The Lifestyle Diet

[geesler]

The Lifestyle Diet
by David Tolson

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part I
Basic Bodybuilding Concepts and Dietary Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Many of those who are seeking to increase muscle mass and decrease body fat are confused as to which type of diet to follow, and for good reason. Most popular diets are aimed at people with different primary goals, such as improving athletic performance, general health, or weight loss. There are different aspects to each of these diets. For example, athletes are typically encouraged to consume high quantities of high glycemic carbohydrates to improve performance, while it is best to minimize consumption of high glycemic carbohydrates from a purely health-oriented perspective. Similarly, those concerned primarily with losing weight tend to avoid high glycemic carbs, and while they may not have problems with diet soda, someone only concerned with their health would.

The question becomes, are any of these common diets ideally suited to the goals of the bodybuilder? And the answer is, no. While many aspects of each of these diets should be followed, focusing on a diet that is unique to the goal of improving body composition will help avoid many of the common pitfalls. Going back to the example of high glycemic carbs, many bodybuilders mistakenly assume that they should shovel them down all the time as other athletes do. On the flip side, high glycemic carbohydrates can still be strategically used to improve body composition.

In this series, we are going to look at every aspect of the diet one should follow if their goal is to increase muscle and decrease fat, from which types of foods to eat to when to eat them, with frequent references to scientific research. This isn't going to be a "hardcore bodybuilding diet." Most people aren't competing bodybuilders, and even those who are still like to eat like normal human beings from time to time. This isn't to say that this diet will be any less effective than if one goes on the tuna, eggs, and oatmeal diet (in fact, as I will argue later in this article, I believe many are shooting themselves in the foot by following such a diet), but that it will focus on achievable dietary changes that will still yield good results. Instead of setting strict and specific guidelines or laying out plans such that you will know exactly what you are going to eat and when every day for the rest of your life, we will speak in terms of general guidelines and habits. We also are not going to spend much time on fad diets or "radical new approaches." I don't believe a new approach is needed, people have to simply put into action what we already know. Again, a diet shouldn't have to be any more complicated than what is necessary to achieve the desired results.

In this part, we are going to cover two things. First, we will discuss basic and fundamentally important bodybuilding concepts that everyone should know. Those who are already familiar with these concepts can skip or skim this section. Second, we are going to cover three basic dietary rules that should be followed. Many people are looking for a simple, one size fits all approach. While there is none, it can be said without a doubt that these are some of the most important guidelines for a successful diet.


The Basics

1. Cutting/bulking

The general idea here is that you can't gain a significant quantity of muscle and lose a significant quantity of fat both at the same time (without drugs). Thus, to achieve both goals, you gain weight and muscle for a period of time (bulking) and then focus on losing fat and maintaining muscle for a period of time (cutting). This has been the conventional bodybuilding technique for decades, but there are still many – beginners, primarily – who ignore it. Yes, it is possible to avoid this process in theory, but in reality, only a very small number of people with both the right genetics and extreme dedication are capable of doing so.

The physiological reasons for why this works are simple. When it comes to how it uses calories, muscle building is relatively low on your body's priority list, so it only occurs to a significant extent after the energy needs for a number of other processes are met. When calories are reduced below the level necessary to maintain body weight, increasing muscle mass becomes very difficult, as the body is holding on to every calorie it can for things that it considers to be more important.

This strategy is obviously far from perfect. During bulking periods, some degree of fat gain is nearly inevitable, and during cutting, some amount of muscle loss is nearly inevitable. Still, considerable experience tells us that it is an effective strategy for improving body composition, and we can also draw this conclusion from scientific studies.

In terms of weight gain, few studies have been done, but a study in which men and women consumed 900-1800 calories above maintenance level for three weeks found that about 40% of the weight gained was from lean body mass [1]. This may sound like a low number, but resistance training and lowering the amount of excess calories could both be expected to increase this percentage. In terms of weight loss, there are obviously a plethora of studies, and the amount of weight lost that comes from lean mass is highly variable, although it strongly correlates with the rate at which weight is lost (the faster weight is lost, the greater the percentage of weight lost that comes from lean mass). This is again in line with conventional bodybuilding wisdom, which is that losing weight slowly is the best way to maintain muscle mass. For example, in a study in which sixty overweight men lost an average of about 1.4 lbs weekly due to dietary restriction, less than 25% of the weight lost was from lean mass [2]. While the process of gaining and losing weight over and over may be inefficient, it is at least reliable, especially when both weight gain and weight loss occur at a modest rate.

2. Repartitioning vs. weight loss

The concept of nutrient partitioning is closely linked to what we just discussed. In most of the popular literature, there is little distinction between weight loss and fat loss. However, if your primary concern is body composition, this distinction becomes very important.
Nutrient repartitioning simply refers to the process of preferentially shifting nutrients to muscle tissue rather than fat, and diet has a significant influence on this. Whether bulking or cutting, one is going to want to prefer foods with positive nutrient partitioning properties. While bulking, foods that contribute to weight gain are preferred, and while cutting, foods that contribute to weight loss are preferred – we will find that the primary factor here is how the food affects appetite. Thus, while bulking, you can throw a lot of the conventional dieting wisdom for what constitutes a "good" food out the window, as the last thing you are going to want to do is eat a lot of foods that will fill you up right away without providing many calories.


Dietary Rules
1. High Protein Intake

Of course, everyone already knows this one, as protein is primarily used to build and maintain lean tissue, and during cutting, the fact that protein is relatively satiating also comes into consideration. The debate comes in the specifics: How much is enough? Should it be a certain number of grams, or a percentage of total calories? What type of protein? Most of these questions will be tackled later on, but for now, we will establish a necessary minimum level of protein intake, and there have been a few studies published on this topic specific to weight lifters. First, we have a study that found that about .6 g of protein per pound of body weight produced greater increases in protein synthesis among strengh athletes compared to about .4 g/lb, while 1.1 g/lb did not produce any additional benefit [3]. However, other research indicates that weight-lifting athletes may need as much as .8 g/lb for maximal protein synthesis [4]. In general, most recommend staying on the safe side and ensuring at least 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight daily.

2. Low Glycemic

The glycemic index (GI) is a measure of the blood sugar response after consuming a certain food. Among bodybuilders, this rule is more commonly neglected. Many people's reason for ignoring it is, "the glycemic index isn't everything." Well, of course it isn't. That doesn't mean that it isn't one of the best tools that we have, it only means we must acknowledge its limitations.

Aside from their numerous health benefits, low glycemic foods have two advantages. First, low GI foods tend to act as positive nutrient partitioners when compared to high GI foods. For example, one study compared the effects of a low GI or high GI diet for five weeks on overweight men, and those that consumed the low GI diet did not have a different body weight at the end of the study, but did have decreased fat mass, decreased abdominal fat, and increased lean mass [5]. It is generally believed that low GI foods have this effect because they shift substrate (fuel) utilization to favor fat burning as opposed to use of carbohydrates and protein for energy.

Secondly, low GI foods have a well-established satiating (appetite-suppressing) effect relative to higher GI foods. This is very beneficial during weight loss phases. However, it can become a problem during bulking, when it is sometimes difficult to consume adequate calories. It is still best to try to eat primarily low and medium GI foods while bulking, because in addition to the nutrient repartitioning effect, they help maintain insulin sensitivity.

One of the exceptions to this rule is around exercise, during which high glycemic foods are desirable. During and for a short while after exercise, the calories consumed are going to be sent to muscle tissue in any case, and high GI carbs will be most readily used. This will improve performance and strength and also maximize the muscle-building effect of workouts.

3. Variety

This is what will make or break many people, primarily because diets consisting of only a few foods are rarely sustainable. Many people will become determined to perfect their diet and then begin limiting themselves to only a handful of foods, which can doom them to failure. In fact, making a concentrated effort to increase variety in the diet is one of the best things you can do, both from the perspective of how healthy a diet is and your ability to maintain that diet. You will find yourself much more able to maintain a diet if you aren't eating the exact same thing day in and day out.


Conclusion

In this article, we have covered the basics of an effective diet for improving body composition. In the following articles, we will begin to look at different types of foods, building on the ideas introduced here. Classes of foods will be discussed in terms of their effects on body composition, weight loss, health, and performance. We will also go into further detail on many of the topics covered in this article, such as how different types of foods affect appetite, the glycemic index, macronutrient ratios, and pre- and post-workout nutrition.


References

1. Br J Nutr. 1986 Jul;56(1):1-9. Deliberate overfeeding in women and men: energy cost and composition of the weight gain. Forbes GB, Brown MR, Welle SL, Lipinski BA.

2. Metabolism. 2003 Jan;52(1):107-15. The independent and combined effects of 16 weeks of vigorous exercise and energy restriction on body mass and composition in free-living overweight men--a randomized controlled trial. Cox KL, Burke V, Morton AR, Beilin LJ, Puddey IB.

3. J Appl Physiol. 1992 Nov;73(5):1986-95. Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes. Tarnopolsky MA, Atkinson SA, MacDougall JD, Chesley A, Phillips S, Schwarcz HP.

4. J Am Coll Nutr. 2000 Oct;19(5 Suppl):513S-521S. Beyond the zone: protein needs of active individuals. Lemon PW.

5. Diabetes Care. 2002 May;25(5):822-8. Five-week, low-glycemic index diet decreases total fat mass and improves plasma lipid profile in moderately overweight nondiabetic men. Bouche C, Rizkalla SW, Luo J, Vidal H, Veronese A, Pacher N, Fouquet C, Lang V, Slama G.

[geesler]

Part 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Ketogenic Diets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
In the last article, we covered some basic dietary aspects specific to the goal of improving body composition. We are now going to go into more detail on the specifics, and the next few articles will discuss the most focused-on topic among dieters today, macronutrients.

The term macronutrients generally refers to the nutrients in our food that provide calories, which fall into four general categories: fat, carbohydrates, protein, and alcohol. We aren't going to talk much about alcohol here except to say that you should obviously limit intake if you are concerned with body composition. Fats provide 9 calories (technically kilocalories, but general usage is to refer to them as calories) per gram, while protein and carbohydrates each provide 4 calories per gram. There are exceptions, but these numbers are the important ones to remember.

These articles are going to focus on weight loss. While macronutrients are certainly important during periods of weight gain, there is much less debate about them, and it is generally agreed upon that all three should be consumed in adequate quantities during this period. While we will certainly discuss the ideal amounts of macronutrients to consume during periods of weight gain or maintenance, weight and fat loss will be the central issue during most of the discussion of macronutrients.


The Keys to Weight Loss
What is the single most important factor in a successful weight loss diet? Some will say, "low fat." Some will say, "low carb," or "low sugar." The correct answer is "low calorie." You can cut out all the fat in your diet, or you can cut out all of the carbs, you could even cut both, and you still wouldn't consistently lose weight unless your caloric intake was below maintenance level. This isn't to say that altering macronutrient ratios can lead to weight loss independently of caloric intake (we will see some studies that indicate that this can work below). It just means that results will not be consistent unless caloric intake is low. So, if one is having extreme difficulty losing weight, the first step should always be to start keeping track of calories.

What is the second most important factor determining weight loss? Again, it is not the macronutrients you consume. It is exercise. This isn't a training article so we won't go into specifics, but eating less and exercising are the simple fundamentals of weight loss. Everyone knows this, but they all too often are ignored – people stop eating carbohydrates and take twenty supplements and expect weight loss to be automatic. It is a good idea to concern yourself both with these and eating the right macronutrients and foods. However, if you only concern yourself with macronutrients and ignore these two fundamentals, your efforts are not likely to yield any significant results.


Ketogenic Diets
When discussing macronutrient manipulation, this is the best place to start, as ketogenic diets are the most extreme. Although it is not commonly realized, there are essentially two types of low carb diets. The first is simply a diet classified as "low carbohydrate," which generally refers to diets where less than 45% of calories come from carbohydrates, less than the minimum recommendation of most health organizations (which usually falls in the 45-55% range). We will discuss these further later on. The second type is classified as "very low carbohydrate" or "ketogenic," usually defined as less than 10% of calories coming from carbohydrates or less than 50 grams of carbohydrates daily.

Ketogenic diets, which were originally used to control epilepsy and some other disorders in children, are uniquely different from low carbohydrate diets where carbohydrate intake isn't restricted quite as much. On a ketogenic diet, the state of carbohydrate deprivation is extreme enough that the body begins producing large amounts of "ketones," a fuel derived primarily from fat, as a substitute.

There are a number of potential reasons why ketogenic diets can be beneficial for fat loss. For one, the primary ketone produced, beta-hydroxybutyrate, may act as an appetite suppressant. Since a ketogenic diet is almost inevitably low glycemic, rapid changes in blood sugar levels are prevented and insulin levels are reduced. Because ketones and protein are both generally used only in low amounts as energy sources during exercise, a ketogenic diet can increase the use of fat as a fuel source during aerobic exercise. Ketones are also generally a less efficient fuel source, increasing the number of calories burned relative to the number consumed.

In addition to the long list of possible benefits, the research on ketogenic diets is equally as impressive. For example, in one of the most recent studies [1], overweight or obese men and women (averaging 30-35 years of age) were put on either a ketogenic diet (10% carbohydrate, 60% fat, 30% protein) or a standard diet (55% carbohydrate, 25% fat, 20% protein), each with a 500 calorie deficit, for periods of a month or more. The foods used by both groups were generally healthy.

