A popular adage suggests we should “eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper”. [1][2][3][4][5][6]
We interrogated more than half a million days of food diaries to see whether it is actually helpful.
Breakfast
The chart below shows the proportion daily calories consumed at breakfast versus the proportion of a person’s daily target calories consumed based on their food diaries. A score of 100% would mean that they achieved their calorie goal. A score of less than 100% indicates the individual was able to consume less than their goal intake for the day.
The data from people eating three or more times a day indicates that, on average:
people who ate the least for breakfast tended to eat more across the day, while
people who consumed more of their daily calories at breakfast tended to eat less during the day.
People who front-loaded their calories at breakfast tended to eat around 20% less across the day!
Lunch
Looking at the data for lunch, we see a similar trend.
If you can fit it into your lifestyle, a larger lunch seems to be better.
Dinner
Where this data gets interesting is when we look at dinner.
People seem to do OK if their dinner is similar in size to breakfast and lunch. However, we tend to overeat if we consume the majority of our calories at night.
Putting it all together
When we overlay all three meals, we see that prioritising breakfast is a good idea if you want to get or stay lean.
To prevent overeating, try to start your day with a hearty breakfast with a solid dose of protein and you’ll be less likely to overeat later in the day.
If you are already lean and need to recover from a hard day of activity, then eating at night will help you consume more energy and store it more effectively.
But is this result due to behaviour or biology? Or perhaps a bit of both?
Behavioural
It’s possible to explain why we overeat at night from a purely behavioural perspective.
It can be hard to eat a lot at breakfast when you need to get off to work or at lunch when we might be at work or school and have to prepare a lunch and bring it from home.
But then at night, we have the fridge.
We have our friends and family.
We have Netflix.
We have the perfect storm of comfort food, social eating and self-soothing combined with being surrounded by less than optimal food choices that we tend to fill our patry and fridge with.
Food eaten later also has to be stored, at least until the next day to be used when we are more active.
Locking in your circadian rhythm
There have also been a number of interesting studies looking at the relationship between food timing and how it affects our body.
Compressing your feeding window to give your body a chance to spend time in a fasted state is useful. However, it seems shifting your eating window earlier in the day is also beneficial. This is commonly known as Early Time-Restricted Feeding (or eTRF).
Just like it’s beneficial to get sunlight in the morning and not gaze at blue light from our screens all night, it seems it’s also important to lock in our circadian rhythm with food in the morning and not overdo it at night.[8]
Being a shift worker is not good for your health. Neither is eating like one. [9][10]
While keeping body fat levels low is important for diabetes management, eating earlier seems to improve our insulin sensitivity independent of weight loss.
We have greater insulin sensitivity in the morning. Our body is primed to use food. Food eaten later in the day is more likely to be stored for longer.
How to do it
eTRF is not always the most convenient thing.
Lots of people are not hungry in the morning, particularly if they tend to eat a large evening meal.
Left to our own devices, we tend to optimise for maximum storage to prepare for the coming winter.
Most people find it takes a week or two to get into the new groove of eating earlier.
Eating your main meal with the family at night is more social and eating in front of the TV when you’re relaxing can be fun. But if you need that extra edge to manage your weight or diabetes then moving some of your dinner calories to breakfast might just be worth the effort.
Modern processed food uses the same formula that Mother Nature uses to provide hyper-palatable food in autumn to help us eat more, store fat, and prepare for winter.
In our modern food environment “comfort foods” are designed to be delicious and allow us to consume more of them.
We are instinctively drawn to foods that fit this special autumnal gorge formula because they provide energy quickly with minimal effort.
The modern food industry has responded to our prehistoric urges with an abundance of cheap and tasty foods that will quickly prepare you for winter 365 days a year.
This article lists nutrient-dense foods that use the autumn formula to help you achieve your goals. If you are a hard-charging athlete, they will allow you to eat more to fuel your activity. If you have some extra body fat you’d like to lose, we also will look at how we can use this understanding to manage our appetite.
Cian made the insightful observation that, rather than carbs alone or fat alone, it’s the combination of lower protein with moderate fat and moderate carbohydrate that makes foods easy to overeat and store fat. While this was a survival advantage, it has a diabolical impact on our health today.
Foods with this unique macronutrient profile can help you recover from long bouts of exercise quickly. But they will also help you store body fat efficiently if you’re not thin or active.
In nature, we have milk that helps babies grow.
Acorns help squirrels prepare for winter.
And now hyper-palatable junk food has been designed around the same formula that enables us to buy, eat and store more as body fat.
Fast food
I liked the way Cian presented the macros as a “star chart” on his Don’t Eat for Winter blog (as shown in the chart above).
I thought it would be interesting to build on this approach to look at the macronutrient profile of different food groups.
The chart below shows the macros for the average of all the foods in the USDA database (blue) compared to fast food (orange). I have shown indigestible fibre and net carbs as well as protein and fat.
On average, fast food has more fat, less fibre and less protein compared to the average of all foods in the database.
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
fast food
20%
42%
35%
3%
23%
Most nutrient dense
in contrast to fast food, the table below shows how the most nutrient-dense foods compare in terms of macronutrients and nutrient density.
[Note: Nutrient-dense foods are those that have higher levels of potassium, magnesium, zinc, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B5, vitamin D, thiamine, choline and omega 3 which are harder to find in our commercialised and industrialised food system.]
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
nutrient dense
49%
20%
20%
11%
61%
Nutrient dense foods tend to have more protein and fibre, with less fat and digestible carbohydrate.
This table lists some of the most nutrient-dense foods along with their macronutrient split and nutrient density score.
names
% protein
% fat
% net carbs
% fibre
ND
asparagus
34%
7%
30%
29%
96%
mushrooms
36%
3%
53%
9%
89%
oyster
43%
34%
24%
0%
88%
crab
91%
9%
0%
0%
86%
lobster
91%
9%
0%
0%
85%
spinach
41%
8%
18%
33%
85%
You don’t need a lot of these foods to get adequate vitamins and minerals. These foods are harder to overeat, and you’ll be more likely to burn some of your body fat at the end of the day, rather than storing more.
The table below shows the macro profile of the highest protein foods in the USDA database (i.e. the top 10% highest ranking foods).
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
highest protein
77%
22%
1%
0%
43%
High protein foods are often animal-based and hence do not contain a lot of carbohydrates. They also have a very respectable nutrient density score.
As discussed in this article, prioritising protein tends to lead to satiety and a spontaneously reduced energy intake.
If you’re interested in increasing your protein intake, the table below lists some higher protein foods.
names
% protein
% fat
% net carbs
% fibre
ND
cod
97%
3%
0%
0%
28%
tuna
96%
4%
0%
0%
63%
shrimp
95%
5%
0%
0%
28%
haddock
94%
6%
0%
0%
64%
crab
93%
7%
0%
0%
48%
egg white
91%
9%
0%
0%
28%
Low fat / high carb
Interestingly, it seems that people consuming a low-fat diet or high-carb diet are also able to maintain a lower calorie intake. Thin whole food plant-based vegans are an example of this.
The table below shows the macros for the lowest fat foods in the USDA database (which also happen to be high in carbohydrates).
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
low fat / high carb
8%
1%
84%
7%
14%
The advantage of high-carb whole food plant-based foods is that it is hard to consume enough energy to overeat because of the low-fat content, low energy density and high fibre content.
The downside is that the nutrient density tends to be lower. While green leafy veggies are an excellent source of micronutrients, processed grains and sugars are low in the nutrients we need more of. The protein content of these foods is also lower and may not be adequate if you are trying to improve your body composition.
