My head is spinning with blocks, calories, and equations! I need help calculating my daily intake requirements. My stats are as follows:

Age: 30
Height: 70"
Weight: 169lbs
Body Fat: 12.8%
LBM: 147.4lbs

I CrossFit 4-5 times a week. I swim or run 2-3 times a week. I run in circles in an stressful ER 40hrs a week.

My goal is to gain lean body mass and lower my body fat percentage, nothing new. I'd like to be The Zone calculator puts me at 18 blocks which works out to 1,395 calories a day. EVERY OTHER DIETARY RECOMMENDATION FOR MY AGE, WEIGHT, AND ACTIVITY LEVEL FALLS BETWEEN 2,796 AND 3,112 CALORIES A DAY TO MAINTAIN MY CURRENT WEIGHT. Note, these are MAINTENANCE values. Shoot, my estimated basal metabolic rate is 1,804 calories a day so how could 18 blocks ever be adequate? How can there be such a large discrepancy between recommendations?

Where am I going wrong? What have I not calculated? I've tried searching the forums but haven't found an appropriate answer. Zonecompete.com seems to be a Zone Labs marketing page devoid of any practical/pragmatic information or discussion. Sue? Cranberrycat? Anybody? Help!

My long-term goal is 180lbs at 10% body fat which is a 15lb increase in LBM.

Hi Grant

Sorry you are having trouble. You are not going wrong! First of all - dont count calories - the Zone works on the block system or eyeballing. Forget about calories. You will have plenty of healthy food.

If you have put all the correct measurements into the block calculator and have a very active life then 18 blocks sounds right. Again dont compare that to the calories.

Sounds like the eyeball method might be the way to go for you. I do both.

Checkout the Quick Start Guide and Block Food List to the right.

Have a look at the 7 Day Meal Planner as well. You will need to add extra blocks if you are on 18. Dont foget to have the snack before bedtime.

Dont be too stressed about the Zone. Once you get the hang of it it becomes second nature. Can you borrow some Zone books from the library? I am sure once you have read about the Zone it will all make sense.

Hi Grant!

This might help you understand it better:

To quote Barry Sears (pg. 104, The Anti-Inflammation Zone”), “One of the more difficult concepts to get across to athletes, coaches, dieticians, and physicians is the differences between burning calories and producing ATP from calories. ATP is the chemical that is required not only for muscle contraction, but also for virtually all of our metabolism. ATP is made on an as-needed basis from either glucose of fat. Your production of ATP is far greater from a calorie of fat than from a calorie of glucose. In the Anti-Inflammation Zone you are primarily burning fat for ATP production as opposed to glucose. This means you are also making all the ATP you need, even though fewer calories are being expended. This is why diabetics, world-class athletes, or just plain normal people require fat fewer calories on the Zone Diet than calculated from the usual metabolic equations. It is because they are producing more ATP from less calories.”

18 blocks is more like 1800-1900 calories, the exact amount depending upon the particular foods you choose. You may have neglected to take into account the calories in the fat that is in protein blocks (which by itself is about is about 250 calories in an 18 blocks), in the protein that's in some carb blocks, in the carb that's in some protein blocks, etc.

Watch the videos of Dr. Sears on Zonecompete.com. They are very informative in regard to the Zone diet. The basic info about hormonal control and how to do the Zone diet that's presented in the videos apply to all people, not only to athletes.

Sue:

I actually went to check out what Dr. Sears claimed about ATP production from fat versus ATP production from carbohydrates being 3:1 by consulting various biochemistry texts. It turns out that this is only true when you are comparing the amount of ATP being generated through anaerobic or aerobic energy systems. But when comparing apples to apples, so to speak (i.e., the use of carbohydrates and fat through oxidation), the ratio of ATP produced by a gram of carbohyrdrates and a gram of fats is almost identical to the calories contained in each. Also, after anaerobic exercise, the body uses the aerobic energy system to return the body to homeostasis (which means that it is oxidizing fat and carbs to restore ATP and muscle glycogen levels, as clearing lactic acid and returning the body's temperature to normal).