According to dietary records, the group on the ketogenic diet ended up consuming more calories (about 250 more daily than the other group). Despite this, the group on the ketogenic diet lost more weight. Much more importantly, the percentage of weight lost from fat was greater in the group on the ketogenic diet, indicating a greater degree of lean tissue preservation. Additionally, the proportion of trunk fat lost was greater on the ketogenic diet by a three-fold degree. In summation, the ketogenic diet yielded greater weight loss, greater muscle preservation, and a greater proportion of fat lost from the region that people strive most to lose fat from.

A number of other studies have been conducted in the past few decades, and although not all of them have had the same findings regarding weight loss and preferential loss of fat, the majority have. Regarding nutrient partitioning effects, one meta-analysis indicated that the average percentage of weight lost from fat on a normal diet is 71%. While there probably aren't enough studies on ketogenic diets to pool the results in the same fashion, one article lists the percentage of weight lost from fat on ketogenic diets from various studies as 97%, 95%, and 80% [1]. It is clear from this and other research that ketogenic diets are more muscle-sparing than traditional diets.

One of the most important studies is one that is closer to applying to bodybuilders, as it used subjects that were not overweight or obese. Normal-weight men were either put on ketogenic (8% of energy from carbohydrates) diets or served as controls for six weeks and told to eat enough to maintain their body weight. In the control group, there were no significant changes in body composition. In the group that consumed the ketogenic diet, fat mass was decreased by 7.5 lbs and lean mass was increased by 2.4 lbs at the end of the six weeks [2]. This indicates that, even in normal individuals, ketogenic diets can have positive nutrient partitioning effects.


The Problems with Ketogenic Diets
Ketogenic diets seem to be everything a bodybuilder could want. So, why isn't everyone on a ketogenic diet?

Well, the primary problem with ketogenic diets, both for bodybuilders and for everyone else, has to do with sustainability. Most of the studies on ketogenic diets have been short-term, usually a matter of weeks. There have been longer studies, usually offered as arguments for the sustainability of ketogenic diets, but when one takes a look at these studies, dietary compliance among the subjects was rather low. In one six month study, subjects instructed to get less than 15% of their calories from carbohydrates ultimately ended up increasing their intake to 30% at the end of the study, whereas compliance in the normal, reduced-calorie group was relatively high. It is noteworthy that weight loss was still significantly higher in the low carbohydrate group in this study. Similarly, in another six month study, subjects instructed to eat less than 30 grams daily of carbohydrates ended up getting 37% of their calories from carbohydrates. In a more recent six month study, only some patients were instructed to keep dietary records, which indicated good compliance with the low carbohydrate diet. However, urinary ketone levels taken during the third and six month indicated poor compliance [3].

The difficulty of sustaining a ketogenic diet may not worry some bodybuilders. Indeed, bodybuilders are known for their resolve in keeping strict dietary practices. However, one cannot ignore the psychological side of the equation. To stay in ketosis, one cannot eat extra carbohydrates, or they will come out of ketosis (usually for a few days, although this can be accelerated through various means). In other words, one slip-up becomes a significant setback. For most people, a ketogenic diet would require not eating many of their favorite foods. It also means bad breath and body odor due to the ketones, something most people do not want.

In addition to the sustainability issue, there is the issue of health. This is an issue on which there is fierce debate, on the one hand, people citing studies indicating that ketogenic diets improve blood lipid profiles, and on the other, people listing the nutrients which ketogenic diets tend to lack. There is the generic "high fat diets are unhealthy" argument, but that does not carry much weight, given that the type of fat is often more important than the quantity. The possible nutrient deficiencies due to ketogenic diets most commonly cited are fiber, potassium, and some B vitamins. Additionally, ketogenic diets can produce a high acid load. However, as long as care is taken to get these nutrients and fruits and vegetables are used as the primary source of carbohydrates, ketogenic diets should not pose much of a health risk. Unlike fat and protein, carbohydrates are not a necessary aspect of the human diet. That isn't to say that a low carbohydrate diet is optimal for good health, just that it isn't necessarily detrimental.


Problems Specific to Athletes
The problem with ketogenic diets for bodybuilders may not lie in the issue of health, or even in the issue of sustainability. Rather, the problem is that carbohydrates are of great value to bodybuilders, and athletes in general. It is important to note that bodybuilders have many things to take in to consideration that the average person does not, and the studies discussed above must be viewed in this light.

Most important is the issue of glycogen. Glycogen is the primary fuel used by muscle tissue during short periods of high intensity exercise, including resistance training [4], and if glycogen stores are inadequate, a workout can be hindered. The amounts of carbohydrates that are necessary to keep sufficient glycogen stores in someone who is resistance training may not be as high as one might think, but they are certainly higher than a ketogenic diet allows for.

Many studies on endurance athletes have found that low carbohydrate, high fat diets can significantly improve endurance exercise performance. However, the way the body utilizes fuel during exercise and the factors governing exercise performance are significantly different during resistance training. Also, other studies have found a decrease in endurance performance during low carbohydrate dieting [5]; the different results are probably due to varying study protocols.

There are fewer studies on the effects of low carbohydrate intake on high-intensity, intermittent forms of exercise which are closer to weight lifting, but there are enough to establish a decrease in performance for this type of exercise [6-9]. For example, in one study [8], subjects consumed a standard diet (50%, 30%, and 20% carbohydrates, fat, and protein respectively) or a ketogenic diet (5%/50%/45%) for three days. Ketone concentrations were about ten times higher among those who went on the ketogenic diet after this period. Both groups performed high intensity exercise lasting 30 seconds, and in those who consumed the low carbohydrate diet, performance was significantly decreased. One of the conclusions of the authors was, "a L-CHO [low carbohydrate] diet is detrimental to anaerobic work capacity, possibly because of a reduced muscle glycogen store and decreased rate of glycolysis."

One argument might be that although performance is decreased, fat utilization is significantly higher during exercise on a ketogenic diet. Although this is true, it is probable that protein utilization will also be higher, particularly during resistance training (during which the rate of protein turnover is high), which is an inherent tradeoff. Also, the importance of maximizing fat burning during exercise (as opposed to metabolic changes resultant of exercise) is overrated. In either case, it is valuable to maintain performance during a diet, as a decrease in performance could ultimately result in a greater decrease in muscle mass.

Maintenance of muscle glycogen stores isn't the only benefit carbohydrates have to offer. Carbohydrates taken before exercise can increase the net protein synthetic response from a workout, maintain performance through mechanisms other than glycogen preservation such as positive effects on the central nervous system and maintaining blood sugar levels, prevent the rise in circulating tryptophan (which can contribute to perceived exertion and fatigue), and prevent the rise in cortisol (a hormone that is catabolic to muscle tissue) [10-12].

Given all of this, ketogenic dieting does not seem to be the best option for a bodybuilder. The exception might be during the pre-contest period, or when rapid fat loss is desired and performance is not a priority. Even then, one would not want to go on a ketogenic diet for an extended period of time.