The table below shows some nutrient-dense foods that are low in fat and higher in carbs.
names
% protein
% fat
% net carbs
% fibre
ND
pumpkin
13%
3%
78%
6%
62%
shiitake mushrooms
9%
3%
75%
13%
61%
butternut squash
8%
2%
75%
15%
55%
acorn squash
7%
2%
78%
13%
48%
parsnips
7%
4%
71%
19%
43%
winter squash
10%
3%
72%
15%
39%
Jerusalem-artichokes
10%
0%
81%
8%
37%
sweet potato
9%
1%
76%
14%
34%
Before the invention of refrigerators or the ability to store grains, humans would have consumed higher protein, higher fat foods in winter when energy from plant foods was less available, and vice versa. Rarely did we have a situation where both carbs and fat were abundant at the same time.
Low protein / high fat
One of the more interesting observations from the MFP data analysis is that low-protein high-fat foods seem to have an inferior outcome in terms of satiety (as shown at the bottom of this chart).
If you are trying to lose body fat, avoiding protein and eating “fat to satiety” doesn’t appear to be a great strategy. In fact, it is the only approach that led people to consistently consume more than their calorie goal.
The table and chart below show the nutrient density and macronutrient profile of the foods in the USDA database that have less protein and more fat.
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
low protein high fat
5%
89%
4%
1%
10%
Nuts provide minerals, but as a general rule, the nutrient density of these foods is reduced.
names
% protein
% fat
% net carbs
% fibre
ND
sunflower seeds
13%
76%
4%
6%
43%
brazil nuts
8%
85%
2%
4%
35%
almonds
13%
76%
4%
6%
29%
avocado
5%
76%
4%
15%
26%
sour cream
5%
86%
9.1%
0%
18%
peanut butter
14%
72%
11%
3%
18%
olives
4%
70%
14%
11%
16%
cream
3%
94%
3.2%
0%
15%
walnuts
14%
80%
2%
4%
11%
If you need to consume a therapeutic ketogenic diet to help with the management of epilepsy, Alzheimer’s or dementia, then you would be wise to pay extra attention to micronutrients and consider supplements and/or targeted foods that will provide additional nutrients.
Lower protein, moderate fat, moderate carbs
Coming back to the autumnal squirrel gorge formula, the My Fitness Pal demonstrated that we tend to eat more when we consume foods with less protein, but more carbs and fat at the same time.
In line with these observations, a recent study in Cell, Supra-Additive Effects of Combining Fat and Carbohydrate on Food Reward found that people are willing to pay more for foods that contain a combination of fat and carbohydrate. We naturally crave these foods if they are available. The processed food industry is only too happy to fulfil the demand.
The table below shows the macronutrient profile and nutrient density of the lower-protein (< 20%) foods that have moderate fat (>30%) and moderate carbs (>30%).
protein
fat
net carbs
fibre
ND
average
26%
32%
37%
5%
24%
low protein mod fat mod carbs
8%
42%
47%
3%
8%
Compared to average, these foods have less protein, more fat, less fibre and more digestible carbohydrates. This is the macronutrient profile that is diabolical!
A selection of the foods that fit this macronutrient profile is listed below. The most nutrient dense are mashed potato with butter, chocolate milk and potato chips, and it just gets worse from there.
names
% protein
% fat
% net carbs
% fibre
ND score
mashed potatoes (with butter)
7%
42%
43%
7%
33%
chocolate milk
15%
36%
45%
4%
21%
potato chips
5%
56%
37%
2%
18%
custard
10%
50%
37%
3%
17%
french toast
14%
43%
44%
0%
16%
waffles
11%
44%
45%
0%
16%
blueberry muffins
5%
39%
55%
1%
14%
hash brown
5%
43%
48%
5%
13%
garlic bread
10%
43%
45%
3%
13%
human breast milk
6%
55%
39%
0%
13%
ice cream
7%
48%
44%
1%
12%
pancakes
11%
39%
50%
0%
12%
blueberry pancakes
11%
37%
52%
0%
11%
ice cream
7%
53%
39%
1%
10%
dark chocolate
4%
53%
38%
5%
10%
Snickers
6%
44%
48%
2%
10%
popcorn
7%
49%
37%
8%
10%
cheese bread
10%
46%
42%
2%
9%
Toblerone
4%
49%
45%
2%
8%
pecan pie
5%
47%
49%
0%
8%
acorns
6%
53%
41%
0%
8%
biscuits
8%
42%
49%
2%
8%
ice cream cone
6%
55%
38%
1%
7%
Twix
5%
54%
38%
2%
7%
Kit Kat
5%
45%
49%
1%
6%
white chocolate
4%
53%
43%
0%
5%
choc chip cookies
4%
42%
52%
2%
4%
Girl Scout Cookies
3%
46%
48%
4%
3%
pie crust
3%
51%
45%
1%
2%
Kit Kat
5%
47%
47%
1%
1%
toffee
1%
53%
46%
0%
1%
M&Ms
4%
36%
59%
2%
0%
Milky Way
4%
37%
58%
1%
0%
Milk Chocolate
4%
52%
42%
2%
0%
Looking down this list, you know intuitively that these foods are not good for you in significant quantities! The only natural foods on this list are acorns (remember the squirrel formula?) and breast milk (which helps little things grow quickly into big things). The rest are “comfort foods” that have been engineered to enable us to eat more of them while providing very little in the way of protein or nutrients.
These foods may be great if you have run a marathon but not so good if you’re a couch potato with some extra fat to lose.
Our ancestors would have loved these foods because they provide a lot of energy quickly with minimal effort and would enable them to survive through winter.
Our instincts help us avoid starvation. In the olden days, we had to prioritise foods with higher energy density energy and didn’t have to worry much about nutrients. Mother Nature knew exactly what we needed to prepare for winter, and just like mum’s cooking, we find it very hard to resist these foods when they are placed in front of us.
In his Don’t Eat for Winter book Cian included this chart that I think is brilliant! He went through the USDA database and tabulated the average Glycemic Index of the foods that naturally grow in various months. As you can see from the little humans below, the high GI foods do a great job of preparing us for winter when would rely on using the stored body fat as fuel. Not only have we manipulated our food environment to be, we have manipulated our light environment so we are exposed to stimulating blue light from our screens and mobile devices any time we are not trying to sleep.
Today, the food industry has responded to our prehistoric urges with an abundance of autumnal foods with carbs and fats that will fatten is up for winter ALL YEAR ROUND!!!
I don’t think you can blame just fat or carbs. Both the grains and added fats that have increased in our diet.
Grains, vegetable oils and refined dairy fats are cheap, transportable and have a long shelf life, but are not a necessarily a good investment if you are interested in managing your waistline, diabetes risk or your long-term health.
Putting ourselves in Grok’s shoes can be useful. But rather than trying to follow in his footsteps, we need to reverse engineer our instincts to stay healthy and avoid the diseases of modern civilisation.
Summary
If you want to avoid obesity and overeating, then an excellent place to start is to stay away from low nutrient density foods that are low in protein and have a mixture of fat and carbs. Ted Naiman’s infographic below sums this up nicely.
The combination of carbs and fat together is rare, but in today’s food environment it typically signifies “junk food” or “comfort food”. We are almost powerless against these man-made food “products” when given the opportunity.
If you’re looking for a bit of extra help, you may want to check out your free and personalised Nutrient Optimiser report to find foods and meals that are ideal for your situation and goals and stop preparing for a winter!
