I'm 5'9, 150.
I have body fat calipers and I use this site:http://www.scoobysworkshop.com/bodyfatCalculator.htm
I've been tracking it for months now, quite sure it's accurate to within 1-2% probably.

I just calculated the approximate ratio of macro nutrients in something I'd normally make and it is way lower in fats than it should:
7810calorirs, 52.5/351fat 768/487protein 1078 /780carbs
( ok usually I'd have more fat than this, but maybe 3x more at best )



Trying to hit a 40% carb, 25% protein, 35% fat deal here with the calories. All I'd cared about so far were proteins vs calories, i.e. trying to divide 25-30g protein into low calorie meals.

So we'll see how it goes this time! I'll add avocados, nuts, olive oil, salmon and ground flax seed. Turns out meals consisting mostly of chicken breast, baked beans and vegetables are low in fats!


I'll write the recipe here if anyone is interested. No idea who's enough of a nutritional nazi to actually calculate all this nonsense regularly. I did notice that Joel Friel mentions Paretto's law in his cycling book ( 80-20, i.e. if 80% of your nutrition is flawless and 20% is crap, you'll be fine ) but that's not really a "law" so much as it's nonsensical confirmation bias : O
I'm fairly certain it doesn't carry over to engineering and quantum physics haha.


Well at least I'll have this much covered and can report back on whether or not it makes a difference.

I tried a healthy weight calculator and it says I should weight 152 pounds. I weighed myself in this morning at 151.6 haha. I fluctuate around 149-153. But that number seems entirely meaningless. What if I gained 10 pounds of muscle? What if I lost 5 pounds of muscle but gained 5 of fat?
Then it just gives a range that's basically the same as the BMI nonsense.