Help with weight loss

[manlymatt83]

So I've been tracking my caloric intake on fitday.com. I've also been working out every day and twice a week with a personal trainer.

One thing I notice is that, while I have a caloric defecit, my breakdown is about 50% carbs, 26% fat, 14% protein, and 10% alcohol (according to fitday). Something tells me that this is hurting me, especially the carbs.

Why, and what can I do about it?

 

[HomerX]

26% fat is ok but 14% Protein is not enough and 50% carbs is too much.

What can you do... eat more lean meat, beans, fish etc in order to gain more protein. Reduce your Carbs! Replace them with more veggies.

For a more detailed guide read the fat loss sticky.

 

[KoolDrew]

A percentage doesn't mean anything without knowing the total amount of calories that percentage is based on.

 

[Kipper]

So I've been tracking my caloric intake on fitday.com. I've also been working out every day and twice a week with a personal trainer.

One thing I notice is that, while I have a caloric defecit, my breakdown is about 50% carbs, 26% fat, 14% protein, and 10% alcohol (according to fitday). Something tells me that this is hurting me, especially the carbs.

Why, and what can I do about it?

Assuming you are putting in the numbers correctly, 10% of your calories are from alcohol, and you think the carbs are hurting you? Alcohol is the DEFINITION of empty calorie. 50% of calories from carbohydrate is perfectly acceptable assuming those carbs are of a high quality and you are not following a low-carbohydrate diet.

Of course this all assumes a lot - it is difficult to tell without specifics. Saying that 14% protein is "not enough" doesn't seem likely, though.

 

[ZOOYUKA]

Since you have a personal trainer, wouldn't it be smarter to talk to him instead of consulting the internet?

 

[HomerX]

Of course this all assumes a lot - it is difficult to tell without specifics. Saying that 14% protein is "not enough" doesn't seem likely, though.

It really depends on the number of calories.

Because he is on a diet i still say that 50% carbs is high and 14% protein is low.
Carbs have a higher caloric density compared to lean meat and veggies.
If i'm cutting the first thing i do is to reduce my carbs intake.

If you eat 2000 cal of rice a day you will be more hungry compared to 2000 cal of veggies+lean meat.

 

[Whisper]

I could be wrong, but I believe that if you're attempting to maintain muscle mass (as much as possible) while losing weight, you'll want to aim for 30% of your calories from protein. The remaining split between carbs/fats is slightly flexible, but for most people, I'd imagine 40% carbs and 30% fats would work, especially given that you're used to half (or more, if you count the sugar alcohols) of your calories coming from carbs.

The Fat Loss Sticky contains this, and more, information.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

It was my vague understanding that alcohol pretty much just gets turned into sugar so you might as well just lump it into the carbs. I'm inclined to say you're not eating enough protien too, and make sure you're underestimating excerise overestimate calories on food on tracking sites it's very easy to accidently go the other way around. Watch your weight change to get a rough idea of what your actual in/out for calories is. I guess I went on a bit of a tangent, but yea eat more protien : p The last time I was really dieting I was eating 40/40/20 carb/protien/fat and it seemed like a good mix.

 

[Kipper]

It really depends on the number of calories.

Because he is on a diet i still say that 50% carbs is high and 14% protein is low.
Carbs have a higher caloric density compared to lean meat and veggies.
If i'm cutting the first thing i do is to reduce my carbs intake.

If you eat 2000 cal of rice a day you will be more hungry compared to 2000 cal of veggies+lean meat.

Satiety, which I think is what you're referring to, has very little do with calorie density. Carbohydrates are overall the same calorie density as protein (4 kcal/g), but you could arguably make the case that food protein sources are more calorie dense because they generally carry a good amount of fat as well.

You can cut calories from pretty much anywhere, as long as you are cutting calories. Where it is easiest to cut is the best place to cut for weight loss purposes - in this case the alcohol is a low-hanging fruit. A protein intake of 14% on a kcal intake of 2000 kcal is 70 g/day. Depending on how heavy the person is, this really isn't that bad an intake. For weight loss purposes a bit of extra is a good idea, but this is really not a reason to jump to 30% protein, which at the same intake would bump you to 150 g/day; far more than the majority of people need - especially those trying to lose weight, for that matter.

This is all speculative and overshadows the bottom line that a diet you can STICK TO is the best one for losing weight. Forget about ratios, fad diets and all that rubbish. Long term, no diet (low fat, high protein, blah blah blah) is particularly better than another strictly for weight loss.

 

[Pantlegz]

Satiety, which I think is what you're referring to, has very little do with calorie density. Carbohydrates are overall the same calorie density as protein (4 kcal/g), but you could arguably make the case that food protein sources are more calorie dense because they generally carry a good amount of fat as well.