The analysis of half a million days of MyFitnessPal data showed that your body is satisfied with less energy when you give it adequate protein. Hunger increases if we don’t get enough protein.
So, with protein locked in, this article looks at how fat, carbohydrates and fibre affect our appetite.
Fat
The chart below shows the scatter plot of fat versus % goal calories consumed for about half a million days of food logs from 9,900 MyFitnessPal users.[1]
On the vertical axis, an intake of less than 100% line means that an individual logged less than their goal for the day. A typical goal calorie intake is set at about 15% below a person’s Basal Metabolic Rate or the amount of energy needed to maintain weight.
To make sense of all this data, we divided it up into 25 “bins’. Each of the dots in the middle of the chart below represents the average of 22,000 days of data, while the ones at the extremes where there is less data available represent around 11,000 days of data.
This analysis suggests that the lowest spontaneous energy intake occurs with a lower fat intake.
Satiety seems to improve a little when we have around 60 to 70% fat, presumably because we can still accommodate a reasonable amount of protein.
Satiety is the worst at the highest levels of fat, likely because refined fat is energy dense and there is no room for protein.
Many people report that they find fat satiating. However, this is likely because they are able to consume a lot of calories quickly, so they feel full.
However, on a calorie for calorie basis, the data indicates that fat is the least satiating macronutrient. While you feel full sooner, you had to consume more energy to achieve satiety.
Carbohydrates
The chart below shows the scatter plot for carbohydrate vs % goal intake achieved.
The simplified chart for carbs is shown below.
This data suggests that:
We get the lowest satiety when carbohydrates make up about 47% of the energy in our diet.
We see some improvement in satiety with around 25% carbs.
A very low carbohydrate intake provides less satiety, presumably because it corresponds with a higher fat intake.
Satiety improves dramatically when carbohydrates exceed 60%.
Dietary battle lines tend to be drawn around extremes of low or high carbohydrate (e.g. low carb and keto vs plant-based, vegan and fruitarians). This data suggests that both camps may be correct to some extent.
We just need to avoid the middle ground of moderate levels of carbohydrate combined with moderate fat levels of fat, particularly with low protein (a.k.a. hyper-palatable junk food).
On the high carb extreme, it’s going to be hard to ingest enough energy to overeat. But when we add generous amounts of fat, we are able to consume enough energy to exceed our daily requirement.
Then due to oxidative priority, carbohydrates must be burned off first. So any excess fat that is not burned at the end.
The moderate carb moderate fat grey zone
So it seems we can do OK with either extreme of high or low carb. It’s the ‘grey zone’ of moderate fat with moderate carbs that seems to really mess us up.
There are plenty of examples of people who seem to do well on either high or low carb extremes in nature. However, we very rarely find a combination of both fat and carbs together with low protein. The closest we come to this in nature is milk, which is ironically a pretty good growth formula!
In order to understand how the ratio of fat to carbs affects our satiety, I plotted the fat versus carb ratio for days where people logged less than 25% protein.
On the left-hand end of the chart, a very high carb low-fat diet can be hard to overeat. It’s just a lot of effort and takes a lot of time to get too much food in your stomach.
On the right-hand end of the chart, a very high fat low carb approach is easier to over consume compared to the high carb low fat.
But in the middle, we have the ultimate miracle grow formula of fat mixed with carbs.
In food the food industry, food scientists spend a lot of time trying to optimise for this bliss point of the optimum mix of fat, carbs and salt that will enable us to eat more of their food.
If you want to avoid obesity, diabetes and the most common western diseases your mission is to avoid this grey zone.
Putting it all together
The chart below shows the plots for protein, fat, carbs, sugar and fibre together.
The key takeaways are that:
Increasing protein improves satiety.
Decreasing fat is likely to help you eat less.
Unprocessed contain more fibre are beneficial.
Varying carbohydrates has a smaller impact on satiety compared to manipulating fat or protein.
Example foods
So, to understand how to apply this, let’s look at some examples of each of the foods that fit these categories.
High protein to maximise satiety
Once you push protein above 50% there isn’t much room for fat or carbohydrates. You will struggle to over-consume these foods!
food
% protein
% fat
% carb
cod
92%
8%
0%
haddock
92%
8%
0%
white fish
92%
8%
0%
crab
91%
9%
0%
lobster
91%
9%
0%
egg white
91%
3%
6%
pollock
90%
10%
0%
protein powder
88%
5%
7%
kangaroo
88%
12%
0%
turkey breast
88%
7%
6%
crayfish
86%
14%
0%
whiting
86%
14%
0%
chicken breast
81%
19%
0%
shrimp
81%
14%
5%
ground beef (lean)
76%
24%
0%
molluscs
74%
7%
19%
scallop
74%
7%
19%
sirloin steak (lean)
73%
27%
0%
Worst case macronutrient profile (the grey zone)
These foods have low protein and a mix of carbs and fat.
food
% protein
% fat
% carb
Nutella
4%
50%
46%
choc chip cookie
4%
44%
52%
pie crust
4%
45%
51%
doughnuts
4%
42%
54%
Kit Kat
5%
45%
50%
Danish pastry
6%
44%
50%
M&Ms
6%
48%
46%
Snickers
6%
44%
50%
ice cream
6%
48%
45%
croissant
8%
47%
45%
High satiety, low carb
On the low carb end, we get improved satiety when carbs are below 30%, protein is greater than 20% and we have less than 60% fat.
This is the sort of macronutrient profile that we would have experienced before agriculture away from the equator and/or during winter.
These foods are not as satiating as the ultra-high protein foods, but they will be a vast improvement on low protein junk food diet.
food
% protein
% fat
% carb
caviar
36%
58%
6%
oysters
46%
31%
22%
sardine
49%
51%
0%
herring
47%
53%
0%
turkey
48%
24%
28%
natto
34%
44%
22%
sirloin steak
46%
54%
0%
roast beef
49%
51%
0%
lamb
41%
59%
0%
milk (full fat)
20%
51%
29%
Greek yogurt
37%
46%
16%
chicken
47%
53%
0%
beef ribs
43%
57%
0%
mozzarella
31%
58%
11%
cottage cheese
45%
36%
19%
High satiety, high carb
We also seem to get improved satiety when carbs go above 60% with more than 20% protein. Most people who lived close to the equator (or in other places during summer) would have had access to higher carb foods that contain less fat. These foods have a lower energy density and hence are very hard to overeat!
food
% protein
% fat
% carb
mung beans
35%
3%
62%
lentils
30%
3%
67%
chard
30%
8%
62%
lettuce
30%
7%
63%
mushroom
29%
7%
64%
Brussel sprouts
28%
7%
65%
broad beans
27%
3%
70%
peas
26%
3%
71%
turnips
26%
9%
64%
kidney beans
26%
3%
71%
cowpeas
26%
4%
70%
peas
26%
4%
70%
black beans
25%
4%
72%
zucchini
24%
14%
62%
lima beans
24%
7%
70%
artichokes
23%
2%
74%
navy beans
23%
4%
73%
broccoli
23%
9%
68%
kale
23%
11%
67%
seaweed
22%
11%
67%
If you are going to use a high carb low fat approach you may need to go out of your way to ensure you get adequate protein, particularly as proteins from plant-based sources tend to be less bioavailable.
Summary
So, in summary:
We seem to get improved satiety with either lower carbohydrates (between 20 and 30%) or high (greater than 60%) carbohydrate.
Lowering fat reduces energy density and helps us reduce our overall energy intake.
If your goal is to spontaneously reduce calorie intake and lose weight with minimal hunger you should consider:
prioritising protein,
minimise added or refined fats,
avoid foods that are high in both carbs and fat and have minimal protein (aka junk food).
Alternatively, if you want to ignore macronutrients altogether, you can focus on nutrient density using the Nutrient Optimiser and get pretty much the same outcome.
There is a lot of discussion, confusion and misinformation around the interwebs around the topic of protein.
Will ‘too much protein’ raise my blood sugars?
Will ‘too much protein” ‘kick me out of ketosis’?
Won’t ‘too much protein’ hurt my kidneys?
Won’t protein raise mTOR and give me cancer?
Isn’t protein is a poor energy source?
But I don’t want to be a bodybuilder!
While these are all interesting concerns, most people digging into nutrition are interested in losing some body fat and being healthy. So, fundamentally, I think the most critical question is:
“How much protein do I need to and lose fat without excessive hunger?”
Show me the data!
We recently stumbled across a massive dataset on ResearchGate of more than half a million days or two million meals worth of anonymised MyFitnessPal Food Diary from nearly ten thousand people logging their food for more than two months.
I was intrigued to see what we can we learn about the protein intake of people who succeeded in eating less compared to the people who struggled to meet their goal.
The chart below shows % energy from protein vs how much they ate compared to their goal intake.
Greater than 100% means that they failed to meet their target.
Less than 100% means that they were able to consume even less than their goal.
While there is a lot of scatter, we can see that people who consume higher % protein tend to spontaneously eat less, while those who consumed less protein tended to eat more and were less likely to achieve their goal.
We can remove some of the noise in this plot by breaking the data into 20 groups and looking at the average. This next chart shows the % protein versus the % target intake on average for each of the 20 groups of people. Each of these dots represents the average of 25,000 days of food logging.
While there are some extremes, most people tend to get between 12% and 35% of their energy from protein.
What does this look like in terms of lean body mass?
Assuming most people are aiming for a calorie intake about 15% below their Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), we can estimate their lean body mass using the Katch McArdle formula. From this, we can then estimate their lean body mass (LBM) and convert the chart into protein in terms of g/kg LBM as shown below.
A protein intake of around 0.7g/kg LBM (around the Daily Recommended Intake) appears to correspond with minimum satiety while a higher protein intake reduces hunger which will enable you to effortlessly consume less food and lose weight.
Increasing your protein intake from 0.7 to 2.4g/kg LBM appears to correspond to a spontaneous calorie reduction of approximately 15%. When we consider the fact that protein does not yield as much energy due to the thermic effect of food, we end up with a spontaneous energy deficit of more than 20% simply by prioritising protein!
Scenarios
Unfortunately, discussions on protein targets often get muddled in a mess of units. So I thought it would be useful to demonstrate what the minimum and maximum protein amounts look like using different units.
0.7g/kg LBM protein
The table below shows what 0.7g/kg LBM (which provides minimum levels of satiety) looks like in terms of a number of different units for a lean and an obese man (consuming 2000 calories) and woman (consuming 1600 calories).
g/kg lean body mass (LBM)
g/kg ideal body weight (IBW)
g/lb LBM
g/lb body weight
g/lb ideal body weight.
sex
body fat
LBM (kg)
body weight (kg)
IBW (kg)
protein (g)
g/kg LBM
g/kg BW
g/kg IBW
g/lb LBM
g/lb BW
g/lb IBW
F
20%
52
65
65
36
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
M
10%
68.4
76
76
48
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
F
40%
51.6
86
65
36
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
M
20%
68.8
86
76
48
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.4 g/kg LBM protein
Meanwhile, the table below shows the protein intake that corresponds to the highest satiety protein intake of 2.4 g/kg LBM.
sex
body fat
LBM (kg)
body weight (kg)
IBW (kg)
protein (g)
g/kg LBM
g/kg BW
g/kg IBW
g/lb LBM
g/lb BW
g/lb IBW
F
20%
52
65
65
125
2.4
1.9
1.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
M
10%
68.4
76
76
164
2.4
2.2
2.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
F
40%
51.6
86
65
124
2.4
1.4
1.9
1.1
0.7
0.9
M
20%
68.8
86
76
165
2.4
1.9
2.2
1.1
0.9
1.0
My preference is to talk about protein in terms of g/kg LBM because it relates to the amount of metabolically active muscle mass. However, body weight is simpler because you don’t need to think about how much body fat you have. Meanwhile, ideal body weight suits some because they have an idea of what weight they would like to be.
If your goal is increased satiety, fat loss and decreased hunger then you will want to move towards the higher levels of protein. In the first instance, you can just try to make sure you hit a minimum protein intake each day based on your weight and body fat. This will help kerb the cravings and manage your overall intake.
As you become leaner you may need to dial in your overall energy intake by focusing on leaner protein sources to ensure you get the protein you need without excess energy.
Protein intake levels assumed in the Nutrient Optimiser
If you require therapeutic ketosis to manage epilepsy, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s then the Nutrient Optimiser algorithm will calculator your macros using a minimum of 0.8 g/kg LBM.
However, most people who are interested in nutrition are looking for fat loss and/or diabetes management (and not therapeutic ketosis), hence we set the minimum protein intake at 1.8 g/kg LBM. Dietary approaches with lower protein than this ‘minimum effective dose’ tend to have a poor nutrient density.
A protein intake of 1.8g/kg LBM corresponds to the level beyond which we don’t appear to get any further gains in muscle growth.[1][2] However, we do appear to get additional benefit in satiety and nutrient density.
Many people get confused with the numbers and units, which is why we created the Nutrient Optimiser. to calculate your ideal macronutrient range as well as provide you with some suggested foods and meals that will help you reach your goals.
Responses to common concerns
If you are still concerned about ‘too much protein’ I have outlined some brief responses to the common concerns noted at the start of this article.
Too much protein will raise my blood sugars!
People that produce adequate insulin in their pancreas (i.e. not Type 1 diabetic) tend to see a fairly stable blood sugar response to protein.[3] Some people even experience a drop in blood sugar, so start slowly and titrate up to a more ideal protein intake.[4][5]
While a low carb high-fat diet will mask the symptoms of diabetes by stabilising blood sugar and reducing your HbA1c, it is the reduction of fat stored around your organs that will ultimately reverse your diabetes![6][7]
Too much protein will ‘kick me out of ketosis’!
Ketosis occurs when there is less carbohydrates and proteins to provide oxaloacetate in the Krebs cycle, so we revert to ketosis to burn fat for energy.
If you need to lose weight then more protein will likely drive an energy deficit, which will cause higher ketone levels as you consume your body fat for fuel. However, keep in mind that BHB ketones are mainly a transport or storage form of energy and do not correspond with effective use of fat for fuel.[8]
While ketones have experienced a surge in popularity thanks in part to people who would like to sell you some, ketones are far from the most important health marker.
If you are more concerned about elevating your blood ketone levels than the fat that is being stored in your liver, pancreas, heart, eyes and brain and driving you towards the most common diseases of our western civilisation, then may I politely suggest that you should review your priorities?
This video, while very graphic (you have been warned!), demonstrates why fat loss is not just for bodybuilders, but critical for health and longevity.
Too much protein will hurt my kidneys!
Unless you have late-stage kidney failure and are on dialysis ‘too much protein’ is not a concern.[9][10] If you are concerned about your protein intake you should talk to your nephrologist (kidney specialist) about the optimal protein level for your situation. (If you’re not already seeing a nephrologist there’s probably no need to be concerned about ‘too much protein’ hurting your kidneys.)
