Usain Bolt

Steve said:
Supposedly being the key word.



Pretty much.

Read this wiki page about Ben Johnson. At one time the best sprinter of all time back in the late 80s. I communicate with his coach time and again:

Particularly this part:



Ben Johnson (athlete - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And this is when the drugs weren't far ahead of the testing curve. So it was easier to get caught. Drugs have since cascaded in terms of complexity and advancement and the testing parameters have certainly not kept similar pace.

So take that for what it's worth.



Not to split hairs b/c I'm sure he eats pretty good... but even outside the context of this discussion I'm interested to know how looking at the macro percentage breakdown of one's diet proves it to be 'really healthy'?
Click to expand...


Thats why I put supposedly.

I agree the testing hasn't kept up with the drugs.

Those were two seperate statements tried to display that with the "."
I said he eats healthy based on the daily food log I saw of his.
The 60/30/10 was just for anyone who was interested, I know I like to look at that factor and maybe other people might as well.
 
nc_bmac08 said:
Thats why I put supposedly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wasn't critiquing that part of your post at all. Just highlighting more on the token you presented for the benefit of the thread.

I agree the testing hasn't kept up with the drugs
Click to expand...
.

It's too bad too.

You have to wonder if they just don't want to 'upgrade' the testing for the simple fact of what the ramifications would be.

Those were two seperate statements tried to display that with the "."
I said he eats healthy based on the daily food log I saw of his.
The 60/30/10 was just for anyone who was interested, I know I like to look at that factor and maybe other people might as well.
Click to expand...

This is off topic now but for the benefit of those who might be misguided into the idea of macro percentages being an important indicator...

IMO macro percentages are pretty silly.

Absolutes quantities are much more telling.
 
nc_bmac08 said:
Supposedly from an article I read, Usain's only supplement is vitamin c. I guess ya never know though until they're busted. He eat's really healthy too. 60% protien 30% carb 10% fat.
Click to expand...

yeah- and Sammy Sosa was only on Flintstone vitamins and Mark McGuire was only on Creotine.......

I trust no athlete right now unfortunately
 
It's too bad too.

You have to wonder if they just don't want to 'upgrade' the testing for the simple fact of what the ramifications would be.
Click to expand...
swimmers have been notoriously dirty since -- forever -- I find it fascinating that both Dara Torres and Michael Phelps volunteered to have their blood samples put away for future testing of whatever drug testing might be available down the road...

that's either total confidence in that what they might be taking is undetectable - confidence that no one will take them up on the testing challenge - or they are clean...

I posted this in my diary...
"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph, but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered, but to have fought well."
Click to expand...
I find it sad that while the olympic creed is recited at the opening ceremonies and the athletes are aware of it -that for some - and I'm not even going to say the majority -just the ones that are highly visible -that the olympics are a means to a paycheck -and win by any means necessary...
 
Steve said:
This is off topic now but for the benefit of those who might be misguided into the idea of macro percentages being an important indicator...

IMO macro percentages are pretty silly.

Absolutes quantities are much more telling.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a tell-all about the "key" to top physical condition. I wouldn't say its not important at all though. So if my calories stay at 2400 one day doing 50/40/10 and another doing 10/30/60... just killing some saturated fat, then it doesn't really matter. My body performs the same way? I don't think that's true.
 
nc_bmac08 said:
I wouldn't say it's a tell-all about the "key" to top physical condition. I wouldn't say its not important at all though. So if my calories stay at 2400 one day doing 50/40/10 and another doing 10/30/60... just killing some saturated fat, then it doesn't really matter. My body performs the same way? I don't think that's true.
Click to expand...

LOL, it's funny that you think I said or implied that your body performs the same way if you switch around the percentages like that.

I said absolutes tell a whole lot more and that's what I suggest people go by rather than percentages.

Maybe you are misunderstanding what I mean by the absolutes...

Rather than working off of some arbitrary percentage breakdown, actually figure out (easily) what your best absolute intake of each macro would be and build a diet on this solid foundation.

I think an obvious starting point is protein. It's good to get at least 1 gram per pound of LBM, assuming no contraindications.