You can cut calories from pretty much anywhere, as long as you are cutting calories. Where it is easiest to cut is the best place to cut for weight loss purposes - in this case the alcohol is a low-hanging fruit. A protein intake of 14% on a kcal intake of 2000 kcal is 70 g/day. Depending on how heavy the person is, this really isn't that bad an intake. For weight loss purposes a bit of extra is a good idea, but this is really not a reason to jump to 30% protein, which at the same intake would bump you to 150 g/day; far more than the majority of people need - especially those trying to lose weight, for that matter.

This is all speculative and overshadows the bottom line that a diet you can STICK TO is the best one for losing weight. Forget about ratios, fad diets and all that rubbish. Long term, no diet (low fat, high protein, blah blah blah) is particularly better than another strictly for weight loss.

If you want to retian most of your muscle mass while you're cutting you want to keep your protein intake high. While cutting I keep my intake as close to notmal as I possibly can, keeping it around 1g/lb of lbm(70g would be less than 1/2 of this). But I'm also eating quite a bit more than 2000 calories even when I'm cutting.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So I've been tracking my caloric intake on fitday.com. I've also been working out every day and twice a week with a personal trainer.

One thing I notice is that, while I have a caloric defecit, my breakdown is about 50% carbs, 26% fat, 14% protein, and 10% alcohol (according to fitday). Something tells me that this is hurting me, especially the carbs.

Why, and what can I do about it?

Carbs are the enemy.

Eliminate anything processed(all grains are processed btw) . If it doesn't grow on a tree/bush/or in the ground, have jaws or wings or fins then don't eat it.

you should not exceed 150g carbs in a day(should be easy if you aren't eating processed foods). your level of activity simply isn't high enough to burn that.

if your plan is to lose weight and it isn't working then their is either something wrong with A) your plan B) your execution

In this case your plan is flawed. It really isn't as simple as Calories in < Calories out.

 

[M0oG0oGaiPan]

I think you want to keep your protein higher because it keeps you feeling fuller, it helps retain muscle, and there's an increase in thermic effect from taking the protein.

 

[Kipper]

If you want to retian most of your muscle mass while you're cutting you want to keep your protein intake high. While cutting I keep my intake as close to notmal as I possibly can, keeping it around 1g/lb of lbm(70g would be less than 1/2 of this). But I'm also eating quite a bit more than 2000 calories even when I'm cutting.

You may disagree, but that is 2.2 g/kg, clearly excessive protein intake. That's not even a level of protein you would give to someone recovering from major surgery. OP wants to lose weight. There is no indication that (s)he is looking to try to preserve as much muscle as possible, or that there is even a ton of lean body mass to preserve. Some people looking purely to lose weight can start as high as body fat in the mid-thirty percent. If you are "cutting," you might be going from the mid teens. Your goals are completely different.

Certainly, elevating a protein intake slightly when losing weight is advisable, but going as high as you do is just overkill - and it adds calories, nonetheless, which defeats the point for pure weight loss.

 

[Kipper]

Carbs are the enemy.

Eliminate anything processed(all grains are processed btw) . If it doesn't grow on a tree/bush/or in the ground, have jaws or wings or fins then don't eat it.

you should not exceed 150g carbs in a day(should be easy if you aren't eating processed foods). your level of activity simply isn't high enough to burn that.

if your plan is to lose weight and it isn't working then their is either something wrong with A) your plan B) your execution

In this case your plan is flawed. It really isn't as simple as Calories in < Calories out.

If you are working out, cutting carbs is probably the last thing you want to do - especially if you want to recover from said exercise. Carbohydrate isn't absolutely essential in the diet, but it is the preferred fuel of the body - and you don't burn carbohydrate just when you are active, you burn it when you are sitting there. Hell, you burn it while you're sleeping. So saying your carbohydrate intake shouldn't exceed 150 grams because you won't burn it off is patently FALSE.

Low carb diets are notoriously hard to stick to, which is why I don't recommend them for many people except for the short term or for some special purpose. Cutting calories wherever you can manage to live with cuts is the best way to approach the situation. It makes you far less likely to fall off the wagon - either during the weight loss process, or the harder part, the weight maintenance part.

 

[Pantlegz]

You may disagree, but that is 2.2 g/kg, clearly excessive protein intake. That's not even a level of protein you would give to someone recovering from major surgery. OP wants to lose weight. There is no indication that (s)he is looking to try to preserve as much muscle as possible, or that there is even a ton of lean body mass to preserve. Some people looking purely to lose weight can start as high as body fat in the mid-thirty percent. If you are "cutting," you might be going from the mid teens. Your goals are completely different.

