[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
I would like to know, in the opinion of most bodybuilders, whether dietary composition is significant to body recomposition versus simply “hitting your targets” with respect to macro’s and caloric intake.
Can fat loss be achieved on a McDonald’s diet, for instance?
And would said diet elicit the same results as an iso-caloric diet with the same macro split consisting of traditional “bodybuilding foods”?
I want to hear from people who cut, not bulked. Don’t tell me about your “McDonald’s bulk” that resulted in “solid gains”. I’ve already read those stories on this site and others. That’s not what I’m after. I’m after the bodybuilder who ate McDonald’s pre-competition while hitting all of his macro targets and came in shredded on the day of the contest. Sort of like Morgan Spurlock’s experiment turned inside-out.
Surely someone has put this theory to the test?[/quote]
You wont find a bodybuilder worth his salt (pun to follow) who will eat a macdonalds before a show - due to all the sodium.
However, yes - generally speaking macro’s have a massive impact on body composition. I wasn’t aware this was even up for debate. i am aware however that you, Nominal Prospect are one of those intellectual posters who likes to cause shit - but…
I won’t be using the pre-comp dieting BB as the example, as they are really an extreme - as you should know. Apart from 2-3% BF being the goal, the water manipulation throws a hammer in the works of most foods that one would consider healthy.
Of course T3, Trenbolone and Lasix help - but that too is a different discussion.
As for general fat loss - in loss of fat primarily and not muscle. then it IS possible to eat badly with low calories to achieve some. However it would be much more effective (for the same goals) to choose a diet that restricts sugar or simple chain carbohydrates, as well as excessive amounts of (saturated) fats.
It is generally well understood (in my mind if not yours) that if one ate a macro profile of… say 10:50:40 of Pro:Cho:Fat but restricted calories to 2000kcal below maintenance - they would lose weight. It is also well understood that they would likely lose as much if not more muscle and water as they would fat.
If someone had the above macro ratio’s but reduced calories by just (the recommended) 10-15% below maintenance, they would lose weight slower - but they would STILL lose a large proportion of metabolic tissue - albeit not as much due to less catabolism from the ‘starvation’ type diet above.
Now if you look at someone who has a macro ratio of 40:40:20 or 50:10:40 (depending on their own metabolism and tolerance to carbs, etc.) but restricted 2000kcals below maintenance - i would expect to see a similar response to the first example. They would NEED to drop muscle to lower the metabolism.
If they reduced by just the 10-15% - then they would lose the vast majority bodyfat, whilst preserving their muscle. This is shown repeatedly isn’t it?
As for real world results - it is simple. Whether putting on muscle or dropping fat, one will ALWAYS get a better result when they eat cleaner (all else equal). Always.
As for using a show (BB) to experiment whether you can come in dry and shredded on a diet of mackie-D’s is IMO, making a mockery of the sport and the dedication to compete in it. Maybe that is what your post is about?
If i missed the point - excuse me.