The idea that a Calorie of fat in your body produces more ATP than a Calories of carbohydrates in your body under the same circumstances is simply wrong.

Grant:

This is one of my major problems with the Zone diet. It doesn't work that well if you are already fairly lean, very active and trying to gain muscle. It simply does not provide enough energy to do that very well. One or more of several things is likely to happen when you eat a diet that is significantly lower than your caloric expenditure.

1. Your metabolism will slow down.
2. You will be significantly less energetic.
3. You will lose body fat
4. You will lose muscle mass

For someone who is already lean, training hard, and has a stressful job, I think that #1, #2, and #4 are the most likely, particularly when consuming a diet that provides you with a calorie deficit of 1,000 calories or more a day. I happen to think the Zone needs to be tweaked for people based on where they are and what direction they want to head.

In fact, it is pretty obvious that even Dr. Sears recognizes that the calories provided in the Zone may not be enough for certain athletes. In "Enter the Zone", Dr. Sears recommends that "truly elite athletes" might eat 2x the number of fat blocks to make up the calorie deficit (although he does not define what a truly elite athlete is). I know that some Cross Fitters and other athletes in the Zone will consume as many as 3x the number of fat blocks.

I use a slightly different strategy. I believe (and there is controversy about this) that there are benefits for people who train very seriously with weights in consuming more than 1g/lb. of lbm. In fact, I try (don't always succeed, but I try) to get 1.5g/lb. Obviously, to stay in the "Zone" this means increasing the number of carb and fat blocks accordingly. So, that means getting 50% more calories just from eating more blocks. In my case, this doesn't quite make up my calorie deficit (I am usually training in excess of 20 hours per week), so I add to that post workout carb + protein meals (these are non-zone meals), and whatever additional calories I need are through increased fat.

Hi Matt!

The Zone works extremely well for the lean people I know, which includes a fair share of athletes. Their Zone results have been just the opposite of those you listed in your previous post (items 1-4). BTW, the athletes and Cross fitters you mentioned who add fat are following the Zone, not changing it. Adding fat to provide for increased energy needs is indeed a basic Zone principle! I happen to eat 2X, and at certain times 3X, the minimum amount of fat required for Zone balance.

Whether an athlete or not, placing the main focus on calories, rather than on hormonal balance and inflammation lowering, will inevitably prevent one from reaching their full potential, both mentally and physically.

Sue:

If you are eating 2x or 3x the fat blocks, there has to be a reason. And reason cannot simply be "hormonal balance" since you would be in hormonal balance with the 1x fat block too. The reason has to be because you need more calories. Hormones certainly matter a great deal, but so too do calories. Obviously #1, #2 & #4 aren't going to happen if you are getting enough calories by adding extra fat blocks to make up for the deficit. And this is exactly what you are telling me that lean Zoners do. I have to tell you this, the law of thermodynamics says that one of those 4 things has to happen to maintain an energy balance. Either your body has to burn something off to make up the calories, or your body needs to burn off fewer calories. The law of the conservation of energy demands that this must be the case.

By the way, it is not an either/or thing. You need both the right quantity of food and the right quality of food. Eating 1,800 calories of the right foods when your body needs 2,700+ calories isn't really the best idea in the world. Eating 2,700 calories of bad food isn't the best idea in the word either. So why not do both? Eat enough calories and make sure those calories come from the proper sources in the right ratios?

Here we have a man who is fairly lean, who is training as often as 8 times per week in addition to working a stressful active 40 hour per week job, and who wants to add lean muscle being concerned that eating 1,800-1,900 calories per day simply isn't enough when pretty much every calculator out there is telling him that his maintenance energy levels are a minimum of 2,700 calories. He is right to be concerned. And he is right to think he might just need more calories than he is getting with 18 blocks to achieve his goals.