Cyclical ketogenic diets
Cyclical ketogenic diets (CKD's) were created as an alternative to traditional ketogenic diets, and for the most part, they have been the invention of bodybuilders and used primarily by bodybuilders (there is little, if any reference to them in the scientific literature, although there are scientific principles behind the ideas that are employed). The general idea of a CKD is that most of the week is spent in ketosis, with a weekly "carb load" period to refill glycogen stores. Thus, one gets the best of both worlds, in theory.

In reality, while CKD's will surely be effective for weight loss, one cannot really say if they have a significant advantage over other diets, because the basic ideas are pieced together from research that may or may not apply. There are benefits that are relatively certain (such as the benefits of carb loading), but there are also drawbacks that are relatively certain (such as the fact that most of the week, performance in the gym will be lower), so it is difficult to say which outweighs. There are plenty of people who swear by them, but it is difficult to make judgements based on personal feedback, given that many people experience results just by paying close attention to what they eat, which a CKD necessitates.

We are not going to go in-depth on CKD's, although a number of books have been written on the topic. A specific set of dietary and exercise protocols are required, especially around the period of the carb load. Those who are more experimental and dedicated may want to give a CKD a try. However, the idea behind this series is to keep it simple where possible, and a complex set of protocols is not warranted unless there is strong scientific evidence that it is worthwhile. By strong scientific evidence, I refer to the specific set of protocols being tested in a controlled setting, not extrapolations from different studies pieced together. Too many trends have come and gone for armchair science to be considered reliable, and what we are looking for here is guaranteed results without the extra baggage. Other issues are that the variety of foods you can eat is still limited on a CKD and that such a diet is difficult to sustain.


Conclusion
In this article, we discussed one of the most popular types of diets based on macronutrient ratios, the ketogenic diet. Although such a diet may not be optimal for most, there are still some important points to take away from this discussion. The first is that, given the success of ketogenic diets, there may be reason to limit carbohydrate intake, just to a less drastic extent. The second is that a minimum level of carbohydrate intake is going to be desirable to maintain performance and glycogen levels. Third, we have seen that although caloric intake is the most important factor in a diet, there is definite potential to alter the muscle to fat ratio through dietary means, independently of caloric intake.

In the next section of this series, we will continue the discussion of macronutrient ratios, and come to some more solid conclusions regarding an optimal range for each macronutrient in the diet.


References

1. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Nov 8;1(1):13 [Epub ahead of print]. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Gomez AL, Judelson DA, Rubin MR, Watson G, Sokmen B, Silvestre R, French DN, Kraemer WJ.

2. Metabolism. 2002 Jul;51(7):864-70. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Love DM, Avery NG, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Kraemer WJ.

3. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Dec;18(6):1031-47. Is there an optimal macronutrient mix for weight loss and weight maintenance? Wilkinson DL, McCargar L.

4. Sports Med. 2004;34(5):317-27. Macronutrient considerations for the sport of bodybuilding. Lambert CP, Frank LL, Evans WJ.

5. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1987;56(4):444-50. Dietary composition and acid-base status: limiting factors in the performance of maximal exercise in man? Greenhaff PL, Gleeson M, Whiting PH, Maughan RJ.

6. Acta Physiol Scand. 1999 Apr;165(4):337-45. High-intensity exercise and muscle glycogen availability in humans. Balsom PD, Gaitanos GC, Soderlund K, Ekblom B.

7. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2003 Dec;13(4):466-78. Endurance capacity and high-intensity exercise performance responses to a high fat diet. Fleming J, Sharman MJ, Avery NG, Love DM, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS.

8. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1997;76(2):128-33. The effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on performance, hormonal and metabolic responses to a 30-s bout of supramaximal exercise. Langfort J, Zarzeczny R, Pilis W, Nazar K, Kaciuba-Uscitko H

9. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;72(3):249-55. The effect of glycogen availability on power output and the metabolic response to repeated bouts of maximal, isokinetic exercise in man. Casey A, Short AH, Curtis S, Greenhaff PL.

10. J Physiol. 2000 May 15;525 Pt 1:271-81. Effect of oral glucose on leucine turnover in human subjects at rest and during exercise at two levels of dietary protein. Bowtell JL, Leese GP, Smith K, Watt PW, Nevill A, Rooyackers O, Wagenmakers AJ, Rennie MJ.

11. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Dec;89(6):2220-6. Effects of carbohydrate ingestion before and during exercise on glucose kinetics and performance. Febbraio MA, Chiu A, Angus DJ, Arkinstall MJ, Hawley JA.

12. Amino Acids. 2001;20(1):25-34. Amino acids and central fatigue. Blomstrand E.

[geesler]

Part 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Macronutrients and Weight Loss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
Macronutrients are without a doubt the principal focus of most diets. Many diets are based almost solely on macronutrient ratio manipulation, while others focus more on timing. While the importance of both of these is often overestimated when compared to other factors, they can nonetheless have a significant impact. In the last article, we covered very low carbohydrate diets, also known as ketogenic diets. We are now going to discuss other weight loss diets based on macronutrient ratios, starting at the opposite end of the spectrum, low fat diets.


Low Fat Diets
Low fat diets were popular in the 80’s and early 90’s, but their popularity has steadily decreased in the last decade. At this point, one encounters low carb foods just as often as low fat foods. Was the low fat phenomenon simply a trend, or was there a scientific basis?

Although many may be surprised to hear this, there are a number of studies supporting the utility of low fat diets. The majority of these studies involved ad libitum eating (in other words, subjects consumed food as desired, but focused on increasing carbohydrate or decreasing fat intake). A meta-analysis by Astrup et al. examined the results of sixteen clinical trials in which subjects went on ad libitum reduced fat diets lasting 2-12 months. In the treatment groups of these studies, the average beginning fat intake was 37.7%, and the average intake during the study was 27.5%. Compared with control groups, those that went on low fat diets exhibited greater weight loss and lower caloric intake [1].

Given that very low carbohydrate diets also cause superior weight loss than standard diets, these results may seem counterintuitive. However, the key thing to note here is the difference in study design. Given these results, one cannot conclude that reduced-calorie low fat diets are superior, only that if one is not purposefully attempting to limit caloric intake, a focus on avoiding high fat foods can result in weight loss. The important questions to ask are if low fat diets can lead to weight loss provided the same number of calories are consumed, and if not, if the knowledge that ad lib low fat diets lead to weight loss can be used for any benefit.

In answer to the first question, if subjects are trying to lose weight rather than just eating what they want, it is safe to say that low fat diets are ineffective. A Cochrane Review on the effectiveness of low fat weight loss diets found that control diets resulted in greater weight loss than low fat diets, although the authors commented that the difference was small [2]. Similarly, studies covered in the last article would indicate that if anything, low fat diets are inferior for weight loss when caloric intake is controlled for.