Will protein raise mTOR and give me cancer?
We need a balance between building up (mTOR and anabolism) and breaking down (fasting and autophagy). What we do know for sure in all this is that excess energy (regardless of the source) seems to be one of the biggest contributors to diabetes, cancer and other metabolic diseases that accelerate ageing.[11]
Optimising your diet with adequate protein to improve satiety and reduce body fat levels to ensure you are physically robust and independent for as long as possible sound like a much safer bet than crossing your fingers hoping that protein restriction (which only seems to work on worms in a Petri dish) will extend your life.
Protein is a poor source of energy!
Yes, fat is an efficient fuel source compared to protein. But if you have excessive stored body fat then getting more fuel is not your highest priority. Your body is highly motivated to ensure you consume adequate protein to prevent loss of lean muscle. Getting adequate fuel is secondary.
Eating lower protein foods means that, in the pursuit of adequate protein, you will need to consume more fuel (i.e. carbs and/or fat) than your body can use. Conversely, eating higher protein foods reduces appetite. With adequate protein locked in to build and repair muscle (and enable other vital functions), your body will be happy to get the fuel it needs from your excess stored body fat.
The spontaneous reduction in appetite that we see from the analysis of the half a million days of MyfitnessPal data demonstrates that your body is much more willing to burn your unwanted body fat if it is getting the protein it needs.
Forcing your body to convert some protein to glucose for energy (a.k.a. gluconeogenesis) is not such a bad thing. If you always give your body some fat or carbs when you need energy it will never need to dip into your body fat stores.
But I don’t want to be a bodybuilder!
The ‘good news’ here is that it takes a lot of intentional effort (and often some extra chemical or hormonal assistance) to build massive muscles. Optimising your protein intake will only enable you to manage your hunger, lose body fat and reverse your diabetes.
Summary
So, in summary. the analysis of half a million days of MyFitnessPal data indicates that:
Our bodies seem to be happy with less energy when we provide it with adequate protein.
Low protein intakes correspond with the lowest levels of satiety and the highest energy intake.
Higher protein intakes tend to increase satiety and spontaneously reduce hunger.
Increasing protein from 0.7 g/kg LBM to 2.4 g/kg LBM corresponds to a to spontaneous calorie reduction of approximately 15%, even before we account for the higher thermic effect of protein.
Thanks so much for reading! In the next article in this series, we’ll look at what the data can tell us about the relative satiety provided by fat, carbs, sugar and fibre. You might be surprised by the findings! So make sure you subscribe to ensure you receive it!
Most of the time, when it comes to nutrition, we like to think in terms of macronutrients.
Carbs.
Fat.
Protein.
Fibre.
Simple!
But maybe too simple?
In the good old days, before your food was grown in nutrient depleted soil and the creation of nutrient-poor processed frankenfood, we just ate food. We didn’t have to worry about micronutrients. Pretty much everything we ate was full of them!
These days micronutrients are harder to come by. In a number of previous articles, I have suggested that maximising micronutrients as your first priority (before calories or macronutrients) will likely to be a more useful guide to help us genuinely optimise our nutrition.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to think in terms of micronutrients. With thirty-four essential nutrients and many more conditionally-essential and beneficial nutrients and compounds in the food we eat, there are just too many moving parts to keep in our working memory.
Before the creation of hyper-palatable flavoured and coloured foods, our appetite was a useful to help us seek out the nutrients we need. Over the years it had come to be the perfect nutrient optimiser, prioritising the foods we needed at any point in time. Unfortunately, in our modern food environment, our paleolithic instincts are no match for modern food chemistry.
Today, we need a little extra help to discern fake foods from the real foods that actually contain the nutrients we need to thrive.
This article outlines how we can utilise macronutrients to assist us, like training wheels, to help us get pretty close ot ideal nutrition. We can then focus on eating nutrient-dense foods that will help us thrive and to enable us to look, feel and perform at our best.
Macronutrient wars
Many diet communities built around a specific macronutrient profile that they believe is optimal.
Different people believe in a wide range of macronutrient philosophies as the cornerstone of their nutritional approach. One of the many variations is IIFYM.
IIFYM blossomed as a response to the ‘clean eating’ trend that grew around the Paleo diet[4] trend which emphasised food quality and was largely ‘macro agnostic’.
With IIFYM:
protein is set based on your lean body mass (LBM) and activity levels (typically 1.8g/kg LBM),
energy intake is calculated and then tweaked based on your desired rate of loss/gain,
fat is generally set at 25%, and
the remainder of your energy requirement is filled with carbs.[5]
IIFYM… the good
There are some good things about IIFYM / flexible including:
It’s simple.
It avoids macronutrient extremes which often drive micronutrient deficiencies.[6]
A consistent energy deficit will work for most people, particularly the young fitness enthusiast who does not have diabetes.
IIFYM… the bad
However, there are a number of downsides to the IIFYM / Flexible Dieting approach, such as:
No consideration of micronutrients. Food quality becomes critical when restricting quantity over the long term to avoid deficiencies and cravings.[7]
Little emphasis is placed on food quality. While they might fit your macros, low nutrient density foods can be hyper-palatable and lead to overeating. Foods with a higher nutrient density are more likely to be satiating, have a lower energy density and be harder to overeat. Someone can get all their food from processed packaged foods and still comply with the IIFYM approach.
Doesn’t cater well to people who are insulin resistant/diabetic.
Recent research does not support the minimisation of dietary fat. While too much refined fat is not optimal, the fat that comes with nutritious whole food should not be a concern for most people.
Tracking specific macros and calories replaces a neurosis about micromanaging food quality with an obsession with hitting particular macro targets.
It may be hard to hit exact macronutrient targets with whole foods.
The minimum effective dose of macros
In reality, there is a range of macronutrient that will give you a substantial level of essential micronutrients.
The vertical axis in the charts below shows the Nutrient Density Score which is a measure of the amount of micronutrients in a range of foods.
As shown in the example below, if we could get three times the recommended daily intake of all the thirty-four essential nutrients, we would get a perfect nutrient score of 100%. There is probably limited benefit in getting more than three times the recommended daily intake of a particular nutrient. At that point, you’ll likely benefit by focusing on foods that contain the nutrients you are not getting as much of.
I have calculated the nutrient density score for a range of dietary approaches to understand the relationship between micronutrient adequacy and macronutrients. Check out the detail in this post if you’re interested.
Protein
Of all the nutrients, protein has the highest correlation with nutrient density.
If we assume a nutrient density score of 70% as our minimum effective dose of nutrition (as denoted by the red line on the chart below), we can get a reasonable nutritional outcome when our protein intake is at least 19% of our energy intake.
Nutrient density seems to peak when we get around 45% of our energy from protein. .
If you have ever tried to more protein and track your intake, you will appreciate how hard it actually is to hit 45% of your energy intake from protein! As you increase protein intake to more than 45% of calories, you would need to depend more and more on processed foods, so the overall nutrient density decreases.
The minimum effective dose level of 19% of energy happens to align reasonably well with 1.8g/kg LBM protein which aligns IIFYM recommendation for protein. This is also aligns with the point at which strength gains start to plateau for strength athletes as shown in the chart from Lemon below.
Protein even more important when we are trying to lose weight. Recent research suggests that our need for protein increases if we want to prevent loss of lean muscle mass in a significant energy deficit.
