In article <[email protected]
>, Andy Coggan
> "warren" <[email protected]
> wrote in message news:020520030918551912%[email protected]
> > In article <h%[email protected]
>, Andy Coggan
> > <[email protected]
> > > "TREKRacer925" <[email protected]
> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > > TREKRacer925 wrote:
> > > > ...just the greater carb than protein cyclist diet), is not suitable to support muscle
> > > > growth from weight training. While this means that you will probably have to consume a ton
> > > > of protein 1.5grams per lb
> > I think you meant to say 1.5 grams per kg.
> Just to be clear - I didn't say 1.5 grams per lbs, "TREKRacer925" did.
If you had said it I would have known it was a typo.
> > > > to overcome the catabolic effects of cycling & weight training, I think it's worth a shot.
> > >
> > > Most (Western) cyclists, like most non-cyclists, eat a diet that is
> > > 45-50% carbohydrate, 30-35% fat, and 15-20% protein - they just eat more
> > > it.
> > That fat % seems very high to me. Where does it say what a good cyclist eats not an average
> > cyclist who rides 60 miles a week?
> One nutritional survey after another has shown that, on the whole, the diet of endurance athletes
> really isn't any different from that of the general population. This makes perfect sense when you
> consider the vast societal influences that determine what we eat.
I think a real athlete is often making some effort to overcome that societal influence you mention
to make sure they get enough carbs and protein. I don't think it's useful to just say, well you're
an athlete so just eat more of what your family and friends eat.
> > Or a cyclist with not as much slow twitch as a pro roadie who should probably eat less fat?
> ? Not sure I follow your question here.
Pro roadies can utilize fat for fuel more efficiently than most cyclists who are not pros, Ironman
elite, marathon elite, etc. The % of total calories as fat could be higher for them and not cause
the problems it might for people who aren't as well adapted to fat for fuel.
> > > The number of cyclists who are protein deficient - even when you consider the additional
> > > protein requirement of ENDURANCE exercise - is therefore quite low.
> > Therefore? Based on what evidence?
> Simple math: if you're eating more calories than average, and the percentage of protein in your
> diet is 15-20%, then your protein requirement will be covered, even if it is slightly elevated as
> a result of endurance training. The only cyclists who might be at significant risk for inadequate
> protein intake are A) those whose energy intakes are low (e.g., individuals - esp. women - who
> are attempting to lose weight) and B) those whose diet contains less than 15% quality protein
> (e.g., total vegans, if they aren't attentive to their protein needs and/or just don't eat a lot
> of food).
I really don't know how many calories I eat in a day, but for me, and many studies you know about
the guidelines based on X grams of protein per kg of bodyweight are more easily adapted for an
e.g., strength training could be 1.5-1.8 g/kg, endurance training could be ~1.0-1.5 g/kg, etc. I
focus on getting those specific amounts of protein (and sometimes that is not easily done),
minimal bad fats, as much good fat as reasonable, and then the carbs just fall into place.
> > I was advised to eat up to 1.5 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight even though I'm not doing
> > much strength-building training.
> "Up to" makes this a reasonable recommendation...the USDA places the protein requirement at 1 g/kg
> body weight for sedentary individuals, and research studies indicate that endurance training
> increases this requirement somewhat (I believe the mean value from Wayne Campbell's study was 1.2
> g/kg, but then you have to allow for individual variation, etc.). But even 1.5 g/kg for a 70 kg
> athlete is still only 105 g, or 420 kcal, of protein...that's only around 10% of what total energy
> intake might be,
A 150lb person is eating 4000 calories/day?
> > I think it's more useful to think of food as fuel and eat the right amount of carbs and protein
> > in grams to provide what's needed for fuel, recovery, etc.
> Meaning in terms of grams per kilogram, etc., instead of percentage of energy? I agree with
> you there.
So why is it the sports med people like to do studies with X grams/kg but for the general public
it's almost always expressed as the more vague % of total calories? And why was your first
recommendation based on % of total calories?