It is clear that the most likely reason why ad lib low fat diets lead to weight loss is that subjects that avoid fatty foods tend to eat less calories, but once one controls for caloric intake, there ceases to be a benefit. Still, the commonly offered argument is that because low fat diets can have a more satiating effect, reducing fat intake on a weight loss diet may make the diet more sustainable. However, is it really the case that fat is less satiating than carbohydrates?

While there is a clear correlation between a food being high in fat and a food being calorie-dense, there is not a clear correlation between fat intake and satiety once caloric density is controlled for. To put it in simpler terms, it is caloric density, not fat content per se, that is what really matters. For example, two cups of salad with a tablespoon of olive oil dressing contains about the same amount of calories and fat as an ounce of mixed nuts, but it is much more satiating because the caloric density is higher. In support of the idea that caloric density is what really matters, clinical studies have found that people will eat about the same number of calories of food of a given caloric density regardless of fat or carbohyrate content, and analyses have shown that in the studies that support low fat diets, there was a greater correlation between the weight of the food consumed and fat loss than the amount of fat consumed and fat loss [3].


Fat Intake and Hormones
Aside from there being no clear weight loss benefit from reducing fat intake, a potential problem that is of particular importance to bodybuilders is that reducing dietary fat may also reduce testosterone levels. Studies have found that when fat intake is reduced from 40% to 25% or less of total calories and the ratio of saturated to polyunsaturated fat is dramatically decreased, lower testosterone levels (by a degree of about 10-15%) result [4]. Unfortunately, these studies did not isolate the effects of changing the amount of total fat and the ratio of different fatty acids. Another study found that a two week period of a high fat diet (>100 g daily) decreased sex-hormone binding globulin (SHBG) levels and correspondingly increased free testosterone levels, whereas a very low fat diet (<20 g daily) had the opposite effect [5].

While low fat diets may decrease testosterone, there is little evidence that high fat diets will increase testosterone. For example, in a six week study comparing a standard (~50% carbohydrate) diet to a ketogenic one, there were no changes in total or free testosterone levels [6]. Similarly, a study in young, trained men found that a ketogenic diet led to decreased, rather than increased testosterone levels [7].

The sex hormone response to fat consumption may have less to do with total fat consumption, and more to do with the type of fat consumed. A study in young male athletes found that saturated fat and monounsaturated fat consumption showed a stronger correlation with testosterone levels than total fat intake [8]. We won’t discuss the effects of various fatty acids on hormone levels in-depth in this article, but it should be noted that there are generally positive correlations between saturated fat and monounsaturated fat consumption and testosterone levels, and a negative correlation with polyunsaturated fat consumption, particularly omega-3’s [8-9]. None of these hold true in all cases, as the interactions are complex. Total fat intake is still important, so diets that are too low in dietary fat should be avoided.


High Protein Diets
In both low fat and low carbohydrate diets, there is a common denominator, and that is protein. For obvious reasons, low protein diets have not been explored for weight loss, but high protein diets have, and despite a preponderance of positive research, they have failed to become popular with the mainstream, perhaps in part due to misinformation regarding their safety.

As an example, one recent study compared the effects of isocaloric (1700 calorie) high protein and high carbohydrate diets in overweight women over a 10 week period. Both groups ate healthy foods, and the diets differed primarily in terms of macronutrients: the high protein group consumed a diet with a 30/40/30 fat/carbohydrate/protein ratio, and the high carbohydrate group consumed a diet with a 25/60/15 ratio. At the end of the study period, the high protein group had lost more weight, but the difference was not statistically significant. However, the ratio of fat loss to lean tissue loss was 6.36 in the high protein group versus 3.92 in the high carbohydrate group, indicating that the high protein diet lead to a greater capacity for fat loss and muscle preservation. Additionally, surveys were taken and the high protein group reported greater energy levels and satiety. Three other studies have also reported improved body composition from replacing carbohydrates with protein. Also, high protein diets have been found to improve insulin sensitivity, blood lipid profiles, and increase thyroid hormone levels [10].

Mechanistically, the success of high protein diets could be due to a variety of factors, including those mentioned above, the greater thermic effect of protein, and also a muscle-sparing effect, which would consequently lead to greater use of fat as a fuel source [4, 10]. Given that protein is more satiating, food cravings should be less of a problem on high protein diets.


Problems with High Protein Diets
Is it possible for protein intake to be too high? Yes, definitely. This may seem like heresy to some, but those who are consuming 400 grams of protein a day could very well be sabotaging their results. If calories are controlled for, any protein consumed must displace the other macronutrients, so as protein intake increases carbohydrate and fat intake decrease.

Recall from the last article that low carbohydrate intake can lead to low glycogen stores. In a study in weight trained subjects on a very low calorie diet, a high protein intake resulted in superior nitrogen balance (indicating greater muscle preservation), but significantly less muscle strength, emphasizing the need for balance between these macronutrients [4]. While protein can contribute to glycogen restoration, it is less effective than carbohydrates. Also, protein and carbohydrates operate in tandem to promote positive protein balance.

Additionally, multiple studies have found that increased dietary protein (both as a function of grams per kilogram of body weight and percentage of energy intake) is negatively correlated with testosterone levels in strength training athletes, as is an increased protein to carbohydrate ratio [11-12]. Thus, as with the other nutrients we discussed, even protein can have downsides in excessive quantities. While it is safe to say that it is superior to the other macronutrients in terms of nutrient partitioning properties, when protein intake is too high, this benefit becomes obscured.

There is also concern about the safety of high protein diets, although it is largely unfounded. The issue with the most scientific basis is that high protein diets may increase the rate of calcium excretion. However, high protein diets not only increase the rate of calcium excretion, but the rate of intestinal absorption, so the end effect on calcium balance is minimal [13]. In any case, even if this is a problem, it can easily be resolved by supplementing with a gram or more of calcium daily in addition to consuming high calcium foods on a regular basis, which is a good idea to begin with.

The other commonly brought up health concern regarding high protein diets is the possibility of harmful effects on kidney function. However, research indicates that high protein diets do not negatively affect kidney function in healthy individuals, as adaptation is rapid [14]. High protein diets can be problematic if kidney function is already impaired, and given that a small percentage of the population have undiagnosed kidney conditions, it can’t be said that high protein diets are risk-free. However, high fat and high carbohydrate diets are not risk-free either. The origin of the protein scare is inapplicable research that was conducted decades ago, but it continues to this day, despite there being no evidence of any risk greater than that which the other macronutrients could possibly pose.


Conclusion
Clearly, this all breaks down to the simple and obvious conclusion that there aren’t "good" and "bad" macronutrients, but optimal ranges for each. One is going to want a diet with enough fat for sufficient testosterone levels, enough carbohydrates for glycogen replenishment and exercise intensity, and enough protein for muscle maintenance. In the next article, we are first going to look at the situation of bulking, and then go on to define the optimal level of macronutrients for both weight gain and weight loss using the research and ideas we have discussed.

