In article <OeX6d.3556$va.2301@trndny03>,
Tony <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>>On 2004-09-30, Ignoramus29063 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In a 3,000 calorie diet, 15% of calories from protein amounts to 450
>>> calories from protein, or to 112 grams of protein. That's hardly
>>> insufficient.
>>
>>An appropriate amount for an endurance athlete is about 0.8gm/lb , so 112gm
>>is borderline at best.
>>
>
>I've seen higher figures than that even in the low-carb "protein power"
>diet:
>http://www.proteinpower.com/faq/protein.html#calculate
>
>My point is those percentages are arbitrary and slightly unbalanced. Also,
>the test only lasted 2 weeks. The fat % in the high-carb diet they use is
>also probably far lower than most athletes eat. One could argue that
>adequate protein and fat are more important than carbs for normal function,
>so shaving their percentages so low could very definitely skew things.
iirc, the protein figure Sam quotes for endurance athletes is 1.4-1.6 g/kg.
For the canonical 70 kg athlete, that's 100 g/day, give or take. Sedentary,
iirc, is 0.6 g/kg. The 1.6 g/kg does round to 0.8 gm/lb (well, 0.7), so
I guess that's where Donovan got his figure.
On the other hand, someone running 10 km/week probably doesn't need the
extra 1 g/kg, and I don't recall seeing reference to just how much running
it is that makes one an endurance athlete for this purpose.
The mere percentages wind up being misleading and uninformative in application
to endurance athletes. ex:
Consider someone with a basal metabolism of 2000 Kcal/day, and that they're
eating a diet that is 55:25:20 CHO/fat/protein in calories. That's
1100:500:400 Kcalories, or 275:55:100 grams. In other words, that off-the-cuff
fractioning is already as much protein as an endurance athlete would need, but
the person is sedentary.
Retry: 70 kg person at 0.6 g/kg protein -> 42 grams, 168 Kcal/day. That's
8.4% of calories from protein. Top the fat at 30% (600 calories, the level
at which our seminar yesterday, among other things, noted it being an
epidemiological risk) and that leaves us with 1232 calories of CHO, for
308 g. Profile is, then, 61.6:30:8.4 %, or 1232:600:168
So, high fat diet for sedentary person would be 60:30:10. A little more
middling, I guess, would be 70:20:10.
Now make them an endurance athlete, buring off 500 Kcal/day aerobically.
Protein need increases by 1 g/kg, for 70. That's 280 Kcal of the extra
calories. Supply the rest, 220 Kcal (55 grams), from carbs, and we now have:
1452:600:448 Kcal, for 58:24:18 % To round, 60:20:20% -- for an endurance
athlete, not a sedentary person.
Even though the endurance athlete is eating more carbs, the percentage
is actually down. (Make it an extra 1000 Kcal/day, supplying all the extra above
the protein requirement by carbs and it does rise. But I probably won't be
running 70 mpw, and I think that 35 mpw would be sufficient to class as 'endurance
athlete').
Anyhow, the thing is, the percentages don't tell the story. They don't
say percent of what (leave out the daily calorie needs, and the protein needs).
Nor do they describe the dietary changes to get from here (sedentary) to
there (exercising regularly). I much prefer the approach of starting with
a sedentary diet (a more or less well-known quantity) and then adding what's
needed for the amount of exercise I'm doing.
But yes, 'the study' does look to be shaky in its applicability.
--
Robert Grumbine
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences