used 50/30/20 splits with a lot of success – I don’t understand how the results can be anything negative.