References

1. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Dec;24(12):1545-52. The role of low-fat diets in body weight control: a meta-analysis of ad libitum dietary intervention studies. Astrup A, Grunwald GK, Melanson EL, Saris WH, Hill JO.

2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD003640. Advice on low-fat diets for obesity. Pirozzo S, Summerbell C, Cameron C, Glasziou P.

3. J Nutr. 2000 Feb;130(2S Suppl):268S-271S. The role of energy density in the overconsumption of fat. Rolls BJ.

4. Sports Med. 2004;34(5):317-27. Macronutrient considerations for the sport of bodybuilding. Lambert CP, Frank LL, Evans WJ.

5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1987 May;64(5):1083-5. Dietary lipids: an additional regulator of plasma levels of sex hormone binding globulin. Reed MJ, Cheng RW, Simmonds M, Richmond W, James VH.

6. Metabolism. 2002 Jul;51(7):864-70. Body composition and hormonal responses to a carbohydrate-restricted diet. Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Love DM, Avery NG, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Kraemer WJ.

7. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001 Jun;11(2):248-57. The effect of low-carbohydrate diet on the pattern of hormonal changes during incremental, graded exercise in young men. Langfort JL, Zarzeczny R, Nazar K, Kaciuba-Uscilko H.

8. Life Sci. 1987 May 4;40(18):1761-8. Diet-hormone interactions: protein/carbohydrate ratio alters reciprocally the plasma levels of testosterone and cortisol and their respective binding globulins in man. Anderson KE, Rosner W, Khan MS, New MI, Pang SY, Wissel PS, Kappas A.

9. Nutr Cancer. 2000;38(2):163-7. Relationships between types of fat consumed and serum estrogen and androgen concentrations in Japanese men. Nagata C, Takatsuka N, Kawakami N, Shimizu H.

10. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD.

11. Int J Sports Med. 2004 Nov;25(8):627-33. Relationship between diet and serum anabolic hormone responses to heavy-resistance exercise in men. Sallinen J, Pakarinen A, Ahtiainen J, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Hakkinen K.

12. J Appl Physiol. 1997 Jan;82(1):49-54. Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise. Volek JS, Kraemer WJ, Bush JA, Incledon T, Boetes M.

13. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Nov 16; [Epub ahead of print]. The impact of dietary protein on calcium absorption and kinetic measures of bone turnover in women. Kerstetter JE, O'brien KO, Caseria DM, Wall DE, Insogna KL.

14. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000 Mar;10(1):28-38. Do regular high protein diets have potential health risks on kidney function in athletes? Poortmans JR, Dellalieux O.

[geesler]

Part 4

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Optimal Macronutrient Ratios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance: 14 cal/lb (.8g protein/lb)
Bulking 17: cal/lb (25-35% protein, 20-28% fat, 45-55% carb)
Example: 220 g protein, 460 g carbohydrates, 85 g fat
Cutting: 11 cal/lb (30-40% protein, 20% fat min., 40-50% carb)
Example: 180 g protein, 240 g carbohydrates, 50 g fat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Overfeeding: Fat vs. Carbohydrates
We have focused on weight loss up until now, but we will now take a moment to look at macronutrient levels while gaining weight. The two primary goals during weight gain are maximizing the amount of lean tissue gain while minimizing the amount of fat gain and maintaining exercise performance.

High fat diets are being recommended more and more often while bulking. Indeed, there are mechanisms through which carbohydrates can contribute to fat gain. The first is that carbohydrates can increase the storage of fat that is consumed through hormonal mechanisms such as insulin. Secondly, carbohydrates can be converted to fat through de novo lipogenesis (DNL). Although it was once believed that DNL did not occur to a substantial extent in humans based on short-term overfeeding studies, more recent research involving longer periods of caloric excess suggests that after a short adaptation period, carbohydrates can substantially contribute to fat gain through this mechanism, although the energy cost is high [1].

On the other hand, there are both benefits to carbohydrate consumption and downsides to fat consumption. Maintaining glycogen stores isn’t as much of a concern while bulking since carbohydrate intake will almost surely be adequate. Carbohydrates can also improve exercise performance through mechanisms mentioned in Part II. Additionally, insulin isn’t necessarily something to be demonized, as it is anabolic (in the presence of protein) and anticatabolic to muscle tissue. For these reasons, it is one of the more commonly used bodybuilding drugs during bulking periods. Fat consumption appears to only have positive hormonal effects up to a point, and it can also lead to excess fat storage through multiple mechanisms.

Because there are so many arguments that can be made both ways, it is best to look to clinical studies. Unfortunately, most of the research on strength training athletes does not involve a caloric intake that is higher than maintenance level. However, there have been some studies that compare the effects of fat versus carbohydrate overfeeding in normal individuals.

In one study [1], 20 men were put on high fat or high carbohydrate diets with a daily surplus of about 1000 calories for 3 weeks. The men were pair-matched and spent most of the day together doing the same things to control for variables such as activity level. Between groups, there were no statistically significant differences in weight, fat, nitrogen balance or lean mass gain. However, in the high carbohydrate group, there was a significant increase in lean mass from baseline, whereas the change of lean mass in the high fat group was not statistically significant. As a percentage of weight gained, the increase in lean mass was 45% in the high carbohydrate group and 32% in the high fat group. Additionally, there was a nonsignificant trend towards less fat gain in the high carbohydrate group compared to the high fat group (a gain of 1.7 and 2.4 lbs of fat, respectively), and in eight out of the ten pairs, fat gain was greater in the individual on the high fat diet. Both energy expenditure and energy loss were greater in the high carbohydrate group, but given the similar degree of weight gain, this appears to have been counteracted by other mechanisms.

Another study had similar findings [2]. In this crossover study, lean and obese men were put on two week diets containing a 50% caloric excess, with all of the extra calories coming from either fat or carbohydrates. There were few differences between the groups on most of the measured variables, but one notable difference was that while protein breakdown was decreased in both groups (as can be expected), carbohydrates inhibited protein breakdown more than fat did. Results were similar for both lean and obese men. Thus, both of these studies imply that there is an advantage of carbohydrates over fat during caloric excess, albeit a small one.

Some possible reasons for this difference can be theorized. It is unlikely that increasing fat consumption to a great degree is going to increase testosterone levels if fat intake is already sufficient. On the other hand, the positive hormonal effects of carbohydrates may become magnified as carbohydrate intake increases (although the relationship still isn’t linear). In resistance training individuals, one could theorize that the difference would be more pronounced. The use of carbohydrates will be greater than in normal people (both during exercise and for glycogen restoration), and correspondingly, the amount used for de novo lipogenesis will be smaller. Fat is not used to a significant extent as a fuel source for weight training, so an increased reliance on protein as a fuel source during exercise as well as an increased rate of protein degradation to provide glucose for glycogen resynthesis could be expected if carbohydrate intake is too low, leading to an inhibition of lean mass gains.

