Macronutrient ratios versus fixed values - or some hybrid of the two?

I have been reading some recent press that suggests that macronutrient ratios are “wrong.”

They say protein and carbohydrates should be relatively fixed (taking into account level of activity) while dietary fat needs are less sensitive to fluctuations in training volume, and should basically just cover the remainder of daily energy needs.

I’m interested in people’s thoughts on this. I had understood that for example too much protein can be problematic for various reasons so the fixed goal seems sensible to me (using Cronometer default ratios I am getting recommendations for up to 200 grams of protein daily, which seems excessive for someone who weighs roughly 60 kg, when I see recommendations for 1.5 to 2 grams of protein per kg for serious athletes).

And if there is any interest/ agreement on this, it would be great if Cronometer could offer a hybrid where you could fix certain macronutrient targets but leave others to vary.

In terms of examples, here is an an article in Triathlete magazine this summer:

“Percentages are meaningless, because it is the absolute amount of carbohydrate and protein that matters,” said Asker Jeukendrup, Ph.D., an exercise physiologist at the University of Birmingham in England and one of the world’s leading experts on the effects of different amounts of carbohydrate and protein intake on endurance performance.


Best Answer

  • edited November 3 Accepted Answer

    I can share from my professional experience as a dietitian. I've never used macro ratios as they tell me little about an individuals actual dietary quality. Rather, I like to note total energy intake, as well as protein (noting g per kg healthy body weight), fibre, sodium, and % completion of vitamins and minerals. With fat and carbs (and protein), I'm much more interested in the quality of those foods vs the %.

    Kind regards,

Answers

Sign In or Register to comment.