Why not do both? Because it's not going to be hormonally correct.

Incidentally, regarding another remark in you previous post, not every individual is necessarily going to achieve hormonal balance with 1 block of fat to balance each bock of P and C.

Sue:

In another thread, you wrote:



So, let me ask this: How does someone who is already fairly lean follow the Zone principles (including eating a calorie restricted diet) and add 15 lbs. of muscle at the same time?

Under the law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy) the energy to build those 15 lbs. of muscles has to come from somewhere. You can talk about hormones all you want, but you could inject steroids and HGH into a person and if they are not eating enough and don't have enough fat that can be used to both meet energy requirements and to build new muscle and it won't matter.

Calories are important. So are hormones. It isn't an either or situation. The fact that athletes are recommended to eat 2-3x the fat blocks (meaning eating 30-60% more calories per day) isn't being done JUST for hormone balance, it is also being done for extra calories to meet energy requirements.

You can object to my belief that eating more total blocks is one way to make up the calorie deficit. You can object to my suggestions regarding non-Zone carb+protein post workout meals. But I don't see how you can object to the concept of the need for more calories to meet energy requirments, particularly when you, yourself, wrote:



So, if this is a basic principle of the Zone (and it appears to be from what I have read), it is obviously a recognition of the fact that hormones aren't the only thing that matters. People who are eating 2 and 3x the fat blocks aren't doing to achieve the hormonal balance they couldn't get with 1x fat blocks, they are doing it to meet their energy requirements which would not be met with a lower amount of total calories. Obviously, they are doing it in a way that maintains their hormonal balance, but maintaining that hormonal balance is obviously not the only thing that is important.

Like I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on the concept of eating more blocks (by going above the 1g/lb suggestion for protein). I don't expect everyone to agree with me on the concept of high GI carb + protein meals post workout. But I don't see how it is possible to disagree with me (particularly based on what you have written above) on the idea of the need for some to consume more calories to meet their energy requirements. Where that extra energy should come from might be a source of disagreement or debate, but the need for it shouldn't be.

Let's say Grant had an identical twin brother who was doing the exact same training program he was and doing the same job. Let's say that for the next year, Grant's twin followed the Zone diet and ate 18 blocks providing him with 1,800-1,900 calories (which he adjusted upwards as he gained lbm, assuming that he gained any). Let's say that over the next year Grant ate the same Zone diet, but ate 3x the fat blocks (which would roughly be 2,900-3,100 calories, adjusting upwards as he gained LBM). Let's also assume that from a hormonal perspective, both twins are hormonally optimal whether they eat 1x fat blocks or 3x fat blocks.

After a year, which twin do you think would be closer to gaining 15 lbs. of lean body mass?

I think it would be hard to argue that Grant, eating 2,900-3,100 calories per day would gain LBM the fastest. I would be shocked if his twin eating 1,800-1,900 calories per day would gain much muscle at all (he might put on a little, take off a few pounds of fat, but at some point progress would stall completely).

Now, I would argue that if they had an identical triplet who followed my suggestion of taking a post workout meal with the ratios I suggested, and possibly increased his blocks, but who was still consuming between 2,900-3,100 calories per day (adjusting upwards as LBM was gained) that this triplet would gain muscle faster than either of them, but that is besides the point -- the point I am trying to make is that it is not ALL about hormones. Hormones play in important part, but it is ALSO about total calories.

I am willing to bet that when you lost your 100 lbs. 14 years ago, you didn't do when you were eating 2-3x your fat blocks on average. You probably did it eating 1x your fat blocks. If what I am surmising is true, you started increasing your calories when you reached a weight that you wanted to stabilize at and did not want to keep decreasing in body weight. It wasn't because was optimal for you hormonally when you were 100 lbs. heavier was 1x fat blocks, and what was optimal for you 100 lbs. lighter was 2-3x fat blocks, it was because you needed more calories to maintain your body weight.