Certainly, elevating a protein intake slightly when losing weight is advisable, but going as high as you do is just overkill - and it adds calories, nonetheless, which defeats the point for pure weight loss.

I'll agree that if you're going for pure weight loss then the protein is over kill, but you may lose weight and not look any leaner because you've also lost some muscle mass. But 1g/lb of protein intake is generally the accepted amout to eat while you're lifting. Again, this all depends on your goals and where you're starting out.

 

[Kipper]

It was my vague understanding that alcohol pretty much just gets turned into sugar so you might as well just lump it into the carbs.

Alcohol frequently ends up as fat, not sugar. There is no value to it as a nutrient, period.

 

[Kipper]

I'll agree that if you're going for pure weight loss then the protein is over kill, but you may lose weight and not look any leaner because you've also lost some muscle mass. But 1g/lb of protein intake is generally the accepted amout to eat while you're lifting. Again, this all depends on your goals and where you're starting out.

It is convention because it's easy to remember and the math isn't difficult - but there is no evidence to back it up. Intakes upward of 1.5-1.7 g/kg (I have seen numbers as low as 1.3 g/kg), or roughly ~0.8 g/lb for weight lifting purposes are pretty much pointless except to push you into caloric surplus and pad the protein powder companies' bottom lines. They don't result in any performance gain.

For preserving lean body mass for weight loss, 1-1.2 g/kg should be sufficient to limit muscle catabolism, but you are probably going to lose some no matter how hard you try.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

If you are working out, cutting carbs is probably the last thing you want to do - especially if you want to recover from said exercise. Carbohydrate isn't absolutely essential in the diet, but it is the preferred fuel of the body - and you don't burn carbohydrate just when you are active, you burn it when you are sitting there. Hell, you burn it while you're sleeping. So saying your carbohydrate intake shouldn't exceed 150 grams because you won't burn it off is patently FALSE.

Low carb diets are notoriously hard to stick to, which is why I don't recommend them for many people except for the short term or for some special purpose. Cutting calories wherever you can manage to live with cuts is the best way to approach the situation. It makes you far less likely to fall off the wagon - either during the weight loss process, or the harder part, the weight maintenance part.

This is me agreeing with Kipper, but addressing Iceberg's post. First of all, setting a set mass of carbs to eat is idiotic. The amount of carbs will depend on person to person due to size, activity levels, and availability. 150g of carbs is 600 calories. If someone was on a 3000cal/day diet, that would make carbs only ~20% of the daily intake. Greg Glassman encourages the zone diet, which explicitly states roughly 40% of calories should come from carbs. CrossFit's notion that 150g of carbs is optimal for hormonal balance for fat loss is a bit unfounded and pretty experimental. On top of that, adherence to a diet like that is difficult, especially if you're undergoing workouts that burn you out.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is me agreeing with Kipper, but addressing Iceberg's post. First of all, setting a set mass of carbs to eat is idiotic. The amount of carbs will depend on person to person due to size, activity levels, and availability. 150g of carbs is 600 calories. If someone was on a 3000cal/day diet, that would make carbs only ~20&#37; of the daily intake. Greg Glassman encourages the zone diet, which explicitly states roughly 40% of calories should come from carbs. CrossFit's notion that 150g of carbs is optimal for hormonal balance for fat loss is a bit unfounded and pretty experimental. On top of that, adherence to a diet like that is difficult, especially if you're undergoing workouts that burn you out.

I know multiple people who run 50+ mile ultras and compete in triathlons. they limit their carbs during training to under 150g. They do tweak it a bit a couple weeks leading up to a race. These are people that are wayyyyyyyyyyyy more active than the OP on a daily basis. The body can produce its own glucose. you do not need to drown yourself in sugar and carbs to get it.

edit: I would agree post workout is when you need to def get some carbs banana/apple/grapes/melon post work should do the trick. Then follow up with your high protein and veggies.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you are working out, cutting carbs is probably the last thing you want to do - especially if you want to recover from said exercise. Carbohydrate isn't absolutely essential in the diet, but it is the preferred fuel of the body - and you don't burn carbohydrate just when you are active, you burn it when you are sitting there. Hell, you burn it while you're sleeping. So saying your carbohydrate intake shouldn't exceed 150 grams because you won't burn it off is patently FALSE.