If we are active and/or doing resistance training, then our requirement for protein is even higher. As shown in the chart below from a recent review paper by Stuart Phillips,[8] lean muscle mass is best preserved when we have at least 2.6g/kg total body weight (BW) protein if we are targeting an aggressive deficit (e.g. 35%). If we are chasing a less aggressive energy deficit, then 1.5 g/kg BW protein seems to be adequate.
So, unless you require a therapeutic ketogenic diet (i.e. as an adjunct treatment for cancer, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc.), it appears prudent to think of 1.8g/kg LBM as a minimum protein intake. Higher intakes will likely be beneficial if your goal is to maximise nutrient density or lose fat without losing muscle.
As an aside, you needn’t worry about ‘too much protein kicking you out of ketosis’ The images below are from my recent Ketogains Bootcamp where I was eating plenty of protein, had low blood glucose levels and plenty of endogenous blood and breath ketones from my own body fat.
As detailed in the Optimal ketone and blood sugar levels for ketosis article, if you are trying to lose weight or manage diabetes you really want to drive a low energy state in your bloodstream If you are burning body fat and/or are decreasing your blood sugar levels then ketones will come along for the ride. You don’t need to active chase them or track them.
The chart below shows the nutrient profile we get when we minimise protein.
There is a concerning trend of people trying to minimise protein to minimise insulin and mTOR. While these things are not good in excess, neither is missing out on essential nutrients of having consumed excessive amounts of energy to get the nutrients you need.
Given that not consuming an excessive amount of energy is the only thing that has been proved to extend lifespan in human it makes a lot more sense to me to increase your nutrient : energy ratio so you don’t have to eat as much to get the nutrients you need.
Carbohydrates
While the optimum intake of non-fibre carbohydrate is about 30%, it seems that the minimum effective dose of non-fibre carbohydrates is effectively zero.
Although we can get lots of vitamins and minerals from non-starchy veggies, people who do not feel the need to consume plants in their diet can get a substantial amount of nutrition from organ meats, shellfish and the like with minimal carbs.
The chart below shows the nutrient profile you could acheive if you focused on the most nutrient dense animal based foods.
If you are metabolically healthy, there’s nothing wrong with consuming up to 65% carbohydrates, particularly if they are from unprocessed sources. However, nutrient density starts to fall off beyond 65% as processed grains and sugars begin to dominate your diet.
The chart below shows the nutrient profile that you could achieve if you focused on the most nutrient dense plant-based foods.
Regardless of your dietary preferences, ethical position or religious beliefs, quantifying nutrient density is an exciting tool to help you optimise your food choices and find optimal nutrition within the wide range of reasonable carbohydrate intake levels.
Fat
Although fat doesn’t correlate well with nutrient density,[9] it seems we struggle to get a good nutritional profile with less than about 10% dietary fat (or about 0.4g/kg LBM dietary fat).
At the other extreme, we could consume up to around 65% of our energy from fat without having a detrimental impact on our nutritional profile. Similar to carbohydrates, it starts to get harder to get a broad range of essential micronutrients if we are getting more than 65% of our energy intake from fat.
The proportion of insulinogenic calories
The percentage of insulinogenic calories is a measure of the insulin we require to metabolise our food due to non-fibre carbohydrates and protein it contains.[10][11] For someone who is metabolically healthy, insulin load does not need to be a major concern.
Optimal nutrient density seems to occur around 40% insulinogenic calories. Diets with more than 65% insulinogenic calories tend to be very low fat, very low in protein or very high in processed carbohydrates. Similarly, our nutritional profile with a very high fat very low insulin load diet is not so flash either.
I have drawn three windows on the chart of % insulinogenic vs nutrient density score to show suggested target ranges for:
someone who is insulin resistant has prediabetes or knows they have a family history of diabetes,
someone with diabetes who needs to follow a low carb or nutritional ketogenic approach to manage their blood sugar, and
therapeutic ketosis.
If you are insulin resistant or have a family history of diabetes, then keeping your insulin load below 50% is likely a good idea.
If you already have diabetes, then lowering your insulin load to less than 25% of your energy requirement will help stabilise blood sugar and insulin levels. You also need to keep an eye on nutrient density so you can build health with the food you are eating. The chart below shows the nutrient profile you can acheive with a nutrient dense low carb approach.
Meanwhile, someone who requires therapeutic ketosis (for the treatment of cancer, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s etc.) typically requires an insulin load less than 15% of their energy requirement to see therapeutic benefits. The chart below shows the nutrient profile that you can achieve with a high-fat ketogenic diet if you focus on maximising nutrient density.
However, keep in mind that driving your insulin load unnecessarily low can lead to a poor nutritional outcome. The chart below shows the nutrinet profile of the most ketogenic foods without consdieration of nutrient density.
Personally, I think you need to find the balance between insulin load and nutrient density that works for you. Ideally, a therapeutic ketogenic approach would only a short-term undertaking until the condition stabilises and you can transition to a nutrient dense low carb approach for maintenance.
Minimum effective dose + nutrient density for the win!
The table below shows the guidelines for the minimum effective dose of protein, fat and insulin load for different goals in terms of your lean body mass (LBM).
In all but the therapeutic ketosis scenario, we should aim to hit our 1.8g/kg LBM of protein.
We may need a lower protein intake to achieve therapeutic levels of ketosis.
In the therapeutic ketosis, diabetes and insulin resistant scenarios we limit insulin load to 1.1, 1.8 and 2.9g/kg LBM respectively to enable the pancreas to keep up and maintain healthy blood sugar levels. This will mean you need to reduce carbohydrates, and to a lesser extent protein.
approach
min protein
(g/kg LBM)
min fat
(g/kg LBM)
max insulin load
(g/kg LBM)
therapeutic ketosis
0.8
0.4
1.1
diabetes / nutritional ketosis
1.8
0.4
1.8
weight loss (insulin resistant)
1.8
0.4
2.9
weight loss (insulin sensitive)
1.8
0.4
–
most nutrient dense
1.8
0.4
–
nutrient dense maintenance
1.8
0.4
–
bodybuilder (bulking)
1.8
0.4
–
endurance athlete
1.8
0.4
–
Once we have the protein, fat and insulin load ranges set, we are free, unencumbered by concerns about meeting theoretical macronutrient targets, to fill the rest of our diet with foods and meals that are most suited to our goals.
These macronutrient windows function a bit like bumper rails for a child at a bowling alley. As long as you stick within those ranges, you have a good chance of getting a reasonable nutritional outcome.
Once you learn to focus on nutrient dense foods, you will no longer need the bumper rails.
The table below shows how the parameters of insulin load, energy density and nutrient density are used to optimise our food choices to suit our goals. In some cases (i.e. weight gain or loss) we may intentionally focus on managing energy intake. For most people, focusing on more nutrient-dense foods will get you most of the way.
approach
insulin load
energy density
nutrient density
target calories
therapeutic ketogenic
very low
–
lower
–
diabetes / nutritional ketosis
low
lower
adequate
–
weight loss (insulin resistant)
low
low
good
lower
weight loss (insulin sensitive)
–
lowest
maximum
very low
most nutrient dense
–
–
maximum
–
nutrient dense maintenance
–
high
high
–
bodybuilder (bulking)
–
high
good
higher
endurance athlete
–
very high
high
–
How to set your target energy intake
If you are trying to lose weight and going to the effort of tracking, it is useful to have an upper limit energy intake that you make sure you don’t exceed.
While there are many inaccuracies involved in our energy in and energy out calculations, tracking your food in an app like Cronometer can be a useful self-education tool to understand the quantity and quality of your diet.
