Appropriate protein for OMAD

(M) #1

I know I should listen to my body, but with my gastroparesis due to adhesions from emergency surgery and poor digestion I actually get confused signals from my body. I am trying to gain weight. Right now I am staying away from the fattier salmon and doing sockeye. If this is my main protein of the day how much would you say is appropriate for a very petite boned/framed 5’3 woman in her 30’s)?
I generally go by raw weight because that is how it is when I weigh it.
Also, minimum amount of fat to eat each day with the protein. My metabolism is so slowed I think I can actually maintain on 900-1000. I think I need to work at 1200-1500 to gain weight. It would be quite slow. Right now I am having difficulty keeping muscle mass but I am not sure it is due to lack of protein or the lack of fat because the fat could keep my body from eating the protein.

Please don’t tell me to consult a doctor. It is the medical community that has messed up my gut and body so much. I have been to so many doctors, and have not found a good doctor locally to help me or who can even understand what is going on.

#2

Your protein requirement are what they are, doing OMAD doesn’t change that. The go-to is 1g/lb of bodyweight. That gives you wiggle room.

Then you’re screwing yourself even more. If you go by raw weight, than you’re counting water weight as protein, which isn’t there.

Lack of using them, and protein. That’s what’ll do that. When you’re actually at the point of losing muscle to the point you notice, you’re way too low. Having lower fat has nothing to do with losing muscle.

(M) #3

It just a different measure when I calculate it by raw. I know raw has 6-6.5g per oz. Cooked has 7 or so.

I use my muscles a lot. I refuse to stop moving around because of what’s happened.

#4

Of course we use raw weight, what else? Cooked weight isn’t informative as the food loses various amounts of water. I never saw people using not raw weight, it would be very inaccurate unless they know that the cooking method they use does what. I can’t possibly know that though I can make an educated guess sometimes. Still, raw weight is more accurate - still not perfect as a database can’t tell me that the item I use has what macros EXACTLY. But I don’t need need them exact. But I overexplained it already.

As it was said, OMAD does nothing to your protein need. You should eat as much as you need or rather a bit more, whatever that is. A very common advice is 1-2g/kg (you want to gain weight so you can go with your full bodyweight) but I prefer 1.5-2. On OMAD I typically go above 2 because protein gives me satiation and I like my food. I probably need more than others with my numbers anyway, why else would my body don’t accept only 2g/kg for LBM? But I already wouldn’t worry with 1.5. Or a tad more, that doesn’t hurt and I probably build muscle now even if it’s slow.

If you want to keep your muscles (of course you want) or even gain some, you need enough protein but fat too. You want to gain fat anyway and your TDEE is super tiny so you should eat at a surplus.

I am a 46 years old woman, 5’4", I eat 100-230g protein, my average is about 160? Because this is the smallest amount I am physically able to eat, apparently. Theoretically someone like me should have enough protein eating 100g a day but if I was thin with a low metabolism, wanting muscle and fat, I would eat over it if it was easy enough.

It’s not certain you lose muscle below 100g but it’s a nice, safe number IMO.

What are your macros normally and what are you plan if you have some vague idea even though you asked us so you probably wasn’t sure about it…? Or what are your experiences? If someone has huge difficulties with eating 2g/kg protein, I don’t think forcing it is a good idea but if someone feels starving with 1.5g/kg like me, they probably have a higher need.

Why OMAD? It may make eating enough harder. But not for everyone so sure, do it if it works for you, I just saw too many people forcing it even when eating a big enough meal was hard and I am curious anyway.

It’s easy to get the protein from items but let’s see. A pound of sockeye sounds a good start, it should give you about 100g protein according to my data.
But then you need to eat a lot of fat, how do you do it? Why don’t you use a fattier protein source?

#5

And do you think that water contains carbs, fat or protein? If you go by raw, you’re counting water as actual macros.

Even when a label has both sets, thats on an assumption of cook, if you cook it yourself, you already have the cooked weight, so it’s accurate.

(M) #6

fatty fish doesn’t come fresh in Florida and im avoiding canned/pre cooked fish. chinook made my mercury too high.

#7

Been counting my macros for over 10 years now, it’s best to measure cooked weight and calculate from there. 100% agree with Ifod14 and only thing I’d add is that some evidence suggest .8g of protein per lb of bodyweight is sufficient.

I’d aim for 1 though if you’re experiencing atrophy though.

(M) #8

if I’m 20-30 lb underweight though that would throw everything off. Should I be calculating .8 protein per lb of my ideal weight?

(Robin) #9

Personally, I’ve come to believe we have no idea what our ideal weight is and neither do the charts. I think after we hit maintenance mode and just coast, our body will slowly (oh so slowly) find its best state.

(Eve) #10

What is OMAD?

(Jack Bennett) #11

One Meal A Day

(KM) #12

I agree. My current N=1 is 3 day water fasts every 6-8 weeks. Typically I’ve taken off 1-2 pounds for good with each of those, and set a new normal that’s easily maintained eating to satiety. This last time my weight bounced back to what it was before the fast - and I observed that “satiety” was more caloric than before, post-fast I was really hungry for a few days til I returned to my former weight. I wonder if that’s my body telling me 125 is my final resting place, haha.

(Eve) #13

Thanks!

