You Aren’t Eating Enough Carbs — Part 2: How to Calculate Calories and Carbs for Performance

Determining individual carb and calorie needs for optimal performance and recovery.

You Aren’t Eating Enough Carbs; But Let’s Fix That - Part 2: 

Determining individual carb and calorie needs for optimal performance and recovery.

If part 1 did its job well, it sold you on the fact that sufficient carb intake isn’t just important for hybrid and selection prep athletes. It’s non-negotiable. But it merely scratched the surface— it introduced the “why”, and now it’s time to dive into the “how”. More specifically, how to calculate precise carb intake targets for optimal performance, recovery and wellbeing. 

But like any nutrition intervention, it’s not a one-size-fits-all. Your carb need won’t be identical to that of your buddy’s. Furthermore, it’s a moving target; the ideal carb intake is different for you right now than it was 5 years ago, as well as what it’ll be 5 years into the future.

This article is all about individualization. Its purpose is to provide basic tactics for determining your carb needs—and because they’re a package-deal with protein, fat and overall calorie requirements, we’ll learn how to calculate those as well! Let’s get to it.

Carb Needs Vary

As discussed in part 1, no two persons’ carb needs will be identical. I have several dozen nutrition clients, and guess how many of them consume exactly the same number of daily carbs? A grand total of…zero. And that includes a multitude of guys of similar stature, with the same goal, and nearly identical activity levels and training volumes. That’s how nuanced it is! But as a general, rather intuitive rule, more active individuals typically benefit from more carbs, and vice versa. 

And although active, hard-training individuals still see marked performance improvements despite lower-than-optimal carb intake, that doesn’t mean it’s the best approach. In other words, for every uneaten morsel of white rice, potato or sourdough bread left on the table, rest assured it’s accompanied by performance potential.

But let’s assume I’ve succeeded in convincing you that carbs are king for performance (relative to other macros), and you’re ready to go all in. It’s still important to note a few key nuances:

• Your carb needs will fluctuate throughout your life

• Your carb needs may fluctuate throughout a training program

• Your carb needs will fluctuate throughout a training week (part 3 will discuss carb/calorie cycling—fluctuating them up and down based on output)

But to calculate carbs, we must look at the big picture, as they’re one of multiple factors in optimal performance nutrition.

Carbs: Just One (Really Big) Piece of the Puzzle

Depending on where you look, you’ll find various different equations and calculation strategies for carb intake. There are many paths to Rome, and if yours gets you there, it’s a win. But when I approach carb prescriptions for clients, it’s just a sliver of the whole equation—albeit a can’t-miss one. 

Carbs matter. A lot. But even so, other things matter, too. As discussed in part 1, if you just ate carbs, you’d eventually fail to thrive, as protein and fat are the only two essential macros.

Because of this, I take a holistic approach that involves reverse-engineering a complete diet to ultimately ‘solve for carbs’. In other words, there’s an order of operations, and instead of using an equation to solve solely for carbs, I like to start with the other 3 aspects of food intake first: Calories, then protein, then fat…then carbs. 

But before we dive into determining calories, it’s worth a brief look at the basics of human metabolism. Afterall, there’s a reason we need to consume calories in order to sustain life. 

Our bodies expend a certain amount of energy every day. This energy expenditure is measured in calories, which you’re constantly expending in varying degrees—not just while exercising or moving, but even as you sit here and read this, and even tonight when you’re sound asleep. And if overall calorie intake doesn’t match output, an energy mismatch occurs. This isn’t always wrong—you may be targeting this mismatch intentionally via a calorie surplus for weight gain or a deficit for weight loss.

But regardless, calorie intake is the most critical piece of the pie. In fact, I like to use an apple pie analogy for this concept—consider calories the crust that surrounds the pie (bottom, sides and top), and macros to be the filling (apples, syrup, sugar etc.). Even if you have perfect apples and the ideal ratio of sugar, syrup, and other ingredients that comprise the filling, the pie won’t hold its integrity without the crust. In nutrition terms, this would be like eating the right ratios of carbs, protein and fat, but the wrong numbers of each macro, inherently resulting in more or fewer calories than is optimal. This is why calories come first. (Keep reading for a full nutritional hierarchy!)

Back to metabolism—it’s one of the most complex systems in existence. Not just bodily systems, but systems, period. So complex, in fact, that even professionals who spend their entire lives studying it still don’t—and will never—know everything there is to know about it. For the purpose of this article, a simple overview of the body’s basic metabolic processes as they pertain to calorie expenditure suffices. 

Below is a breakdown of the four different mechanisms by which calories are expended, along with the percentage of daily expenditure each is responsible for. These four processes comprise what’s known as total daily energy expenditure, or TDEE (the total # of calories burned per day).

Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): calories burned via basic, life-sustaining bodily functions like breathing, heartbeat/circulation, metabolic processes, etc. In other words, the calories you’d burn if you were to lay in bed in the same position all day long (a hypothetical scenario).

BMR accounts for 60-70% of TDEE (which is significantly higher than most people think).

Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT): the # of calories burned via basic, non-exercise movements like nodding your head, talking with your hands, scratching your face, adjusting your position in a chair, walking to the restroom, etc. 

Although NEAT is not just steps, for practicality’s sake, it’s best measured through a step- counter. And while some argue whether or not going for intentional walks is exercise or NEAT, I’ll end it here: It’s semantics. 

It doesn’t matter what it’s technically considered, it’s still a tried and tested way to measure NEAT, as it’d be impractical (and way overkill) to wear a “face scratcher counter” or a “fidget measuring device”. Call it either one, but your body doesn’t care what the difference is. Step tracking works great so long as your device is precise—even if not 100% accurate, which none are. (For example, I’ve hit my “flights [of stairs] climbed” goal on my Garmin Fenix 7s while driving my car up my slightly uphill street—but precision is what matters.)

NEAT accounts for 15-30% of TDEE. (Some people move around a LOT more than others, hence the wider range.)

Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (EAT): the # of calories burned via intentional exercise like lifting weights, going for a run, or doing a spin class.

EAT accounts for 5-10% of TDEE, but can potentially be higher for those who A) train several hours per day and B) don’t move around much outside of training (yielding a lower NEAT %). For a typical hybrid athlete, one or both of these nuances can apply.

Thermic Effect of Food (TEF): the # of calories burned via digesting and absorbing the food you eat.

TEF accounts for 8-12% of TDEE, and is also macronutrient dependent. 

Note that protein has the highest TEF at 20-30%, meaning if you were to eat 100 calories of protein (25G) you’re only amassing 70-80 of those calories. Carbs’ TEF is 5-10% and fat’s is negligible. (This is one of many reasons a high protein diet can aid weight loss.)

The key takeaway is that each person’s TDEE will vary widely depending on their size, activity levels, muscle mass, metabolic and hormone health, micronutrient status, propensity to move subconsciously throughout the day, and many (many) more variables. 

It’s important to note that exercise is often severely over-indexed as a means to lose weight. Many dieters consider it one of the main levers to pull for enhanced fat loss. But this breakdown clearly illustrates that even at high volumes, it’s still not responsible for the majority of daily calorie burn. It also goes to show how foolish it is to try to use exercise to ‘burn off’ the same number of calories you eat in a given meal or day. Even if this were sustainable (it’s not), it would put you in a severe calorie deficit and ultimately destroy your health.

Again, this is purely a depiction of how calories are expended. And although metabolism is far more complex than just TDEE, the two words are often used interchangeably. And to keep things simple throughout the rest of the article (and mitigate blowback from nit-pickers who like to argue pedantics in an effort to seem smarter than they actually are), when I say “metabolism”, I’m referring to TDEE, even though they’re not one in the same.

Now that we have a grasp on how calories are burned, the next step is to calculate how many you need. But first, we’ll start with some key concepts regarding energy balance. 

Key Concepts in Determining Calorie Needs

Identifying your daily caloric need is simple, but is a multi-step process. It’s critical to note that even if you utilize a basic online calorie calculator (which is fine), you’ll need to confirm it on the backend. Later, I’ll teach you how to do so. 

But before we get there, we’ll need to make an educated guess on where to start. Caloric needs will depend on your goal (remembering you may have more than one, such as performance and fat loss), size, muscle mass, daily habits, sleep, genetics, internal health (mainly metabolic, hormone and thyroid health), and many other individual factors.

Luckily, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel by considering every nuance involved—that would be impractical and insanity-inducing. What we do need is a basic grasp on the most important law in nutrition: The law of thermodynamics.

This law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred or transformed. In layman’s terms (and most relevant to the topic), it’s simply the number of calories you consume vs. the number of calories you expend.

• To lose weight, an energy (calorie) deficit is required—you’ll need to eat fewer calories than you burn, on average (remember “on average”, it’ll come into play in part 3).

• To remain the same weight, maintenance calories are required—calorie intake must match calories burned (you’ll never be able to match the two perfectly, but ‘close enough’ is totally viable here).

• To gain weight, a calorie surplus is needed—you’ll need more calories than you expend on average.

Simple stuff, right?

Well, here’s where the water gets muddied. The internet is riddled with zealots who claim things like “it’s not calories in, calories out, it’s your hormones”. And while hormones are absolutely contributors to body composition, they’re not powerful enough to override a law of physics. 

Hormones can indirectly influence both calories in and calories out. For example, if your insulin sensitivity is low, your “calories out” will be lower than if you were more insulin sensitive. You’ll also likely experience more blood sugar peaks and troughs, which can have marked effects on appetite (thus potentially increasing the “calories in” part of the equation) and energy levels (which, if you thereby don’t move as much, can affect “calories out”). 

Likewise, if your testosterone is low, you’ll likely feel less energy and motivation to be active, thus reducing “calories out” potential. You also may feel more stressed or depressed, increasing potential to comfort eat, thus increasing ‘calories in’. But these hormones aren’t directly responsible for weight gain, they’re merely contributing factors to an individual’s total intake vs. expenditure. 

So with zealot-speak aside, the only factor that’ll directly determine weight loss, gain or maintenance is “calories in, calories out”. As such, the focus of this article is rooted in the law of thermodynamics.

For simplicity’s sake, the methods discussed below will bias maintenance calories. Even if you have weight loss or gain goals (both will be discussed in part 3), I find it best practice to begin any nutrition intervention at maintenance, as it’s where most people should eat most of the time, and it makes finding the right deficit or surplus more seamless.

Performance Nutrition Hierarchy

Before getting into the steps, let’s set the record straight with a performance nutrition hierarchy. Nutrition concepts from most to least important (but still important) are as follows:

1. Calories - you could be eating the perfect macro split, the exact right number of carbs, and the healthiest foods in existence. But if you’re not eating the proper number of calories, performance (among other things) will suffer. Remember the apple pie analogy?! This is the crust that holds it all together.

2. Macros - two different diets of exactly 3000 calories could yield wildly different results. Why? Macros matter. One of these diets could include the perfect blend of protein, fat and carbs, while the other could have way too little of a certain macro and way too much of another. The person following the former diet will see far better results. Using the apple pie analogy, a macro distribution mismatch would be like having 2x as many apples, and ½ as much of the other filling components needed for an edible pie.

3. Food quality - let’s say both of the two 3000 calorie diets above consist of the exact same macros. Again, results could vary widely due to food selection. You could hit your macro and calorie needs on mostly heavily processed food, but you’d be:

• • less healthy - heavily processed food a) lacks the robust variety of micronutrients found in whole foods, and b) (often overlooked) is far less favorable on the gut, thus limiting macro and micronutrient absorption and overall quality of life

  • more hungry - heavily processed food is engineered by food scientists to be less filling and more delicious—a deadly combo (literally, if eaten chronically) 

  • far less likely to be able to sustain it long term—mainly for the reasons above

As such, micronutrient dense, gut-friendly whole foods win big (food selection discussed in part 3).

4. Timing - when/how many times you eat on a given day is less critical for an average fitness and health goal, but a key consideration for those with performance goals. Although nailing 1-3 is more important than timing, you’ll see far better results eating at the right times, especially in relation to your training (covered in detail in part 3).

5. Supplementation - although not ‘food’, per se, supplementation is still worth mentioning in the context of optimization. They can help, but they’re often way over hyped. Supplements are…supplementary. If the above 4 factors are the cake and frosting, supplements are the sprinkles. You can make a stellar cake without sprinkles. But there’s no such thing as a sprinkles-only cake. That said, targeted (not random) supplementation can absolutely be a difference maker, not just for performance, but health, too.

With the hierarchy in mind, one can imply that the first step of the process is determining calorie needs. And we’ll get there soon! But first, we’ll need to discuss some key details to help develop an understanding of human metabolism.

Key Nuances in Calorie Requirements

There are a million and one ways to determine calorie needs. From online calculators that employ multiple complex equations to simpler math equations using bodyweight and/or activity level, most of them suffice for a baseline. 

Although I’ll teach you the simple equation I use, most of these methods will yield a similar number. The KEY piece to remember, though, is just to pick one and go with it, rather than trying 10 different methods and trying to analyze which one is correct. Why? Because unless you strike gold (purely by happenstance), literally none of them will be perfectly accurate (and that’s ok—we’ll soon learn how to confirm).

How can I be so certain it won’t be spot-on? The fact is, human metabolism is so nuanced that two people could be the exact same size and body composition, have the exact same goal, follow the exact same training program and have the exact same daily activity levels…and still require different calorie intakes. Sometimes by a large margin.

There are a multitude of factors at play here, but to simplify, it all boils down to metabolic efficiency. And to add to the complexity, “efficiency” in a metabolic sense is counterintuitive. 

For most Americans, an efficient metabolism is actually the opposite of ideal. The body has a hierarchy of needs, and coming in at number 1 is survival—living to see another minute, hour, day, week and so on. As such, when you’re metabolically efficient, your body expends fewer calories in an effort to keep you alive. Whereas, a less efficient metabolism will expend more calories—whether you’re sitting around, sleeping, moving, or exercising. 

Confused yet? Don’t worry. Let’s dissect it piece by piece.

This nuance in metabolic efficiency is purely evolutionary. Although a foreign concept to us now, for the vast majority of human existence, food has been scarce. As such, the body adapted to keep us alive, even in times of famine. In other words, when fewer calories are available, metabolic rate slows down (becomes more efficient) as a survival mechanism. 

For example, If you continued expending 3500 calories per day despite only eating 500 (due to lack of food availability), you’d eventually fail to thrive. This evolutionary adaptation is the main reason our ancestors didn’t all die of starvation in times of scarcity.

But today, those living in developed countries have the polar opposite problem. The ease and convenience of procuring food is almost criminal. With a few taps of a phone screen, most of us could have whatever food we’re currently craving, whenever we’re craving it—without even getting up off the couch (until you need to walk all the way to your doorstep to scoop it up).

Add to it, most easy-button seekers aren’t ordering food with health, performance and vigor in mind. (The average Door-Dash order is a far cry from a mixed greens salad with grilled chicken and light dressing on the side.)

So this begs the question: which one is most ideal—higher or lower metabolic efficiency? A simple look at the average American should hint that a LESS efficient metabolism would be more fruitful at the population level. Most people are overweight or obese. (Statistically, 3 of 4 people you see will be overweight, and about ½ that number will be obese.) 

If these folks were less metabolically efficient, they’d burn more calories 24/7, and thus be able to eat more without gaining weight. (Sadly, most people in dire need of less efficient metabolisms approach diet and exercise in such a way that makes their metabolisms more efficient—crash diets, cardio galore, poorly structured or lack of strength training, pills and potions [falsely] promising them a shortcut, etc…but that’s a topic for another day.)

But what about for an athlete? Or perhaps someone who struggles to gain mass? Is less efficiency better? 

In the case of a performance athlete, a more efficient metabolism is an advantage, at least to an extent. With more efficiency, an athlete training for or competing in their discipline of choice will expend less energy per unit of time, yielding better performance at a lower caloric ‘cost’. 

Likewise, for a classic ‘hardgainer’, the task of gaining sustainable lean mass—or any mass for that matter—is a true chore (I’ve been there). As such, a more efficient metabolism would make life a lot easier for this avatar.

The take-home point: because of these nuances (that are rarely discussed, even in the fitness space), regardless of which calorie calculation method you opt for, it won’t be dead-on accurate in 99% of cases. 

As such, because you may have a more or less efficient metabolism relative to the mean (which depends on a multitude of different factors not worth stressing), you’ll always want to ‘check your work’ in order to confirm your initial calorie calculation is actually appropriate for you. The simplest way to do it is to employ a ‘trial period’. My preferred method is super simple, and is as follows:

After determining your calorie start-point (which we’ll soon learn how to do), for at least 10 straight days, you’ll:

• Weigh yourself 1st thing in the morning on day 1 (after using the bathroom but before eating or drinking anything—fasted weigh-ins provide the most reliable data).

• Track every calorie you put in your mouth (including cooking oils, sauces/dressings, liquid calories, nibbles of your son’s chicken nugget, etc.), aiming to fall within ± 50 calories of your initial daily calculation (i.e. if it’s 3000 calories, the goal is 2950 - 3050).

• Continue weighing yourself daily (same parameters as day 1). Don’t fret slight variations in weight—it’s 100% normal and we’re just looking for trends.

• After taking your weight on day 10, find the average.

Interpreting the Data

• If your weight stayed largely the same (± .5lbs), you’re close enough to consider your initial calculation maintenance. 

• If your weight trended upward or downward >.5lbs, you were eating in a surplus or deficit respectively

Note: If you opt to do a 14+ day trial period, a smaller # like ± .2 -.3 should be used. More days/data = more precision.

From there, you can make adjustments up or down based on your current body composition goals. And because there’s a good chance your initial calculation was at least in the ballpark, I suggest smaller, incremental adjustments (details/example below).

Calorie Intake Equation

Now that you’re equipped with the trial period details, let’s nail down your calorie starting point. 

*Note: this equation will only work as shown if you’re relatively lean. If you’re a male >~15% body fat (BF), consider reducing the weight by 3-5 lbs for every 5% BF over 15% BF (e.g. if you weigh 200lbs at 18% BF, consider your weight ~195lbs. If you’re 200lbs at 23% BF, consider ~190lbs. Remember: BALLPARK suffices, we’ll check it with the trial period.)

Equation: 

Bodyweight (BW) x 14—16 = maintenance calories

Note: 14—16 is a range (14 through 16, not a minus.) More about this range below. 

Caveats: 

• If very active (hybrid training, selection prep, etc) use BWx16-18 = maintenance

• If you subjectively have a “fast” (less efficient) metabolism, opt for higher end of range

• If you subjectively have a “slow” (more efficient) metabolism, opt for lower end of range

Ex.: 6’1” 200lbs bodyweight male w/ 12% BF; high activity; “fast” metabolism

Equation: 200 (lbs BW) x 18 (active, fast metabolism) = 3600 (maintenance calorie starting point)

Ex 2. (w/ caveats): 6’1”, 200lbs male w/ 20% BF; high activity; “slow” metabolism

Equation: 195 (BW - 5 to compensate for high BF%) x 16 (active, slow metabolism) = 3120 (maintenance calorie starting point)

Note that these two avatars share the same height, weight, and general activity level, but have a non-trivial gap in their baseline maintenance calorie needs. This is why it’s critical to a) be honest about your stats (most men grossly overestimate how lean they are, as well as their activity levels), b) run the trial period discussed above.

But in any case, this will be your starting point. From here, you’ll run the 10 (to 14) day trial period and adjust accordingly based on weight gain, loss or maintenance goals. I suggest bumping calories up or down by 150-300 at a time if you notice weight gain or loss trends that don’t match your goal (but again, not until after the full trial period).

For example, if avatar B finished the 10 days with an average weight of 198.5lbs (-1.5lbs) after eating ~3100 calories, his maintenance is likely in the ballpark of 3300-3400 calories. But coincidentally, what he calculated as his tentative maintenance was actually a minor deficit. He can now continue with this calorie intake (or perhaps subtract another 100-200) for the time being, assuming his goal is fat loss. 

On the other hand, if avatar A saw the same weight loss trend but is aiming for maintenance calories—not a deficit—a bump from 3600 to 3750-3900 is warranted.

*Note: Some people freak out if they see unwanted weight loss or gain during this trial period. Sodium intake, carb consumption, hydration, inflammation, stress levels, sleep quality, and many other factors influence acute scale weight. This often results in knee-jerk reactions like making adjustments too early or overcompensating on the backend with an extreme deficit or surplus to ‘undo it’ as quickly as possible. 

