<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Cranberrycat on 04/14/2009 11:25 PM
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).

</div>

Hi Cran!


I'm confused by this statement because, though I've heard you take issue before with the body fat and LBM results from the calculator on this site, you've always been a proponent of eating within Zone recommendations, at least according to your postings in these forums.




2 questions re your quote above:


1. Are you referring to the body fat calculator or to the idea of graduated amounts of protein depending upon one's LBM and activity level?


2. Do you agree with those who are are in favor of eating 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, and if yes, how would you propose that an individual eating in that manner maintain hormonal control and anti-inflammatory benefits similar to those of the Zone? (They wouldn't be in the Zone, so eicosanoid balance would go right out the window!)



Thanks!

Sue, I believe you are misinterpreting my post. I am a proponent for following Zone guidelines, yes. But, I was referring specifically to the inaccuracies of the bodyfat calculator and its ability to predict everyone's protein needs. If it is telling me to eat a certain number of blocks of protein, and yet I am losing LBM, I would think it is appropriate to increase my protein blocks, even though this technically goes against the Zone guidelines (based on the results of the bodyfat calculator).

Hopefully that explanation answers your first question.

To answer your second question, I am in favor of those who choose to monitor their own LBM and bodyfat for changes. If one is not achieving their goal in terms of LBM, then one should adjust their protein amounts (and obviously, one should also be performing at that level). That is not necessarily the same thing as blankly stating that everyone should eat 1.5g of protein per pound of LBM. It is more of an individualized approach.

Speaking of hormonal control and eicosanoid balance, I just don't completely agree that everything comes down to a mathematical formula. So, I think that those who are not achieving their LBM goals are probably not in the Zone, anyway, so for them, it is maybe more important for eicosanoid balance and hormonal control to increase the protein requirement beyond the zone calculator recommendation, and then follow that with the appropriate carb/fat balance.

Of course, that leads us to the debate over whether or not it is appropriate to "overcarb" after a workout (which is what PL Matt is doing, to purposefully elevate insulin levels to aid in recovery of muscle fibers and build more muscle mass). I don't recall hearing your take on that at all, except for the link to that article. I have gotten mixed vibes from you, on where you stand on that issue.

BTW, I need to give credit to Karen for abbreviating the Matt's so that we can keep them straight. PL Matt is "power-lifter" Matthew, and CF Matt is "cross-fitter Matt".

Sue,

You said on the last post: "It does not go against Zone guidelines to increase your protein intake if you are losing LBM. Increasing protein intake is precisely what Zone guidelines state to do when one is consistently losing LBM."

and

You said on the previous post: "Do you agree with those who are are in favor of eating 1.5 grams of protein per pound of LBM, and if yes, how would you propose that an individual eating in that manner maintain hormonal control and anti-inflammatory benefits similar to those of the Zone? (They wouldn't be in the Zone, so eicosanoid balance would go right out the window!)"

So, which one is it? Is it OK, or isn't it?

--My comments are meant to explain why I don't completely trust the zone bodyfat calculator to predict protein requirements.

You seem to feel that it is not appropriate to increase protein to 1.5g/lb of LBM, and my explanation is to show why I feel that it may be necessary at times, based on individual response. Perhaps we are not quite connecting with each other, but your post seems to indicate that, on one hand it is NOT OK to increase protein beyond this, because it is your feeling that eicosanoid status and inflammation levels are affected. But, now you are confusing everyone with your more recent post, because it is basically saying something different regarding increasing protein.

I didn't say anything about YOUR post mentioning carb loading. I think that carb loading is probably another area in which you and PL Matt may want to discuss, because this DOES have to do with eicosanoid balance and control of inflammation levels.

Let me see if I can supply what my understanding of what Sue is saying (and she can correct me if I am misrepresenting her position).

1. Protein intake can be increased based on activity level, but only up to a point, and that point is 1.0 g/lb. of lbm because eating more than that has negative consequences.
2. Because carbs and fat are supposed to be consumed based on a ratio calculated off of your protein consumption, as protein increases, so too does fat and carbs.
3. Once you hit the ceiling of 1 g/lb. of LBM, if your energy requirements are still not being met, you increase fat consumption only (although you can increase fat consumption to meet energy needs before you get to 1.0 g of protein/lb of lbm).