Please don't get me wrong. I am CERTAINLY NOT arguing that hormones are not critically important (they are). But to argue that total calories are also not critically important just doesn't jibe with common sense or my experience, nor does it jibe with basic science like the law of thermodynamics. The only ways I can conceive of a body being able to put on lean body mass in a calorie restricted environment is to decrease energy expenditure (i.e., lowering the metabolism and/or lower energy levels) and/or using energy from one structure (for example fat) to supply the body with enough total energy needed to build muscle (assuming that sufficient levels of protein are present). The problem is that there is a ceiling to how much can be accomplished using this approach, and once that ceiling is reached, so too will progress halt.

Matthew: You definitely seem to understand my concern... I'd always been taught "calories in, calories out" during my undergrad courses in biochem, physics, and exercise physiology. I'm perplexed by the polarized modes of thought on this subject.

Sue: Why can't I keep the proper ratios/hormonal balance at higher caloric levels? Did I understand you correctly?

Can anyone offer any peer-reviewed research articles on the subject?

Hi Grant,

Increasing protein intake beyond the maximum Zone recommendation of 1 gram per pound of LBM is not going to be to your benefit. Most Crossfitters I know eat .8 to .9 g of protein per pound of LBM and have had excellent results. To read one person's experiences (a successful Zone diet/Crossfit forum member by the name of Matt) search for all posted by whiteknuckle.

Hi Matt,

The topics you've addressed in your previous post are discussed in detail in the book THE ANTI-AGING ZONE as well as in other Zone books.



Re "I am willing to bet that when you lost your 100 lbs. 14 years ago, you didn't do when you were eating 2-3x your fat blocks on average. You probably did it eating 1x your fat blocks......"

You'd lose the bet. I've always needed more additional fat (more than 1 F block to each P block) to achieve Zone balance. In fact, I was more liberal with fat intake during the two years I was losing the weight than I am now.

Grant,

I see that you posted earlier asking for some peer-reviewed articles--I had actually written in to the Zone to see if they could provide some references, but I have not received any references yet.

Okay, Sue, I would lose the bet. LOL.

That said, the point remains, you cannot violate the law of thermodynamics. And eating a calorie-restricted diet when you already have fairly low body fat stores and are trying to put on muscle is a recipe for failure. The energy to build that muscle MUST come from somewhere. The choices that I can think of are (1) reducing energy expenditure, (2) slowing your metabolism, and/or (3) existing fat stores. But your existing fat stores are fairly a fairly limited source of energy for a lean person. Expending less energy and a slower metabolism aren't really long run options either. There is a limit to how efficient your metabolism can get at converting food to energy and losing energy isn't particularly helpful when you have a job running around like a madman in an ER 40 hours per week and training 8x per week (with the goal of gaining muscle).

I think for people who have never tried to do it before, they have no idea how much work it takes to put on 15 lbs. of muscle. It is much more difficult than losing 15 lbs. of fat. A normal-sized man is lucky to gain 15 lbs. of muscle in his first year of training (when muscle gains come easiest and when he is specifically training for that purpose). Now imagine trying to gain that muscle when you are already fairly lean and eating a calorie restrictive diet.

Sorry, it just ain't gonna happen. That's the reality. Like I said, we can discuss where the extra calories should come from (extra blocks, extra fat only, non-zone meals, some combination of the above), but the need for more calories is beyond dispute as far as I am concerned. And I am talking from both personal experience and from having trained numerous people looking to gain muscle.

15 lbs. of muscle is 37,500 calories (2,500 calories per lb.) Now, let's say that it takes (realistically) a year to put on 15 lbs. of muscle for a man in his 30s who isn't using steroids. That means that a about 720 calories a week are needed on average. Now, if you are already operating at a 1,000 calorie deficit per day, that is a 7,000 additional calories. So where does 7,720 calories per week come from?