Low carb diets are notoriously hard to stick to, which is why I don't recommend them for many people except for the short term or for some special purpose. Cutting calories wherever you can manage to live with cuts is the best way to approach the situation. It makes you far less likely to fall off the wagon - either during the weight loss process, or the harder part, the weight maintenance part.

first of all you don't burn carbs your body only knows glucose, fatty acids and insulin.(simplified) if you think a cell in your body understands proteins are 4 cals, carbs are 4 cals and fats are 9 cals. No. A cell only knows glucose/fatty acids/insulin

 

[IceBergSLiM]

If you are working out, cutting carbs is probably the last thing you want to do - especially if you want to recover from said exercise. Carbohydrate isn't absolutely essential in the diet, but it is the preferred fuel of the body - and you don't burn carbohydrate just when you are active, you burn it when you are sitting there. Hell, you burn it while you're sleeping. So saying your carbohydrate intake shouldn't exceed 150 grams because you won't burn it off is patently FALSE.

Low carb diets are notoriously hard to stick to, which is why I don't recommend them for many people except for the short term or for some special purpose. Cutting calories wherever you can manage to live with cuts is the best way to approach the situation. It makes you far less likely to fall off the wagon - either during the weight loss process, or the harder part, the weight maintenance part.

low carb eating is ridiculously easy actually. You can eat all the food you want that isn't processed. probably one of the easiest to follow because proteins and fats will satisfy your hunger more and longer than carb loading. Deprivation diets are what are hard to stick to, when you are always hungry etc...

Also any diet is hard to stick to. its a lifestyle change. Low carb eating is a good plan and if you fail it isn't because their is problems with the concept or plan it was a problem with your execution of it. aka you really weren't committed to it.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This is me agreeing with Kipper, but addressing Iceberg's post. First of all, setting a set mass of carbs to eat is idiotic. The amount of carbs will depend on person to person due to size, activity levels, and availability. 150g of carbs is 600 calories. If someone was on a 3000cal/day diet, that would make carbs only ~20&#37; of the daily intake. Greg Glassman encourages the zone diet, which explicitly states roughly 40% of calories should come from carbs. CrossFit's notion that 150g of carbs is optimal for hormonal balance for fat loss is a bit unfounded and pretty experimental. On top of that, adherence to a diet like that is difficult, especially if you're undergoing workouts that burn you out.

If you are Insulin resistant which most people on western diet are your body is always in fat storage mode(hence why everyone is obese w/ type 2 diabetes) because there is continuously spikes of high blood sugar. To encourage mobilization of fat for energy you need to train your body to become insulin sensitive possible only by reducing blood sugar spikes by controlling carb/sugar intake.

 

[spamsk8r]

I'm going to have to agree with IceBerg here. I've found that I, personally, run great on less than 100 grams of carbs/day, all coming from fruits and vegetables (no grains). I do intense Crossfit workouts 4-5 days per week, and have no issues recovering, and no hunger issues, even when cutting. If I eat sugar or grains I end up inflamed, tired throughout the day, and ravenously hungry. As an example, when I allowed myself to eat sugar and grains for a week I averaged about 4000 calories/day with ad libitum eating, versus when eating an ad libitum Paleo diet I average about 2500 calories with no hunger. I know a sample size of 1 is not scientific, but this is what works for me, and it works very well.

 

[spamsk8r]

That being said, endurance athletes doing intense training (more than 1 hour/day) definitely need increased carbohydrate intake, possibly up to 60&#37; of calories. But I'm guessing the OP doesn't fall into this category.

 

[brikis98]

You may disagree, but that is 2.2 g/kg, clearly excessive protein intake. That's not even a level of protein you would give to someone recovering from major surgery. OP wants to lose weight. There is no indication that (s)he is looking to try to preserve as much muscle as possible, or that there is even a ton of lean body mass to preserve. Some people looking purely to lose weight can start as high as body fat in the mid-thirty percent. If you are "cutting," you might be going from the mid teens. Your goals are completely different.

Certainly, elevating a protein intake slightly when losing weight is advisable, but going as high as you do is just overkill - and it adds calories, nonetheless, which defeats the point for pure weight loss.

It's worth mentioning that protein requirements have a very strong dependence on activity levels and the type of activity you do. How much protein the OP needs will vary dramatically if he is sedentary and does no exercise vs. doing heavy resistance training (as recommended in the fat loss sticky). If it's the latter, studies show benefits for protein intakes as high as 2.2 g/kg. It's certainly on the high end, but not necessarily excessive to the point of ridiculousness. Moreover, protein rich foods typically are more satiating than some types of carbs (such as the highly processed kind), and a higher protein intake does help maintain LBM during weight loss (which should be a goal for just about everyone).

Having said all that, if the OP is like 99% of Americans, and fairly inactive, you're absolutely right and his protein intake is probably sufficient. In that case, his time would be better spent making sure he adheres to the diet and looking at the type of food he eats (ie, avoiding processed crap, eating more veggies, and so on).