Is this a fair summary of your position Sue?

As far as Sue's position on carb loading for athletes pre- through post-workout (well, to be more specific, carb + protein loading) I am not entirely sure I know where she stands on the subject, but she has indicated that she acknowledges that Zone athletes do it.

Also, I am not sure 100% that Sue agrees with me that whether we talk about calories or ATP we are really talking about the same thing (in fact, in response to your suggestion, CC, I started a thread about this subject). Basically, the amount of calories food has is just a short-hand for the amount of ATP that can be generated from that food (well, this is true with carbs and fat at least, it gets more complicated with protein, from what I understand).

Matt (did you notice that Karen and I have nicknamed you PL Matt, for "power-lifter"):

Your points 1-3 sound like what I would assume is Sue's position. Will see when she posts. I guess I am not totally clear on how she feels about that protein adjustment. One of her posts indicated that going up to 1.5g/# LBM was not going to work re: zone guidelines due to eicosanoid status and inflammation. However, then her other post indicated that it would be acceptable to increase protein beyond 1g/# LBM (although she really didn't specify how high she felt was OK to go).

And, although she had posted acknowledgement of carb loading among Zone athletes, I think it would be interesting to hear her opinion on it, and whether or not this carb loading keeps one in the Zone. this is probably not related so much to Grant's original question, but thought it would be good conversation.

BTW, SUE:

Although there is no rule that specifies it, I feel it is highly unethical to delete a post after someone has replied to it. I see that you have deleted your reply to me, between my two earlier posts. You had asked me to clarify some things that I had posted about. Deleting a post after someone has posted a reply destroys the integrity of the thread.

And, it has now become a waste of my time to have posted a reply to you, if you had felt that your post was no longer important!

I did notice the "PL Matt" moniker that I have now acquired. I was hoping for "Sexy Matt" but I guess "PL Matt" will have to do.

:p

Sue/CC/Matt - i've been following this thread with interest and I just came back to see how things were going. I too noticed that a post was deleted and made the thread very confusing. I had read it before the delete and it made sense and I could see how there was a bit of confusion on each others positions, now it doesn't make sense. This will not be good for newbies.

Matt - we can change that so Sexy Matt if you'd like.

Well, I didn't think my DH would appreciate that one!

CC - we were posting at the same time.

Thanks, sue--it is disappointing to me when stuff like that happens. We are trying to carry on a really good debate, here. I think Grant even commented earlier that this was very useful for him. Seeing more than one side of things is NOT a bad idea. So, when people come around and play games, posting then deleting, it just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry if I am making a stink about it!

CC - apology accepted. It kind of ruined my concentration as well, I was following this thread with great interest

Me, too, CC and sue! No worries, CC ... it's frustrating.

Matt, if we called you Sexy Matt, we'd still be in the same boat ... which Matt are we talking about! LOL! Of course, we could say Sexy PL Matt and Sexy CF Matt! Does that work? Just kidding. We have been talking a lot off line about these discussions (very interesting, BTW) and we needed to come up with how to distinguish which Matt we are talking about.

I did some quick calculations using myself as an example. I put in my exercise as elite and it tells me 15 blocks or approx 1500 cals. i've been told by a personal trainer and others in the traditional medical community that I should not eat less than 1800 cals. So I did what the zone says and because I'm an elite athlete I added extra fat. 1500 cals x 30%=450 cals, at 2x that or 900 cals for a total of 1350 cals of fat. That gets me 2400 cals, so approx to what Matt said for adding muscle. However, when you look at the ratios, that means I'm eating 56% fat, 25% carbs and 19% protein.

That calc should give me the necessary ATP, but I'm not liking the 56% fat bit. I don't believe that ATP is the only thing you need to build muscle. And how in the world do I replace my glucose in my muscles on only 25% carbs?

Can someone explain how it can be healthy to get 56% of your daily requirements from FAT?