So for example if you have a woman who has 135 lbs of lbm and is shooting for 1800 calories to lose weight, rather than throwing out an arbitrary percentage of her total calories that should come from protein which is based on nothing individual to her circumstance, I think it's better to throw out the absolute value based on lbm.

In this case, my way would get her 135 grams of protein.

In your case using your first set of percentages from your last post, 225 grams of protein, assuming your 50% was for pro. If it was the 40% she'd take in 180 grams.

So on and so forth for each of the macros.

It's just a more precise way of doing things that fine tunes your intake. When you actually work with a large spectrum of clients when designing diets, it's easy to see that percentages become really silly given how different people actually are in terms of actual size and response.
 
I could have just summed up the above by saying:

I never said what you eat doesn't matter. I said I prefer and find it more beneficial to my clients to base food intake on more individual numbers that IMO make a heck of a lot more of sense.
 
I understand what you're saying. I am interested in the macronutrient percentages. I was not implying that everyone else should be, was just throwing it out there for anyone who was interested.

I understand the relevance to total calorie intake. I read your buddy Lyles info on it all.
 
nc_bmac08 said:
I understand what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Sorry if I wasn't clear before, which seems to have been the case.

I am interested in the macronutrient percentages. I was not implying that everyone else should be, was just throwing it out there for anyone who was interested.
Click to expand...

So curious, why are you interested in percentages over absolutes? Just trying to understand your point of view, is all.
 
that just makes me laugh in a sad way...

though it's not the right thing to do to an animal... people have a choice - animals do not...

"Capsaicin is classified as a 'doping' prohibited substance given its hypersensitising properties, and as a 'medication class A' prohibited substance for its pain relieving properties," the statement said.
Click to expand...
That's what makes a pepper hot... i know it's got pain relieving properties... but wouldn't really consider it performance enhancing.. though i suppose it is
 
Deminish pain and work tolerance goes up, therefore enhancing performance.

Shit, the animals aren't even clean, lol.

I wonder how many people sitting at home watching the games realize the abuse of PEDs involved.
 
Steve said:
So curious, why are you interested in percentages over absolutes? Just trying to understand your point of view, is all.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that it's over absolutes. I never said that. I'm just saying I'm interested in the macronutrient percentages, especially in athletes.

Through looking at the example of Bolt's daily caloric intake I can work backwards to see this "real" numbers. I think Lyle uses this approach as well. So while the macronutrients arent "the be all and end all", they are a peice to the puzzle.
 
there's no doubt that bolt is an incredible athlete, but come on, the guy is so conceited. it makes me sick to my stomach to see his little antics.
 
nc_bmac08 said:
You're assuming that it's over absolutes. I never said that. I'm just saying I'm interested in the macronutrient percentages, especially in athletes.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase my question to you:

You are interested in percentages. Without assuming anything, it would appear that you find them more valuable than absolutes.

I say this due to the previous conversation that went something like this:

You: His macro % are X/Y/Z

Me: macros are overrated, absolute numbers seem to work much better for individuality's sake

You: So you can eat anything, like a ton of saturated fat and it won't affect you?

Me: No, I said absolutes tend to be more precise. Not eat whatever you want.

****

I apologize for my assumption with regards to you choosing percentages over absolutes, but hopefully you can tell where I was coming from now given my perception of the conversation so far.

I'm simply trying to understand why? Of what importance are they to you or the athletes you follow? And my curiosity really doesn't have anything to do with you, I'm simply trying to understand a point of view that many people seem to share around this forum.

By using percentages you’re working on a ‘relative’ scale (relative to your total calories) and there are potential disadvantages to using this approach. For example, 40% of 1500 calories is a lot different than 40% of 2500 calories.

This approach fails to take into consideration overall caloric intake, which is affected by a number of different variables such as the amount of muscle you carry and whether you're dieting for fat loss or more focused on muscle gain, etc.

So while the percentage is constant, the absolute number of protein, carb, or fat grams is much different, and this is what is important – how much you’re putting in your mouth. Even with what seems like good percentages, you could still be getting too little or too much of any macronutrient.

I want to understand the value of percentages from your point of view. Or put differently, what exactly are you interested in, in relation to percentages?

Through looking at the example of Bolt's daily caloric intake I can work backwards to see this "real" numbers. I think Lyle uses this approach as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "Lyle uses this approach"?

Lyle sets calories, than sets absolute protein, than fats, and then fills in the gaps with carbs and/or more fats dependent on goals. He doesn't use percentages for the most part.

By that last sentence I mean, he has thrown out recommendations for what percentage of your caloric intake should come from fat, etc.... but by and large he works using absolute values.

So while the macronutrients arent "the be all and end all", they are a peice to the puzzle.
Click to expand...

I'm puzzled by this too. And I hope this doesn't go into a downward spiral b/c if we were face to face this would be a genuine conversation... so hopefully we can keep it in that context.

You say, "so while macronutrients aren't the be all end all...."

That's not what I'm asking or saying.

I'm asking about percentages of macros vs. absolute of macros. Macros are ALWAYS part of a diet (or always a "peice to the puzzle). If not, what would you be eating?

I see value in absolutes and you see value and/or are "interested" in percentages and I'm just trying to understand why?

I'm sure to the outside onlooker this seems like splitting hairs, but it really isn't given how many people actually apply the idea of percentages to their diets. If it wasn't such a broadly used practice I'd pay it no attention. But it's a topic that is of some importance given the community here so why not discuss it.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Wow, wasn't planning on writing this much, I woulda rather left it at. "Let me enjoy the percentages Steve" :D. Anyways, here we go.


Steve said:
I'm simply trying to understand why? Of what importance are they to you or the athletes you follow? And my curiosity really doesn't have anything to do with you, I'm simply trying to understand a point of view that many people seem to share around this forum.

By using percentages you’re working on a ‘relative’ scale (relative to your total calories) and there are potential disadvantages to using this approach. For example, 40% of 1500 calories is a lot different than 40% of 2500 calories.

This approach fails to take into consideration overall caloric intake, which is affected by a number of different variables such as the amount of muscle you carry and whether you're dieting for fat loss or more focused on muscle gain, etc.

So while the percentage is constant, the absolute number of protein, carb, or fat grams is much different, and this is what is important – how much you’re putting in your mouth. Even with what seems like good percentages, you could still be getting too little or too much of any macronutrient.

I want to understand the value of percentages from your point of view. Or put differently, what exactly are you interested in, in relation to percentages?
Click to expand...

If you look above you can see that I said "Through looking at the example of Bolt's daily caloric intake...". This turns the scale from relative to absolute. So if I see an example of Bolt's daily caloirc intake(or even if I want to make an educated guess), I can work backwards to undertand the absolute numbers. Its pretty much basic math.

Ex: Bolt might run a 3000 calorie diet lets say.

3000 * 0.6 = 1800 calories of protein, therefore 1800/4 (cal per gram) = 450g

You can use this same formula to discover the actual carb and fat intake as well. I understand what you're saying about percentages being sloppy. Like someone on a 1500 cal vs 2500 cal diet. I never said that the percentages were more important than the absolute numbers. This is the value of the percentages to me.

Steve said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Lyle uses this approach"?

Lyle sets calories, than sets absolute protein, than fats, and then fills in the gaps with carbs and/or more fats dependent on goals. He doesn't use percentages for the most part.

By that last sentence I mean, he has thrown out recommendations for what percentage of your caloric intake should come from fat, etc.... but by and large he works using absolute values.
Click to expand...

He uses the above formula.



Steve said:
I'm puzzled by this too. And I hope this doesn't go into a downward spiral b/c if we were face to face this would be a genuine conversation... so hopefully we can keep it in that context...

I'm asking about percentages of macros vs. absolute of macros. Macros are ALWAYS part of a diet (or always a "peice to the puzzle). If not, what would you be eating?

I see value in absolutes and you see value and/or are "interested" in percentages and I'm just trying to understand why?

I'm sure to the outside onlooker this seems like splitting hairs, but it really isn't given how many people actually apply the idea of percentages to their diets. If it wasn't such a broadly used practice I'd pay it no attention. But it's a topic that is of some importance given the community here so why not discuss it.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Understand how this can be applied? Percentages are completely relative to the caloric intake. So I agree you cannot base a diet off percentages alone.
 
Bolt is arguably the fastest human who ever lived. Sports writers and commentators want him to show humility for what? Give the guy his due. He is not just the best today or this year, but in history. Where else can that be said?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top