Karen, the problem is that if the body gets too much protein (more than it needs), it can't use it efficiently. It doesn't just GO to LBM, and it isn't broken down for energy in the same way as carbs or fat. It will cause one to go into ketosis. If adequate carbs are accompanying the protein, I am not sure if that would prevent ketosis, but you would definitely have a problem with having too much carb in your system. Remember, excess carb will be stored as fat and will raise insulin levels (not in the good way that PL Matt is speaking of, either). And, it goes without saying that the excess fat will also be stored.

That being said, I do believe that if one's body DOES need the protein, then the protein should be supplied. So, in Grant's case, he may very well need the added protein. The information that you posted suggests that he could need up to 1.5g/#LBM. But, he will have to be the judge on that one, since I don't know him.

CC: What you say about the range of carbs and increased sensitivity for fairly lean athletes makes a lot of sense and might well be another strategy that makes sense in terms of what the source of the extra calories should be to meet extra energy requirements.

If I were using that strategy, it would mean that for every 6 grams of protein I consume, I eat 10 grams of carbs. Under the Zone (using the 1 g/lb of lbm) I should be eating no more and no less than roughly 600 calories per day from protein. That would mean 1,000 calories from carbs, making a total of 1,600 calories. In my case, this would still leave me with a roughly 1,600 calorie deficit, meaning 1,600 calories from fat.

So my daily caloric intake would break down as:
P: 18.75%
C: 31.25%
F: 50%

Now, if I used the higher 1.5 g/lb of lbm instead, that would mean 900 calories from protein, 1,500 calories from carbs, and the remaining 800 calories from fat. The daily break down would be:
P: 28.125%
C: 46.875%
F: 25%

Now, let's say I am using my post workout carb+protein strategy of 4:1 (and consuming 20% of my days calories in workout nutrition). That means 640 calories per day in workout nutrition with P=128 and C=512 (F = 0). The rest of my meals would total P=772, F=800, C=988. So the other 2,560 calories of my day (excluding post workout nutrition) would be:
P: ~30%
F: ~31%
C: ~39%

So basically, 30/30/40. Interestingly, approaching it from this direction, it still arrives at essentially what I am doing, coming from a different direction. I start with my protein requirements at 1.5 g/lb of LBM, then I calculate my post workout meals and reduce the protein consumed in them from that total, then calculate my blocks according the what is left over. If I am trying to support the energy to gain muscle mass, I add in extra fat. So, I am approaching it from a different angle, but the result turns out to be eerily similar to what I am already doing.

An interesting convergence to say the least.

I own a copy of "Mastering the Zone" and find it odd that the recommendations would differ from "Enter the Zone." Which version was released first? Was there a scientific basis for changing the recommendation, a published study perhaps? I suppose I'll have to give "Enter" a solid look-through... Thanks for the tip!

Grant:

I believe that Enter the Zone was first then Mastering.

Matt:

in your first calculation of 1600 cals, I noticed that I did not see a calc for fat in that one, so the total cals would be a bit higher. That said, your system seems to be working and ending your day with the prescribed 30/30/40. I know there are those that will tell you that even if your "day" is right, if one meal is off it will throw your out of the zone. Not sure about that. I continue to read, since this is not the book I had. i had Mastering.

sue:

I actually don't calculate fat directly, I do it indirectly. I start with my calorie requirements and work backwards, subtracting out protein and carbs, and whatever is left over, I put in fat.

In each of these calculations, I am starting with my approximate daily caloric requirements of 3,200 calories.

<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Matthew on 04/17/2009 12:50 PM
CC: What you say about the range of carbs and increased sensitivity for fairly lean athletes makes a lot of sense and might well be another strategy that makes sense in terms of what the source of the extra calories should be to meet extra energy requirements.
quote]

PL "sexy" Matt (did I get that all right now?):
What I meant about the carb sensitivity is that atheletes are NOT as sensitive to carbs, meaning that they can naturally tolerate more carb, sometimes closer to the 0.6 P/C ratio. Just wanted to clarify that!

You got it right!

LOL.

I think I just mistyped what I intended to say, but we were trying to get the same point across.

Okay, I think I'm understanding it a bit more. CC, I rounded down to 31 and I think you rounded up to 32 ... but close either way. I only used 1.5 grams per LBM as the maximum for an example. Maybe 1.25 grams is what Grant needs for protein, which is 26 blocks (rounded down). You are right, Grant needs to be the judge as far as what his body requires.

sue, I've heard the same thing that only one unbalanced meal/snack can throw you OOZ; however, I think it is different for an elite athlete. Their bodies NEED carbs and protein after a workout. I know this is what my BIL did when he trained, and it appears to be working for PL Matt.

Karen, I wasn't the one who posted regarding the 32 blocks, I think that was sue. Personally, I didn't do the math for that portion! --LOL!

Oops! Sorry, CC! It was sue.

Karen - you are right, I rounded up because of his intense exercise. other than trying to consume that much food, that would be a better calorie level for him.

Matt - ok, now I see what you did, I went back and looked at it again and due to your %'s you would consume 1600 cals in fat. I guess I thought it was missing because in the other scenarios, you stated the fat number. My bad.