Optimal Macronutrient Intake for Weight Loss
We have now covered the basic positives and negatives of each macronutrient, both during weight loss and weight gain. We can now discuss the optimal ranges of each macronutrient for each goal, beginning with weight loss. Something that must also be taken into account that we have not yet mentioned is metabolic differences. The two primary considerations here are body type and activity level. Both of these will be discussed in the next article, and for now, we will determine the recommendations for a person with average body type and activity level. Keeping the numbers round to make things simple, we will take as an example a 200 lb male bodybuilder on a 2300 calorie diet (note that because we are speaking in ratios, what we come up with will apply to people of any weight).

Protein

First looking at protein intake since it is the simplest to calculate, we know that the bare minimum should be .8g/lb of body weight, and a preferable amount is at least 1.0 g/lb of body weight to be on the safe side (see Part I). Using our example person above, these would respectively equate to 28% and 35% of total caloric intake. In the last article we covered some research indicating the benefits of increased protein content in the diet, but these studies defined 30% as a high protein diet, so they don’t show that there would be a clear benefit from increasing protein content further from what we have already come up with, and calories are at a premium on a diet. We also don’t want protein intake to be too high because it will displace the other macronutrients, so it is safe to say that for our example person, protein intake should be kept in the 30-40% range (or 170-230 grams daily).

Fat

The optimal amount of fat in a diet is difficult to define from the presently available research. As was noted in the last article, there are stronger associations with the type of fat consumed and testosterone than total fat consumed and testosterone. In particular, it is well-established that animal fat is positively correlated with testosterone levels [3-5]. One review recommends that bodybuilders get 15-20% of their calories from fat [13], but it does not provide much basis for this, and it is likely that that number is too low. Even those in support of low fat diets commonly recommend a minimum of 20% [6].

One of the best studies to look at it one conducted by Volek et al [7], as they specifically examined the effects of diet on hormones in resistance trainers, although the sample size was small. The percentage of calories coming from fat in the study group ranged from about 9.5-32%, and the relationship between fat intake and testosterone levels was determined to be linear, although this surely would not have been the case if there had been a greater sample size. Importantly, except for one individual (who got 11% of total calories from fat) with very low testosterone, all of the subjects had testosterone levels within one standard deviation of the mean (that is, their testosterone levels fell within the range of the majority of the male population). Three out of four of those that got over 26% of their calories from fat had testosterone levels that were at least 15% above average. Once again, since testosterone levels are highly variable to begin with, it is difficult to draw conclusions from this, but after taking this and other studies into account it can safely be said that a level of at least 15% of calories from fat is associated with average testosterone levels, but there may still be a benefit of increasing calories from fat up to about 30%.

Most of the individuals in this study had a caloric intake at maintenance level (average of 14 cals/lb). It is likely that the effect of fat intake on testosterone is at least partly, and probably mostly a function of total fat intake, rather than the ratio of fat to other nutrients. So, to consume the same number of grams per pound of body weight of fat as those who got 15% of their calories from fat at maintenance level in this study, our example individual would have to get about 20% of his calories from fat on a diet. To consume the equivalent of those who got 26% of their calories from fat, over 30% of his calories would have to come from fat. At this point, the costs become too high, especially since a drop in testosterone is inevitable on a diet to begin with (unless exogenous testosterone is administered). Thus, fat intake should be kept at 20-30% of total calories (50-75 grams daily), which should at least mitigate the decline in testosterone.

Carbohydrates

Clearly, unless we alter the ratios above, carbohydrates will have to fall somewhere in the 30-50% range, but we can narrow this range further by looking at some research on the amount necessary to maintain adequate glycogen levels. We will assume that our person weight trains three times a week, doing twelve working sets per session, and does 20 minutes of high intensity interval training (HIIT) three times a week.

First, we will examine the level of glycogen depletion that may be caused by these workouts. There is wide variation as to the level of glycogen depletion a resistance training workout can cause. In one study, a single set of 12 bicep curls reduced muscle glycogen levels by 12% in bodybuilders and three sets reduced them by 24%, and in another, three sets of leg exercises (12-13 reps) resulted in a 26% decrease in glycogen, while six sets resulted in a 38% decrease [8]. These results would appear to be consistent, since as more sets are done, less glycogen is depleted per set. However, two other separate studies found that twenty 6-12 rep sets with one minute break periods depleted glycogen levels by less than 30% in strength trained athletes [9-10]. In the case of our example, we will assume the worst-case scenario that glycogen is depleted at the rate seen in the first two studies. So, starting from initially high levels and assuming the glycogen depletion per set continued to decline at the same rate, 12 working sets would cause a depletion of about 60%.

As for the HIIT training sessions, the level of glycogen use will again depend on the training protocol. Two studies with different protocols found 45 and 90 minute interval training sessions to deplete glycogen by about 50% each [11-12]. Again assuming the worst case scenario, it is highly unlikely that a 20 minute session will deplete glycogen by more than 40%. Averaging these together, we will say that our individual depletes glycogen by 50% six days a week.

The next important question is how much carbohydrates are needed to restore glycogen levels over 24 hours. There are a number of studies on glycogen repletion, but one of the most applicable in this case is a study in which glycogen was depleted to 72% of original levels through intermittent high intensity cycling. While this is greater than a 50% depletion, damage to muscle due to resistance exercise can impair glycogen resynthesis, so the numbers will even out to an extent. The subjects in this study were given 1.4 g/lb or 3.5 g/lb of carbohydrates over the next 24 hours, and 1.4 g/lb was sufficient to restore glycogen levels, while there was no additional benefit from the higher amount [8, 13].

Going back to our example, 1.4 g/lb will be 49% of his calories. Thus, he would want to keep carbohydrates in the high range, or 40-50% of total calories (230-290 g on a 2300 calorie diet). It may seem like he would want a higher carbohydrate intake, but the high protein content in the diet will facilitate glycogen restoration as well. In one study, different macronutrient mixtures were given in the post-workout period, and the optimal level of carbohydrate intake for glycogen resynthesis determined. Replacing 1/3rd of these carbohydrates with protein was equally as effective at restoring glycogen [14]. Another study had similar findings [15]. In fact, there is some research that suggests that the mixture of protein and carbohydrates is superior to carbohydrates alone for glycogen restoration [16].


Optimal Macronutrient Intake for Weight Gain
We are now going to assume that instead of cutting, our 200 lb person wants to gain weight, and is on a 3400 calorie diet. Most of what we have already discussed applies in one way or another.

Protein

Given that caloric intake is now high, it isn’t going to hurt to err on the side of caution and take in some extra protein. 1 g/lb of protein is now 24% of caloric intake, which should be the absolute minimum. Whether or not a higher protein intake will improve the ratio of muscle to fat gained while bulking is a difficult question to answer. In this case, the thermic effect of protein and satiating effect will no longer be advantages, unless our person has difficulty limiting himself to 3400 calories for some reason. The primary mechanism through which protein will promote positive nutrient partitioning is by increasing protein synthesis, and the effect is already maximized at 1 g/lb. Additionally, too high of a protein intake will hinder weight gain by reducing appetite, increasing caloric expenditure, and possibly reducing testosterone (although this is much less of an issue when calories are in excess). Therefore, the range of 25-35% is suitable (210-300 g on a 3400 calorie diet).

Fat

As we discussed in the first section of this article, carbohydrates are the preferred macronutrient while bulking, but we are still going to want to increase fat intake, just to a proportionally lesser extent. First, this will allow for the inclusion of high-fat foods which have a tendency to be more calorie-dense. Secondly, it will allow us to reach a level of fat intake that is likely to maximize testosterone levels. Finally, it will allow for a high intake of healthy fats with positive nutrient partitioning properties. After adjusting the numbers in the study by Volek et al for the higher caloric intake, the level which produced the largest benefit was at least 730 calories from fat, or about 21% of total caloric intake. Thus, fat intake should be kept in the 20-30% range (preferably on the lower end), or about 75-115 g.

Carbohydrates

In this case, carbohydrates are simply the higher end of what is left over – 45-55% of caloric intake, or 380-470 g. Combined with the protein, this will definitely be adequate to maximize glycogen levels, and the anabolic/anti-catabolic effects of carbohydrates will be in full force. High carbohydrate intake before and during workouts to improve performance will be possible. Also, the increased carbohydrate to protein ratio may further increase testosterone levels.

Conclusion
We have now come up with the following caloric ratios:
Cutting: 30-40% protein, 40-50% carbohydrate, 20-30% fat
Example: 180 g protein, 240 g carbohydrates, 50 g fat

Bulking: 25-35% protein, 45-55% carbohydrate, 20-30% fat
Example: 220 g protein, 460 g carbohydrates, 85 g fat
From here, one can calculate a range for the number of grams of each macronutrient to consume daily by multiplying caloric intake by the minimum ratio (expressed as decimals) and then dividing by the number of calories per gram of the macronutrient. For example, if you are on a 2000 calorie diet and want to calculate minimum carbohydrate intake, 2000 calories times .40 divided by 4 (calories per gram of carbohydrate) = 200 g. After that, you would simply have to make sure to take in at least 200 g of carbohydrates over the course of the day (note that as long as you adhere to the minimum ratio for each and do not eat more calories that you planned on, it will be impossible to pass the maximum end of the range for any macronutrient). It should not be made any more complex than this (other than ensuring 1 g/lb of protein is consumed daily, if desired). Trying to get an exact number of grams daily instead of just staying within a certain range is not going to have an advantage because there are always unknowns which you cannot factor in.

Depending on how much of a stickler for details one is or how often they change their diet, this can also be made simpler. One way is to subtract the grams of each macronutrient in meals that are consumed every day (for example, protein shakes) from the minimum values and then only keep track of the other meals. Also, after some initial work, spreadsheets can make the process much easier, if you are so inclined. Another way to simplify is by rounding to the nearest 1, 5, or 10 grams for food items (for example, 6.5 grams of fat can be rounded to 7, 27 grams of protein can be rounded to 25, 45 grams of carbohydrates can be rounded to 50, and so on).

At the simplest level, one can just be mindful of these ratios when eating, and just try to approximate them. After all, a balanced, high-protein diet will often fall within these ranges. However, there are also many cases in which this does not work out, as a person will often end up consuming too much or too little of some macronutrients by a wide margin, and this can compromise results. I would suggest at least keeping track of the grams consumed of each macronutrient for a few days each month, and if some of the ratios are way off, adjusting habitual food intake accordingly.


References

1. Br J Nutr. 2000 Aug;84(2):233-45. Effects of isoenergetic overfeeding of either carbohydrate or fat in young men. Lammert O, Grunnet N, Faber P, Bjornsbo KS, Dich J, Larsen LO, Neese RA, Hellerstein MK, Quistorff B.

2. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage. Horton TJ, Drougas H, Brachey A, Reed GW, Peters JC, Hill JO.

3. J Steroid Biochem. 1989 Jun;32(6):829-33. Influence of diet on plasma steroids and sex hormone-binding globulin levels in adult men. Belanger A, Locong A, Noel C, Cusan L, Dupont A, Prevost J, Caron S, Sevigny J.

4. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 Jul;42(1):127-34. Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men. Howie BJ, Shultz TD.

5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1994 Nov;79(5):1310-6. The relation of smoking, age, relative weight, and dietary intake to serum adrenal steroids, sex hormones, and sex hormone-binding globulin in middle-aged men. Field AE, Colditz GA, Willett WC, Longcope C, McKinlay JB.

6. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004 Dec;18(6):1031-47. Is there an optimal macronutrient mix for weight loss and weight maintenance? Wilkinson DL, McCargar L.

7. J Appl Physiol. 1997 Jan;82(1):49-54. Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise. Volek JS, Kraemer WJ, Bush JA, Incledon T, Boetes M.

8. Sports Med. 2002;32(8):511-22. Fatigue during high-intensity intermittent exercise: application to bodybuilding. Lambert CP, Flynn MG.

9. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1986;55(4):362-6. Muscle metabolism during intense, heavy-resistance exercise. Tesch PA, Colliander EB, Kaiser P.

10. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;61(1-2):5-10. Glycogen and triglyceride utilization in relation to muscle metabolic characteristics in men performing heavy-resistance exercise. Essen-Gustavsson B, Tesch PA.

11. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Feb;33(2):303-10. Metabolic demands of intense aerobic interval training in competitive cyclists. Stepto NK, Martin DT, Fallon KE, Hawley JA.

12. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Sep;31(9):1280-6. Carbohydrate-electrolyte ingestion during intermittent high-intensity running. Nicholas CW, Tsintzas K, Boobis L, Williams C.

13. Sports Med. 2004;34(5):317-27. Macronutrient considerations for the sport of bodybuilding. Lambert CP, Frank LL, Evans WJ.

14. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Jul;72(1):106-11. Maximizing postexercise muscle glycogen synthesis: carbohydrate supplementation and the application of amino acid or protein hydrolysate mixtures. van Loon LJ, Saris WH, Kruijshoop M, Wagenmakers AJ.

15. J Appl Physiol. 2000 Jun;88(6):1976-82. Effects of postexercise carbohydrate-protein feedings on muscle glycogen restoration. Carrithers JA, Williamson DL, Gallagher PM, Godard MP, Schulze KE, Trappe SW.

16. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Oct;93(4):1337-44. Early postexercise muscle glycogen recovery is enhanced with a carbohydrate-protein supplement. Ivy JL, Goforth HW Jr, Damon BM, McCauley TR, Parsons EC, Price TB.