Body types and Macros
Do any of you believe that different body types require different macros? Like, ectomorphs need/can digest carbs most easily at around 50%+ carbs, whereas mesomorphs function the best on 30-40% carbs, and endomorphs should aim for 20-30%.
Is this just some weird stuff that someone made up? Should I consider listening to this theory? I am still struggling to figure out where my carbs should be, as classified as a "mesomorph." When I try to limit my carbs and sugar, it usually backfires on me, so I feel that maaaaybe this stuff is true. Thoughts?
I don't believe in ideal macros for anyone. For fat loss I have had success with nearly zero carbs and very high fat, and I've also had success with high protein low fat moderat carbs.
Also, over the last 2 years I lost more weight than in previous years and kept it off, even though I've eaten more junk. It's not that I'm advocating junk food or anything. But it just goes to show that quantity counts. It always does.
At the end of the day, it's all the same. Food is food. Plain and simple. This is the part that people typically don't get. The most common theme of fat loss advice is that people have a list of foods they recommend to eat. But it's rarely talked about what happens when you don't eat at all.
Even when people talk about intermittent fasting, I get the idea that most people simply don't understand why it works. It's marketed like magic, just like how kettlebells were the craze a few years ago. People think it's all about the GH. It really looks cute on paper and for marketing purposes of successful diets. But the real reason why it works is because it makes it A LOT easier to reduce calories. In fact, studies comparing isocaloric diets of different meal frequencies, show no difference in fat loss at all. Even in such a case, it's all about the calories.
So that is why I think it is generally incorrect when people are first to jump on macros when it comes to fat loss advice. Remember, you've always got the option of of eating smaller meals or skipping them all together. That will always work better for fat loss than any recommendations of foods to eat or food combination.
So if fat loss is the goal, I would say what ever is the most comfortable for you that allows you to feel full while keeping the calories as low as possible. (Use your imagination.)
Now athletic performance on the other hand is a different story. Athletes with high total calorie demands will typically do better with higher carbs and a higher meal frequency, because you need carbs to fuel such energy demands. Such isn't really good for you, but that's just sports. People with a lower physical activity won't need as many carbs.
I agree with Ripped to an extent, but I do think there is an individual macro ratio that works best for people. From what I see "ectos" don't fare well on low carb diets - they struggle to consume enough calories and get too thin.
I'm naturally quite lean (smallish build, but reasonably athletic... somewhere between "ecto" and "meso") but I've definitely noticed different weight loss results on different diets. On low fat diets I get skinny. That doesn't happen when I go low carb.
I did a DNA test that looks at teh relationship between diet and your genes, and I was told that I have excellent insulin sensitivity, but that my body stores to mobilise fat stores. That made sense to me, cos' I don't have issues eating carbs, and I while I was low carb I was completly exhausted (beyond the projected "carb flu" period), and I don't think I lost any body fat - just water weight. For me to lose fat I think my fat intake has to be lower.
At the moment I'm eating intuitively and my macros are sitting around 55:30:15 (C:F:P). My energy is good and I'm able to keep pretty active. If I want to drop fat before the summer I'll experiment with getting protein higher and fat lower. If I want to lose bloat I'll drop carbs. Still experimenting!
I think this depends on the individual rather than specific 'body type.' For example, I am extremely sensitive to carbs and do well at no more than 20-25g daily. However, I also don't tolerate 'high fat' well and do best with moderate fat. I read recently that 'older' women who low carb (I'm 71) often do much better with less fat, and that seems to be true for me.
I don't bother about macros but focus on getting at least my minimum protein requirements and keeping my carbs in check. My focus is less 'percentages' than high-quality, whole foods.
I'm hypothyroid, so I get regular blood tests, and all my numbers are superb. I feel great, and the only Rx I take are my thyroid hormones--which my doctors say is superb for someone my age.
I think macros depend on the person, sometimes the person's weight and weight loss goals, rather than the already debunked body types.
I think the terms "ectomorph", "mesomorph", and "endomorph" are obsolete, as they are based on appearance rather than body composition. They assume your body type is preset and fixed in a way it is not.
The tendency to be well-muscled naturally and the ease with which a person gains muscle when getting heavy exercise are separate and different from the tendency to gain fat.
A 20 year old woman who has always been sedentary may well appear to be thin, but she may be skinny-fat. So is she an ectomorph because she is not visibly obese?
In fact, a decade of bad eating could put her 100 pounds overweight. So is she now an endomorph?
And let's say she starts lifting weights, and it turns out she has the potential to make significant strength gains and increase in muscle. Without intake control, she is probably still quite overweight, though undoubtedly in better shape. But she's still considered an endomorph, exactly as before she started exercising.
And let's say now she goes primal, or otherwise finds a low carb high fat diet agrees with her and makes it possible for her to return to her high school skinny-fat weight, only this time she is lean and muscular. So did she turn into a mesomorph?
I think different people do need different macro ratios, but I think it is much more individual than that.
But there do appear to be physiological "types". People have different frames and different metabolisms. It's not to say that they can't be hacked with diet and exercise, but it refers to the genetic tendency of the person. There is a similar system of classification in Traditional Indian Medicine.
I agree that the terms are an oversimplification though, and yeah, not every can be typified.
I would call myself an endomorph. I have pretty large bones, large muscles (when I have them) and a lot of fat that does not go away despite being an athletic person. I don't mean obese fat, just that I'm nicely softened and pretty much stay that way.
I do not bother with macros. I eat meat, vegetables and potatoes in whatever combination seems right. More potatoes when I'm hungrier or just lifted weights. Fewer when I'm not so hungry or not exercising.
I found that low carb, high fat was important initially to break a vicious cycle of hunger and insulin resistance I was in. I'm not in that vicious cycle anymore and even a whole meal of nothing but sweet fruit has no affect on me.
The macros depends more on the individuals metabolism age and activity level than body types per se. A skinny hyperactive teenager will usually do better on more carbs than a sedentary fifty years old woman...
Just something someone made up.