#14

No I don’t. I have data about raw macros. What water has to do with it? I have the right macros (as much as it’s possible), period. And cooked food often has lots of water too, it’s no problem.
I have NO data about cooked ones. It’s very, very basic to use raw weight, I always read we should do that and of course, WHAT ELSE could we use? :smiley: There are no cooked macros (unless it’s a cooked stuff with labels accordingly). But if I buy fresh meat, I have no idea about its macros when cooked. Well I don’t have proper data anyway but I can make an educated guess, I look up some data about the cut and hope it is similar.

The same food cooked differently easily may have almost doubled macros as it loses different amount of water. So I can’t possibly know if I had 150g fat or 250g, the same with protein. It’s not accurate enough for me AT ALL.
If I used cooked weighty, THAT would be the situation where I think water has macros, raw data has no such problem ever, water is properly taken into account.

Or eggs. The same average sized egg. It’s 52g boiled and about 15-25 when baked, it depends on the duration of baking, I don’t do it always the same. I would be off so very much not using raw weight… What an odd idea.

It’s the same with plants. If I cook rice, that has halved macros compared to other people’s rice. (I used rice as I actually know the macros of the end result there, I don’t know what my vegs do anymore. Apart from losing water, zero, little, much or almost all of their weight…) Obviously the raw weight should be used then too.

#15

Not a bad starting point… But you should figure out how much you feel and function best. I need way more myself.

#16

No, not period. Whats so complicated about this? There’s a reason some labels also show cooked macros, which are still an assumption of how much you cooked it, which in many cases will be wrong, if you pay attention, those numbers are always lower.

My raw chicken breast at 200g is 57g protein, 0 carbs, 2.4g fat

When it’s cooked it will be around 140g which would be 40g protein 0 carbs, 1.7g fat.

What changed is water was cooked out of it. Water that (if it were chicken, which is wasn’t) would equal 17g protein, 0 carbs and 0.7g fat, which you’re counting as getting it, but you’re not.

If you understand how they get these numbers they put food into a bomb calorimiter and it’s literally incinerated into dust, all water is gone, and the actual values are left. The water that was removed during never contributed to the values, so when you count water as being part of what you ate, you’re counting what was never there to being with.

If you want to inaccurately track thats fine, but don’t kid yourself, that’s what you’re doing.

#17

Oh, good you wrote back, I kept wondering how on earth some of you use cooked data when that is so inaccurate…
I never saw a label with cooked macros except for quick soups but I dismissed that as it’s super inaccurate, it depends on the amount of water used while the raw data is accurate…

See? you have the data for raw :slight_smile: You eat it, use the data, perfect.
If I cook my 200g meat (not chicken breast as I dislike it very much and it would make my protein overeating even worse anyway), maybe it will be 180g. Maybe it will be 120g. While the original has ONE proper set of macros… So I will be more or less off.
And my meat has no macro labels at all, not even for the raw but it doesn’t matter, it’s unknown anyway. I use some educated guess depending on the cut and my guess about its fattiness (my guess isn’t good but I can see if it’s WAY fattier than usual, more similar to some other cut I often buy).

Exactly, that’s why I need to use the raw weight where water is properly taken into consideration. I can’t NOT care that I use a cooked data for a food that has way less or way more water as water doesn’t contribute. If I cook my food in a way that way more water is lost, the macros for 100g change, obviously. But the raw weight is the same and stays equal with itself, no matter if I decide to cook my food longer.

Same to you! :wink:
Unless you always make your food exactly the same and according to your labels (you really have cooked data on your meat labels? why? it depends on the cooking a lot… maybe it’s for people not caring about accuracy at all?).

And I eat fatty meat so I can’t track accurately anyway, it’s fine, tracking is just some very vague info, it has nothing to do with my food intake, not THAT important. I am just curious and need to do it as good as I can, therefore I use the way more accurate raw weight as basically everyone I think, with good reason.

In your example, if you use the proper macros for the cooked one, using raw and cooked are exactly the same. Of course one doesn’t use raw macros on cooked weights. Did you think that? But who does that? No, I use the raw macros for the raw weight, obviously. I don’t HAVE cooked macros. Well only for certain dishes where the cooked weight always correlates to the raw one just fine. I used the raw weights, obviously as I had no other option and got the cooked weight. So I could use the latter later. It comes handy in complicated dishes. I only need to care about water loss (the site I use has water evaporation) when I don’t eat the whole stuff (or a known part like a quarter).

I hope I understand now, you just thought about some stupid combination I don’t do.

#18

Really sorry to hear you’re having so much trouble. I wouldn’t hold back on protein. If you eat too much your body will process it in different ways.

Are you applying OMAD to help with healing. It might be easier to put on weight by exercising however much you can with your illness and eating more often.

Perhaps try weight training to help gain weight (not endurance training) or would that be impossible?

(KM) #19

I’ve always been uncertain about cooked v. raw. One notable example are my turkey tails. (Turkey tails are exactly what they sound like, the smoked tail of a turkey, which is about the size of a small fist, 3-4 oz.) If you warm up a turkey tail and maybe broil the skin for good measure, there will be about 1T of oil in the pan, this is a very fatty part of the bird. However, if you really go to town and nuke it or pierce it and cook the fat out, you may get 5 or 6 T of fat. In all cases, how do you really know how much fat or water is leaving with the cooking method and how much stays in the part you eat?

#20

I have a handful of times, but still woldn’t go by that because it would be a guess on how much I cooked it vs them. You’ve admited you know that water content doesn’t contain and macro value, so why count it like it does?

You literally break my brain! You CLEARLY see this for what it is, yet track values that aren’t what you’re eating. I give up.