Well, if we assume no slow down in energy or metabolism, Grant has approximately 22 lbs of body fat. But let's be realistic. Getting down below about 8% body fat is tough (it gets harder the lower your body fat percentage) and staying below 5-6% body fat for an extended period of time can be pretty unhealthy. So, being generous here, let's say Grant can use 14 of those lbs. of fat to maintain his energy levels and build muscle at the same time.

So Grant has 49,000 calories worth of energy that he can use from his existing fat stores (3,500 calories/lb of fat). Basically what the means is, that without losing energy or a slow down in metabolism, Grant has enough fat stores for about 6 weeks... and that is assuming a perfect exchange of energy from fat and no energy expended in even making the muscle in the first place. This also assumes that Grant is capable of losing 2 lbs of fat per week (a pretty large number for a man of normal size and reasonably low body fat levels).

So what happens after 6 weeks, when Grant has 8 lbs. of body fat, an additional 1.8 lbs. of muscle, and he is still operating at a big calorie deficit? How can he maintain his energy levels and continue to build muscle? Where does the energy come from to build new muscle?

The law of thermodynamics says that either Grant's ability to generate the energy for his work and workouts and daily life must drop, his metabolism must slow down, or he has to break down something in his body (read: muscle). What this means is that I can predict, with almost 100% certainty, that any progress Grant might make towards his goals will come to pretty much a dead stop after no more than 2 months -- no matter how perfect his hormones are.

Like I said, have Grant eat a 1,000 calorie/day deficit diet for 2 months and have him inject steroids and HGH (which are synthetic hormones, after all) at the same time, and he still will hit a wall of how much muscle he can put on, because even with steroids and HGH, you still need a source of energy to meet your basal metabolism requirements and build new muscle tissue. And since we are dealing with someone with low body fat levels already, there is a cap to how much of that energy can be supplied by existing fat stores.

And the above assumptions really assume a perfect world... and as we all know, a perfect world doesn't exist.

The Zone does provide Grant with the means to meet his goals and support his lifestyle without suffering the consequences you predict in your previous post. Barry Sears has already done a fantastic job of explaining it, as well as backing it with published clinical studies and the results of professional athletes in the Zone that he's worked with over the past 20 years. Incidentally, for those readers here who may not be aware of this, much of Barry's orignial work during his development of the Zone diet was done with elite athletes.

How? Through increasing that amount of calories he consumes by eating 2-3x the number of fat blocks, right?

I would love to see an example, just one example, of a Zone athlete under 200 lbs. who already has a fairly low body fat percentage and is following a calorie restrictive diet of 1,000 calories or more per day adding 15 lbs. of muscle.

Could a 330 lb. offensive lineman with a body fat percentage of 20% or more follow a calorie restrictive version of the Zone diet and still add 15 lbs. of muscle without a reduction in energy or his metabolism? Quite possibly. But a 330 lb. offensive lineman with 20% body fat has 66 lbs. of fat to supply his energy requirements. And a gain of 15 lbs. of muscle is really only an increase in LBM of about 5-6%.

Compare that with someone with 150 lbs. of lbm, for whom adding 15 lbs. of muscle is an increase of 10%. And if that same person is walking around with 12-13% body fat, that means instead of 66 lbs. of body fat, we are talking about someone with about 22 lbs. of body fat available to make up for the energy deficit AND provide enough energy to build new muscle.

I will bet you dollars to donuts that any single adult Zoner who started out with low body fat levels and added a significant amount of muscle didn't do so in a large caloric deficit. He or she was adding significant additional calories (30-60% more if they are eating 2-3x the fat blocks) through increased fat consumption (or by adding more total blocks, or by adding non-Zone meals).

The bottom line is BOTH quality AND quantity of your food matters. This is true regardless of whether your goal is gaining muscle, losing body fat, or just maintaining your present state.

My problem with professional athlete/CrossFitter examples is that the greater majority of these athletes were already near peak performance levels and ideal body compositions. These individuals switched to Zone and saw marked improvement, but they didn't necessarily utilize Zone to DEVELOP their high performance level. They use Zone to MAINTAIN this level.