Karen-LOL! Yes, both Matts are "sexy", so that won't work. Will have to keep the original abbreviations that you came up with!

sue-First, if you put your calculations in the calculator, it will tell you what you need to do in order to maintain your LBM. So, if it is saying to get 15 blocks, then that is what you would need to consume to support your LBM. Then, of course, you would consume the necessary amount of carb to go along with the protein. I would assume that the amount of carb that you are getting would be adequate for providing the necessary vitamins and minerals, since it is driven by your measurements and activity factor. Finally, you would consume the necessary amount of fat, which would be 15 blocks in your example.

At this point, we are doing everything according to the Zone.

I feel that it is important to continue tracking things, and so it would be prudent to recheck these stats periodically to verify changes. One of the concerns is that the elite athlete does not have a lot of fat stores (guess I am pretty lucky with that regard), and so this would be reason to increase the fat block. If one is not maintaining bodyfat%, then one should add fat to the diet. The amount would be dependent on an individual response. Just keep adding fat until fat stores are restored, then level it off at that point (probably easier said than done, you can guess that I haven't personally had to deal with this problem).

In terms of muscle, I don't think I would be adding fat to gain muscle. I would recommend adjusting the protein requirement for that, and then the rest of the equation is also adjusted (carbs and fat).

In terms of the Zone, I guess I am trying to adjust what applies. I picture an athlete being someone who is NOT carb sensitive, and so he/she probably tolerates a greater amount of carbs. The Zone ratio of protein to carbs is 0.6-1.0. So, an athlete can probably tolerate a protein to carb ratio of 0.6, whereas someone like me is better off near the 1.0 range. the 0.6 ratio is basically the same as someone who "adds" a carb to their blocks, to stay in the Zone. That being said, maybe the way to approach it is not necessarily to add more fat to supply energy needs, but rather to alter the ratio of protein to carb, staying within the Zone but closer to the 0.6 range. Then, add fat if fat stores are depleting.

Does this make more sense? took me awhile to write it, had several interruptions, and so I hope I wrote it sensibly!

CC - that makes sense, but It was stated earlier in the thread that an elite athlete needs to up their fat by 2 or 3x. So, that is how I did my equation. It seemed that you took the blocks as per the calculator and then uped the fat. Even if we assume that the calculator tells all and we don't need to double or triple the fat for the athlete, lets look at the carb sensitive person. Again in that scenario, depending on fogginess, you would drop a carb and replace it with fat. What is disturbing me with that picture is that your percentage of fat is nearing or eclipsing 50% of your food consumption. That to me seems to be a bit much. I would much rather try to add an additional block every few days to see if that helped. Then at least you are remaining in balance. If at all possible, I am going to hit the library this evening to try and find one of the early zone books. i had one and gave it away years ago. Maybe I'm missing something and the book will clear it up.

CC

Just checked my library and without ordering it from another one, I'm out of luck on Enter the Zone, I can pick up Mastering the Zone, do you think that would work just as well?

sue,

I may have missed where it was discussed that an athlete should up the fat by 2-3X, will have to go back and look for that post.

I am a carb sensitive person, and so I drop a carb and add 2 blocks of fat. Personally, I don't see my calorie distribution nearing 50% on the fat. I think it is closer to 40%.

Take, for instance, a 3 block meal. My distribution looks like this:

20g carb = 80 calories 29%
21g protein = 84 calories 31%
12g fat = 108 calories 40%

total calories = 272 cals

Incidently, look how close it is calorie-wise to a traditional 3 block meal:

27g carb = 108 calories
21g protein = 84 calories
9g fat = 81 calories

total calories = 273 cals

I have both books, but I actually prefer MASTERING THE ZONE.

ok, so I just got back from the Library. They had Enter the Zone and Mastering, so I picked up both to do some research.

CC, it was stated on page 1 of this thread.

PL Matt said:

"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."

Then Sue responded:

"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."

This is why sue based her equations on 2x/3x fat.

BTW, below is what I still don't understand.

PL Matt said:

"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?"

Sue replied:

"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."

