Comparing my food consumption to US RDA guidelines

[coreJack]

I'm temporarily calorie tracking using TheDailyPlate. Maintenance for my height/weight for moderate activity levels is 2,365 calories.

Relative to that and to the US RDA guidelines, here's where I came in today:
Calories: 80% - I'm trying to get myself under 15% bf, hence the deficit (no, I'm not doing the program).
Fat: 122% - tasty, tasty fat
Cholesterol: 324% - wow! yeah, we know US RDA guidelines for this are bullshit
Carbs: 15% - low carb, baby
Sugars: 91% - milk and an apple, I swear!
Fiber: 24% - hmmm, may need some low carb fiber, suggestions?
Protein: 287% - only 1.16g of protein per lb of bodyweight

All in all, an interesting exercise. I have a new appreciation for how useful chicken is for improving the protein/fat ratio, despite the lackluster taste.

[gzt]

Supplement. Vegetables. Only 1800 calories?

[coreJack]

Supplement. Vegetables. Only 1800 calories?
Had some peanut butter as a late night snack, so make that 88% of the 2365, or 2075 calories. Yeah, I want a slight deficit, say ~10% so I can shed a little fat and get back under 15% bf. Could do a larger deficit, but worried that is going to trigger a slower metabolism.

And shifting to low carbs - today, carbs comprised 12% of my calories, protein 37%, fat 52%. Doing this so I can maintain muscle and continue progressing on lifts (obviously I will hit a wall relatively soon, but I'll up the calories then).

A couple of things I learned from this exercise about my prior diet:
1. I previously estimated that I was eating 3k calories/day while bulking. I think that's an underestimate. 3500-4000 calories is a better estimate, with some days edging close to 5k calories.
2. My bulking diet was probably ~35-40% carbs. It will be interesting to see the effects of a shift to low carb, where I keep carbs to < 20% of caloric intake.

[Guido]

What do you weigh? Unless you are 150-160lbs then barely 2,000 calories seems a little low.

[coreJack]

What do you weigh? Unless you are 150-160lbs then barely 2,000 calories seems a little low.
145 now. Was 150 less than 2 weeks ago. Trying to get bf% down to ~15%. And then I'll go back to more calories and try to bulk while keeping bf at 15%. I guess you could call it semi-lean bulking - not trying to bulk with abs at 10% nor do I want to go back up to 20%.

[pu239]

What kind of weight are you lifting? And how tall? Seriously though, you should be trying to pack on the pounds.

[coreJack]

What kind of weight are you lifting? And how tall? Seriously though, you should be trying to pack on the pounds.
5'7", I have a log on this site. I was packing on a bit too much fat. But like I said, I do want to gain more LBM, but I'm willing to do it more slowly so that I can stay semi-lean, as heretical as that sounds. The big, and quite necessary, bump was going from 115lbs to my current weight, but I can afford to gain more slowly at this point.

[Tiburon]

RDA is the wrong number to use, should use EAR. Gotta brush up on your DRIs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10609&page=35

[coreJack]

RDA is the wrong number to use, should use EAR. Gotta brush up on your DRIs.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10609&page=35
I'm not using the RDA figures as a guideline, I just thought it was interesting how far off my current diet is from RDA guidelines. Anyone who buys into the RDA nonsense about macronutrient proportions would think I'm going to die of a heart attack in a week given that my cholesterol intake is over 3x the RDA guideline.

Didn't get a chance to sit down and read the referenced material - if you're familiar with it, please can you give me the summary version?

[George Noble]

Bulk and cut isn't the way forward IMO. Most of the guys who I see do it don't get as good results as people who bulk up to a good bodyweight then slowly lean out and get stronger at that same weight. I'd guess that the less time your body has to get used to the added muscle, the easier it is to lose it when you cut. Also cutting will tend to dig into strength in a way recomping won't, which is obviously less conducive to muscle gain and maintenance. You can do very lean gains if your genetics say you can but if you're too fat at 150 then you are probably fighting a lost cause in that respect.

Bulk/cut is good if you need to look good on the beach but at ~150 and 15% you won't (no offence) and the other option is better for long term gains.

Just my opinion.

[coreJack]

George, interesting points.

While I am 'cutting', most of the calorie reduction is coming from carbs. And I'm continuing to lift, and continuing linear progression, though I realize this will get cut short relatively quicker as long as I'm in a caloric deficit. So hopefully, I won't lose any muscle in the process, which hopefully isn't very long to begin with - I only aim to reach 15% bf, not 10%.

I got fat at 150 b/c I was overeating relative to my training intensity - I underestimated my caloric intake (which is obvious to me now that I'm tracking calories and seeing how many calories there are in various foods) and overestimated my training intensity. My small frame is going to limit how much LBM I can put on, but I think I should be able to get to at least 160lbs or so at a relatively lean bf%, but that's not going to happen in a few months. I'm never going to be 200lbs lean, so I need to be sensible about the whole 'eating big' thing.

After this brief cut phase, I'm not going to try to bulk/train at 10% bf, but ~15%, which I think is a decent compromise between the 10% bf + bulking impossibility (for all but the genetically gifted) and the 20% bf that Lyle McDonald refers to as 'fat fucked'. Will it take longer to bulk this way? Of course, but I waited until my mid-30s to finally move away from being scrawny, so a little extra time isn't a huge issue for me.

[pu239]

5'7", I have a log on this site. I was packing on a bit too much fat. But like I said, I do want to gain more LBM, but I'm willing to do it more slowly so that I can stay semi-lean, as heretical as that sounds. The big, and quite necessary, bump was going from 115lbs to my current weight, but I can afford to gain more slowly at this point.

Good work on gaining 30+ pounds. Sorry I missed your log.

[Tiburon]

Didn't get a chance to sit down and read the referenced material - if you're familiar with it, please can you give me the summary version?

The EAR is the Estimated Average Requirement for an individual person.

Not everybody has the same requirements of course, so there is variability about the EAR. The RDA is a "target" amount, set to meet the needs of about 98% of the population. Thus, the RDA is set about 2 standard deviations above the EAR.

In cases in which an EAR has not (or cannot) be determined, like for Vitamin D, an Adequate Intake level (AI) is promulgated.

There is also, for some nutrients, the tolerable upper intake level, the UL.

Together, the EARs, RDAs, AIs, and ULs make up the Dietary Reference Intakes (the DRIs).

[Tiburon]

The DRI report on macronutrients is pretty interesting, worth a flip through.
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10490