Frankly, the lack of available data to support Zone claims in terms of improving athletic performance, especially in terms of developing strength and power, are discouraging. Maybe there are studies that I am unaware of, but the databases I have searched have returned limited results.

Conundrum.

Hi Grant,

Matt, who I mentioned, was not in peak shape. You really ought to take a look at his posts about his progress. It's quite impresive. He's an ex-marine, a guy who used to be in good shape but who had who had gained a lot of weight (he lost 70 or so pounds of body fat in his first year on the Zone, as I recall) and had not stayed in the greatest shape (sorry Matt! :-) ).

Sue:

I think you are actually proving my point with the Matt example (by the way, I served in the Marines too and there is no such thing as an "ex" Marine... other Marines will understand... once a Marine, always a Marine).

He lost 70 lbs. of fat. That is fantastic! And maybe he put on a good deal of muscle at the same time while eating a calorie-restricted diet.

But Grant and Matt are not in the same boat. Grant has 12-13% body fat. He doesn't have 245,000 surplus calories (70 lbs. x 3,500 calories/lb) to supply the energy requirement he isn't getting from his diet and have enough left over to build 15 lbs. of muscle.

You are trying to use Matt as an example of why eating 1,800-1,900 calories should work for Grant. But you are not comparing apples with apples.

I'll ask it again:

Show me one lean person under 200 lbs. who added 15 lbs. of muscle while following a calorie-restrictive diet of 1,000 calories per day the entire time he or she added that muscle... just one.

I have never seen it happen... ever... And according to my understanding of the law of thermodynamics, you will never see it happen. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The energy to build muscle has to come from somewhere. Matt had 70 lbs. worth of fat to use for energy, Grant does not.

I'm aware, Semper Fi and always a marine; a good friend of mine is also a marine, and we owe you guys a lot; sorry on the "ex"!


BTW, I've made no recommedations to Grant re appropriate block amounts to meet his needs.

LoL Ooh-Rah... I was in the Corps too Matt.

Sue, I read Matt's (whiteknuckle) posts, but as Matthew mention he was one of many Zone followers who were overweight, began to Zone diet and exercise, then saw dramatic improvements in their fitness and body comp. I also didn't find any of his posts where he specifically mentioned actual LBM gains/BF losses or CrossFit benchmark improvements. The last two I read were in July, 2008 when he was ramping up his intakes/blocks to prep for CrossFit then in August, 2008 when he did his first three WOD's. Can you post some links? He has posted a ton of replies so I'm struggling to fish out his personal testimonies.

I feel like I'm being asked to "take a leap of faith" when it comes to starting Zone. I was drawn to Zone because I have been experiencing significant weight loss over the past few weeks and needed a way to monitor my nutrition and ensure its adequacy. I had been getting fewer than 2,000cal/day eating Paleo with subsequent drops in energy and performance levels. Last week I ramped up my intakes to 2,500cal/day and have been feeling great. My idea was to use Paleo to tell me WHAT to eat and Zone to tell me HOW MUCH to eat. I grabbed a copy of "Mastering the Zone" to begin my journey only to find that on the Zone recommended blocks my intakes would remain roughly the same as before. The same intakes (albeit eyeballed, not accurately measured) that have made me hit the wall in recent weeks. This is why I'm so concerned and looking for some hard evidence. I can't take another lousy month in the gym or in the office, but I want to optimize my nutrition and steer away from eating calories for the sake of getting calories.

Thanks to everyone involved in this discussion thus far!

Grant, I'm not finding what I was referring to either, but this thread contains a post by Matt about some modifications Crossfitters do with diet, in case it might be of any help:

http://www.zonediet.com/Community/F...fault.aspx


Last I heard, Matt was doing certification to become a Crossfit trainer.

Sue:

No offense take at all regarding the "ex" and thank you for the kudos.

As far as not making any recommendations, I understand that you have not. But it could be implied from Grant's original post (and your response and our discussion following it) that you were suggesting that a significant amount of muscle could be built using a calorie restrictive Zone diet for someone who is already fairly lean. If that is not what you are saying, then I apologize, but that was the impression that I was certainly getting from your statements about calories not mattering, but rather hormones being what mattered (and when put in context, Grant was discussing concerns about gaining muscle and having enough energy for his job based on an iteration of the Zone diet providing him with only 1,800-1,900 calories per day).

My entire point is that quantity AND quality matter. This is true whether your ultimate goal is to lose body fat, gain muscle, do both, or simply maintain. For example, I could eat a Zone diet with the correct protein and carb ratios but consume 10x the amount of fat blocks. I would be "in the Zone" and my hormones might be primed and inflammation at an all time low, but if my goal were to lose fat, that quantity of food I am consuming would cause the opposite to occur. By the same token, if I ate only 1x fat blocks and I'm already lean and I am trying to add muscle and I have fairly high activity levels, no matter how high the quality of what I am eating from a hormonal and inflammation perspective, I am simply not eating enough calories to provide the energy to accomplish my goals.

Now, I am not as strong an adherent to the Zone a you, as you know. I use it as a "base" from which I deviate to the point where some here have pointed out that I am not really doing the Zone any more. My deviations (like eating more blocks and eating non-Zone balanced meals) might be a legitimate source of discussion and debate. But the concept that someone should eat the correct quantity of food (read calories) in addition to the correct quality seems to not be in debate, unless I am mistaken.

Indeed, in another thread I mistakenly thought that you were critical of my suggestion about athletes eating high GI carb + protein meals during the period of time immediately pre-workout through post-workout. Then you pointed out that you were not being critical of me for that suggestion and linked to an article on this website about Zone-sponsored athletes doing exactly that. So, perhaps this is another thread where I am mistakenly perceiving a disagreement where none actually exists.

So, from what I can gather, our disagreements are about whether:

1. It is ever proper to calculate your blocks based on getting protein in excess of 1g/lb
2. Soy as a healthy protein source
3. Saturated fat from sources like coconut oil as a healthy fat source
4. Whether a calorie of fat generates more ATP than a calorie from a carbohydrate source

But apparently we are not in disagreement about the total calorie issue and the workout nutrition issue for athletes.

Grant:

SEMPER FI, TEUFFEL HUND!!

Glad this discussion was helpful to you.

BTW, if your body is hitting a wall on roughly 2,000 calories, but you have more energy and are making progress when you consume 2,500 calories, that right there should tell you something. Your energy levels are such that 2,000 calories, regardless of the quality of the food you are consuming, is just not enough to meet your expenditures. Usually, as with most things, I find making small incremental changes the best way to find out what is best. Maybe for the next month, you try to get 2,800 calories. Measure your progress. If you aren't gaining much muscle, maybe the next month, add another 200-300 calories. Keep doing that until you find what is the right amount for you to meet your goals. By the same token, if you find yourself gaining unwanted body fat in addition to the muscle, perhaps it is time to back off a bit on the calories -- nothing radical, just 200-300 calories. By moving in small increments, giving it time to work and observing the results, you can find through minor adjustments what works for you and what you need to meet your particular goals.

I was trying to stay out of this discussion, but I can't help myself!

In Grant's case, I would see no problem with him consuming protein to meet his needs. If he finds that he is losing LBM in the Zone, then he SHOULD increase protein intake. For someone who is interested in buidling more muscle mass, then close attention would have to be paid with regard to protein requirements. I don't really care what the Zone recommendations are, that is all based on a scientific formula, but I have also seen it discussed that this formula doesn't work well for people who are "extremes" (elite athletes, severely obese, or very petite individuals, to name a few).

I am still sitting on the fence regarding the ATP issue. I would love to read more about it. Matt, I know you posted more about it in that other thread, but I am thinking it may be useful again here.