Okay, what I don't understand is why it would not be hormonally correct to get additional calories through adding balanced blocks so that ratios remain the same. I wouldn't necessarily want to put just additional fat into my body. I'm really confused on this. Can someone enlighten me?

Karen,

you seem to have the same question I do. For the average person doing workouts that increase their caloric need, I don't see how eating additional complete blocks would take them out of the zone.

Sue - why would adding addtional calories in complete blocks take one out of the zone?

Karen, thanks--I do remember that post, must have just missed some of the detail in it.

Karen and sue, for the average person, you would just match up the protein according to the protein needs. It is difficult to convert protein into energy. So, as I understand it, excess protein can eventually cause a ketotic state.

CC - I'm reading about that exact thing right now in Enter the Zone. As it is being explained here in the beginning it is in relationship to a high protein diet, not necessarily in relationship to too much protein for your needs. I'll keep reading. This part talks about not having enough carbs because you are eating all protein like Atkins. No balance

I've looked up the dangers of too much protein on eHow. Here's what it says:

"Dangers of Excessive Protein
Too much protein and not enough carbohydrates can cause ketones to collect in the blood (ketosis). People on high protein diets, such as the Atkins diet, are told that by being in constant ketosis they can lose weight because this forces the body to burn fat for energy. However, ketosis is dangerous because it can cause mild dehydration by placing a burden on the kidneys. Besides kidney problems, side effects can include headaches, dizziness, confusion, fatigue and nausea. Excessive protein in your diet also increases the risk of osteoporosis because of limited calcium intake. It also results in more acidic blood because when acids break up and enter the blood, it makes it acidic, disturbing the pH level.
An imbalance of extreme amounts of protein and not enough carbohydrates usually leads to less fiber, resulting in constipation. This can lead to hemorrhoids, polyps and even colon cancer. Other conditions include heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
Hypertension (high blood pressure) can likewise be an effect of too much protein. Athletes who eat excessive protein don't perform as well due to the depletion of glycogen because of the body burning energy. Eating too much protein from fatty animal foods gives you too many high-fats, meaning added calories and weight gain. When you eat saturated fats, as well as transfats and cholesterol in foods, you increase the bad LDL cholesterol and the total level of cholesterol. When this happens, there's a greater chance of heart disease.

Daily Protein Requirements
The protein needed each day varies according to an individual's age, weight, lifestyle and diet. A healthy adult should eat 0.8 grams per kilogram (a kilogram being about 2.2 pounds) of bodyweight, excluding pregnant women who need an extra 10 grams than what is recommended. Nursing mothers need an extra 15 grams for the first 6 months while nursing. After that, they need only an extra 12 grams. Males with a strenuous exercise routine should eat from 1 to 1 1/2 grams of protein per pound of body weight."

Okay, CC, it agrees with you about too much protein can cause ketosis, but that is when not balanced with enough carbs. It seems the big factor is increasing protein without increasing carbs. That is my understanding.

The statement about athletes who eat excessive protein ... depletion of glycogen. I believe this is why PL Matt eats protein/carbs (non-Zone) after his workouts. I don't know about hypertension. Re: increasing the bad LDL cholesterol - I don't think this is really an issue when eating low-fat protein. Also, it says male athletes should eat 1-1.5 grams of protein per lb of body weight. In Grant's case, at 1.5 grams it would be 253.5 grams of protein based on 169 lbs and 221.1 grams of protein based on 147.4 lbs LBM. If my calculations are correct, that would be 31 blocks of protein.

Now this is still my question. Why not increase total number of blocks to reach Grant's caloric needs? I don't see the danger of increased healthy protein as long as it is accompanied with increased carbs (and healthy fats). I still do not understand how it cannot be hormonally correct if you increase the total number of blocks. I just don't get it.

Karen - according to Enter the Zone, 1.5 pro would put him at 32 blocks. That seems very reasonable and a lot better than what the calculator is doing.

Grant if you are still checking this thread, pick up Enter the Zone and do the calculations from there. I did them for you based on the info in your original post and I get 32 for 1.5 pro/lb of LBM That makes much more sense.