Most macro calculators calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) based on your lean body mass (LBM) and activity levels. From this, you can estimate the amount of energy you might need to gain weight or the amount you will need to limit to lose weight.
These formulas, while a useful starting point, are only indicative, and should be used as a starting point. I’ve run the Nutrient Optimiser analysis for plenty of people who are lean but eating a lot more calories than you might expect. Conversely, many people who are obese seem to be eating much less than you might think they would be. This may be in part due to measurement error or optimism bias, but everybody’s metabolism seems to be unique due to a wide range of factors.
The best way to determine your actual energy requirement is to track your intake and reduce or increase from there to ensure you are gaining or losing as required. This is an iterative process based on your long-term trend.
Maximum rate of fat loss
The maximum rate of fat loss you can sustain without significant muscle loss is influenced by your current body fat levels. Someone with a lot more body fat might be able to maintain a larger energy deficit than someone who is already lean.
The paper A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia (Alpert, 2005) proposed that this maximum rate of fat loss is 31 calories per pound of body fat.[12] According to Alex Ritson, in a recent Sigma Nutrition podcasts, this was later revised down to a maximum rate of fat loss of 21 calories per pound of body fat without losing significant muscle mass.[13]
While you may not want to target this maximum rate deficit every day, it is useful to be aware of this number. If you don’t feel hungry, there is no need to keep eating to hit some arbitrary energy intake above this.
The table below shows an example of what this might look like in practice.
obese
lean
weight (kg)
110
70
weight (lb)
242
154
LBM (lbs)
157
135
% BF
35%
12%
BF (lbs)
85
18
BMR
2106
1871
max deficit (cals)
1,785
378
max deficit (%)
85%
20%
The obese person can nearly meet their entire maintenance energy intake from body fat while the lean person could only mobilise enough body fat to provide about a fifth their energy requirements.
While out might have enough body fat to survive an extended famine, I wouldn’t recommend fasting for extended periods without paying attention to periods of nutrient-dense refeeding.
Research into the Protein Sparing Modified Fast suggests that nitrogen balance is maintained with a minimum of 1.4g/kg of ideal body weight for men and 1.2g/kg of ideal body weight for women.[14][15]
Once we account for body fat, 1.4 g/kg IBW ends up pretty close to the 1.8g/kg LBM minimum effective dose level discussed above).
So it seems reasonable to use 1.8g/kg LBM protein plus 0.4g/kg LBM fat as an absolute minimum energy intake to make sure you can get the nutrients you need.
Should I keep eating until I hit my calorie target if I’m not hungry?
Many people find their appetite stabilises once they take out refined carbohydrates from their diet and stabilise their blood sugar levels. Others find that focusing on nutrient-dense foods decrease their appetite and lead to spontaneous satiety.[16] Meanwhile, others just find it tough to keep within their calorie limits.[17] The bottom line here is, if you have obtained your minimum protein intake to preserve your lean muscle mass, there is no real need to keep eating if you don’t feel hungry.
Rather than some specific target, I think it is much more useful to think in terms of a range of energy intake that will enable you to reach your goals. If you’re hungry there is no harm eating up to your upper limit calorie intake. However, if you are trying to lose weight, then there is no point eating more than you need to to get the nutrients you need.
The daily thought process for someone following this process would be…
Have I met my minimum calorie target? If not, keep eating nutrient-dense foods.
Have I met my minimum protein intake? If not, keep eating nutrient-dense foods.
Do I feel hungry? If no, don’t eat. If yes, eat nutrient dense foods that align with your goals until you hit your absolute minimum energy target.
Do you still feel hungry? If yes, then eat nutrient dense foods until you hit your maximum calorie intake.
Have I exceeded my maximum energy intake? If yes, then stop eating.
Summary
So in summary:
Focusing on specific macronutrient targets takes the focus off food quality and micronutrients and can be counterproductive.
There is a range of macronutrients within which you can get a reasonable nutritional outcome that aligns with your goals. Within these limits, your focus should be on getting all the micronutrients you need.
If you are are insulin resistant or have diabetes then it’s prudent to focus on less insulinogenic foods. However, there is no point driving your insulin load to the point that you compromise nutrient density unnecessarily.
How to calculate your target macronutrient range
I know all these numbers can be confusing!
To help make this process easier we have developed a free report at NutrientOptimiser.com.
Simply enter your goals, preferences, weight and estimated body fat % and the Nutrient Optimiser will spit out a free report with your recommended macronutrient ranges as well as a shortlist of suggested foods and meals that will help you optimise your nutrition that will align with your goals.
To get your free report you go to NutrientOptimiser.com, tell us what you’re interested in and enter your email address.
As your situation changes (e.g. you lose weight or your blood sugars stabilise) you will be able to come back and update your details and get new macro targets as well as optimal meals and foods.
We think this is unique and exciting. We hope it will help a lot of people cut through the dietary confusion. We would love you to test it and give us some feedback.
I have included some worked examples of that the macronutrient ranges would look like in practice in the appendix below. But the best way to understand how it works is just to go have a play and see what the Nutrient Optimiser would recommend for you!
Example macronutrient ranges
So let’s look at how this will look in practice with some worked examples.
Let’s take the example of Paul, who currently weighs 90 kg and has 19% body fat. He’s done the Nutrient Optimiser analysis but wants to know what targets to put in Cronometer.
We will look at how he could use this approach to setting macronutrient ranges in the following scenarios:
therapeutic ketosis,
low carb / nutritional ketosis,
insulin resistant weight loss, and
weight gain / athletic performance.
Therapeutic ketosis
Paul is interested in the ketogenic diet and recommends it to many of his clients.
The table below shows the range of protein, fat, carbohydrates (in grams) if Paul was aiming for therapeutic ketosis along with the basis for the upper and lower limits.
lower
upper
comment
protein (g)
58
80
Minimum protein based on 0.8g/kg LBM.
The upper limit is based on 15% insulinogenic calories assuming no carbs.
fat (g)
180
212
Minimum based on weight maintenance with minimum protein and carbs.
Maximum based on weight maintenance with minimum protein and carbs.
carbs (g)
0
48
The upper limit corresponds to minimum protein and 15% insulinogenic calories.
energy (calories)
–
–
Calories are not limited on a therapeutic ketogenic diet. Many people using chasing therapeutic ketosis are looking to keep weight on, so very high levels of dietary fat intake is not a concern.
The chart below shows the resultant macronutrient ranges for the therapeutic ketogenic dietary approach in terms of percentage of energy intake. As you can see, regardless of the scenario, Paul’s energy would largely come from fat.
The foods listed below would give Paul the best chance of achieving therapeutic levels of ketosis while maximising high micronutrients as much as possible.
The chart below shows the nutrient profile of the foods listed above. The nutrients coloured yellow typically harder to obtain on a therapeutic ketogenic diet and have been emphasised in the foods listed above.
If you’re following a therapeutic ketogenic diet as an adjunct therapy for cancer, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s or dementia, then you’ll likely also be tracking glucose and ketone levels.
If you are following a disciplined high fat ketogenic diet, you should expect to see lower blood sugars and higher ketone levels.
If you want to get serious, you can track your Glucose Ketone Index (GKI) which was developed by ketogenic cancer researcher Dr Thomas Seyfried.[18] Through fasting, higher fat and a lower insulin load many people who require therapeutic ketosis aim for a GKI value of less than 1.0 which means your ketone values are higher than your glucose levels. If you are just looking to manage diabetes then having a GKI less than 10 is a healthy place to be on a day to day basis when not fasting.
Therapeutic ketosis takes a lot of dedication and discipline. Many people find that their condition resolves after a period and they can transition to a low carb / nutritional ketosis approach without triggering adverse symptoms.
Diabetes / low carb / nutritional ketosis
A diet for management of diabetes is not as restrictive as a therapeutic ketogenic diet and provides a higher level of nutrition. The table below shows the low carb style macronutrient range that would keep Paul in nutritional ketosis.
lower
upper
comment
protein (g)
131
239
Minimum protein is based 1.8g/kg LBM.
Upper limit based on maximum insulin load of 1.8g/kg LBM with zero carbs.
fat (g)
131
178
Lower limit is based on weight maintenance with maximum protein and carbs.
The upper limit is based on weight maintenance with minimum protein and minimum carbs.
carbs (g)
0
60
The upper limit corresponds to minimum protein (1.8g/kg LBM) and a maximum 1.8g/kg LBM insulin load.
energy (cals)
–
–
Calories are not necessarily controlled on a low carbohydrate diet. The initial focus should be on stabilising blood sugars and appetite. From there we can force an energy deficit if necessary.
The figure below shows the range of macronutrients that will fit within the guidelines of a low carbohydrate diet to stabilise blood sugar or achieve nutritional ketosis.
This food list will enable you to maximise your micronutrients on a low carbohydrate diet.
Compared to a therapeutic ketogenic diet, the low carbohydrate diet provides a significantly high level of nutrient density. The nutrients shown in yellow that are harder to find on a low carbohydrate dietary approach that have been emphasised.
If you are following a low carbohydrate dietary approach, you will likely be tracking your blood sugars on a regular basis. Once you are able to stabilise your blood sugars to non-diabetic levels using a low carb diet, we can then start to focus on reducing energy to lose weight (i.e. if your waist : height ratio is greater than 0.5 or you have a higher than desirable level of body fat). From there you can start to focus on an energy deficit if you do not find you are achieving your desired level of weight loss with a low carb diet alone.
average blood sugar
hbA1c (%)
trig:HDL ratio
mg/dL
mmol/L
diabetes
> 140
> 7.8
> 6.5%
> 3.0
pre-diabetes
108 – 140
6.0 – 7.8
5.4 – 6.5%
2.0 – 3.0
insulin resistant
100 – 108
5.4 – 6.0
5.0 – 5.4%
1.0 – 2.0
insulin sensitive
< 97
< 5.4
< 5.0%
< 1.0
Many people find that they actually need to drop their body fat levels further before they are able to achieve truly optimal blood glucose levels.
Aggressive weight loss
Paul actually wants to lose weight fairly aggressively, but without compromising his hard-earned lean muscle mass.
If we take 21 calories per pound of fat as the maximum rate of fat loss without significant loss of muscle, then Paul could theoretically cut up to 790 calories from his typical energy intake without significantly compromising his lean muscle mass. This deficit would leave him with 1349 calories. He will still be able to get his minimum protein and fat intake levels at this energy level.
Paul is eager to lose fat fast, so he wants to target an aggressive deficit of at least 20%. However, if he’s not hungry, there’s no real point in consuming beyond 1349 calories per day (i.e. a 37% deficit). Paul is also still mindful of his blood sugars and insulin resistance, so we will also ensure his insulin load remains under 2.9 g/kg LBM.
lower
upper
comment
protein (g)
131
214
Minimum protein is based on 1.8g/kg LBM which is fine if he is only targeting a 20% deficit.
The upper limit is based on 2.9g/kg LBM insulin load.
fat (g)
29
132
Maximum fat is based on 20% energy deficit with min protein and carbs.
carbs (g)
0
231
Maximum carbs is based on target energy deficit with minimum protein and fat.
energy (cals)
1349
1711
Lower energy intake is based on BMR -21 cal/lb fat mass. The maximum is based on 20% deficit against BMR.
The screenshot below from Paul’s Cronometer showing how he can enter his target protein range. Simply click on the bar for energy, protein, carbs and fat to enter the target range.
The figure below shows the macro split including the energy from body fat (shown in yellow).
This figure shows the food proportion of protein, fat and carbs when we only look at the food intake. When we consider the food intake alone, between 30 and 55% of energy is intake will be from.
The foods below will maximise nutrition to align with this aggressive fat loss approach.
The chart below shows the high level of nutrients provided by the foods listed above. These foods also have a very low energy density meaning that they will be hard to overeat.
If your goal is aggressive fat loss, then you will likely be tracking your energy intake and body weight and fat on a regular basis to make sure you are achieving your desired results.
There is little value in regularly tracking blood sugars or ketones with this style of approach as they will likely be excellent if you are maintaining a significant energy deficit.
Paul’s focus with should be on making sure he gets adequate protein and nutrient dense foods while keeping under his energy target.
As an aside, Paul is doing well and sitting at #2 on the Nutrient Optimiser Leaderboard. You can see Paul’s detailed Nutrient Optimiser report here.
Maximum fat loss
The table below shows the macronutrient ranges if Paul was to target maximum energy restriction while minimising the risk of muscle loss. This is based on the maximum energy deficit of 21 calories per pound of body fat.
lower
upper
comment
protein (g)
234
241
Minimum protein is based on 2.6g/kg BW in view of the aggressive deficit.
The upper limit is based on maximum 2.9g/kg LBM insulin load.
fat (g)
29
150
Max fat is based on 37% energy deficit with min protein and carbs.
carbs (g)
0
108
Max carbs is based on target energy deficit with minimum protein and fat.
We also want to limit Paul’s insulin load to less than 40% of his maintenance energy intake
energy (als)
1348
A maximum deficit of 21 calories per pound of body fat (i.e. 37% deficit)
Even though the protein levels are very high and he has some history of insulin resistance, I do not think Paul is likely to see elevated blood sugar levels with such a massive deficit.
Some protein may be converted to glucose via GNG, however, there will already be such a dramatic energy deficit that he would likely be seeing very low blood sugar levels.
The chart below shows the macronutrient split, including body fat.
This chart shows the macronutrient split of this approach when we consider the food only. These foods contain between 56 and 72% protein which starts to make this style of approach difficult without significant reliance on protein powders. Achieving a strict Protein Sparing Modified Fast is actually quite difficult in practice because attaining such a high level of protein intake with such an aggressive deficit is quite hard.
The foods below will give you the best chance of minimising energy intake while getting adequate protein and nutrients.
The chart below shows the nutrient profile of these foods with the harder to find nutrients emphasised.
Weight gain
If Paul was wanting to gain weight, he could target a 20% energy surplus and choose nutrient dense and energy dense foods so he could achieve this.
lower
upper
comment
protein (g)
131
289
Minimum protein is based on 1.8g/kg LBM.
The upper limit is based on 50% of energy from protein.
fat (g)
29
185
Maximum fat is based on 20% energy surplus with minimum protein and carbs.
carbs (g)
0
348
Maximum carbohydrates is based on target energy surplus with min protein and fat.
energy (als)
–
2567
The maximum is based on a 20% energy surplus against BMR.
The list of nutrient dense and energy dense foods below would help Paul to maximise nutrient density in an energy surplus.
The chart below shows the nutrients provided by these energy-dense foods.
You should make a calculator for that!
To get your optimal macronutrient ranges please check out the new calculator at NutrientOptimiser.com.
We hope you love it! Let us know how we can make it more useful to help you achieve your goals.