My strong recommendation: Don’t be like these guys. 10 days of minor weight loss or gain to confirm your maintenance is totally worth it long-term. If you went in the opposite direction of your goal, easy fix. Adjust calories accordingly (and reasonably), and you’ll be right back on track.

#1 in the hierarchy: complete! Now that we’ve calculated the pie crust (calorie needs), it’s time to dial in the filling (macros) for the most optimal apple pie ever created.

Determining your carb needs

We’ve reached the main event! How many carbs do you need to optimize?!

Just like determining calorie requirements, there are many different macro distribution methods that work. I'll show you the equation I use with clients, as I find most other methods to be less applicable to outliers with exceptionally high carb needs (probably you!) compared to the average person with lower daily output.

As mentioned, it’s a reverse-engineering job. Because fat and protein are essential, we must solve for these two macros first. Once complete, all that’s left is to add in carbs.

Let’s get into it.

Protein and Fat Calulation

For simplicity, we’ll use the same 200lbs, 12% BF male who’s highly active and has a ‘fast’ metabolism (3600 calorie maintenance) as an example.

Step 1: protein grams - a simple ~1 gram per pound of bodyweight. 

For the trial period, this is the number you’ll shoot for. Thereafter, slight protein adjustments up or down can be considered. 

2 key notes: 

1. A calorie surplus is protein sparing, and thus requires less relative protein (~.7G/lbs/bw). Keeping protein a bit lower than BWx1 is also a key consideration for hardgainers who struggle to fit in all their calories, as protein is more satiating (goal = a calorie surplus, not a protein surplus). 

2. A deficit can benefit from more relative protein for a multitude of reasons, including muscle-preservation ‘insurance’, satiety and its higher thermic effect. High protein diets make fat loss easier across the board.

3. If you’re >15% bodyfat, you could stick to 1G per pound, or simply use your goal weight as the protein target (i.e. if you’re 200lbs want to get to 190lbs, hit 190G). But If you plan on going into a cut, sticking to true bodyweight is an underrated play for reasons listed above in #2.

But for now, it’s 1G per pound. And our avatar is 200, so it’s 200 grams of protein.

Step 2: fat grams - bodyweight x .3-.4 is a great starting point. I typically opt for .3, as it’s sufficient to sustain overall health and allows for more carbs. 

So for the 200lbs male, this will be 200 x .3, which = 60 (grams of fat).

Next, we reach the final few calculations to solve for carbs.

Note: there are absolutely cases for slightly lower fat (.2–.25G/lbs) and slightly higher (.4+ G/lbs). Getting into each potential nuance isn’t relevant to the topic, but the main takeaway is not to use .3-.4 as gospel, rather a general guideline.

Step 3: determine calories from protein - because 1G protein = 4 calories, we’ll:

*multiply 200 (grams of protein) by 4 (calories per gram) to get 800*

This is the # of calories from protein he’ll consume.

Step 4: determine calories from fat - because 1G fat = 9 calories, we’ll:

*multiply 60 (fat grams) by 9 (calories per gram) to get 540*

This is the # of calories from fat he’ll consume.

Step 5: Determine calories from non-carb macros (protein & fat) with basic addition - add: *800 (protein cals) + 540 (fat cals) to determine the # of calories from both. Result: 1340.*

This is the # of calories from fat + protein he’ll consume.

Step 6: Finally, we solve for carbs! -  We’ll:

*subtract 1340 from 3600 (daily calorie needs), which gives us 2260.*

This is the # of calories from carbs he’ll consume.

Step 7 (last step!): Determine carb grams - because 1 gram of carbs = 4 calories, we’ll:

*divide 2260 (cals from carbs) by 4 to get 565. 

This is the # of carbs per day he’ll consume.

Daily totals: 

• 3600 calories

• 200G protein

• 60G Fat

• 560G carbs

“Wow, that’s a lot of carbs!” 

If you find yourself thinking this, I have good news for you: you’re in for a real treat once you correct yourself! It may seem like a lot, but in reality, it’s the appropriate number of carbs for this avatar, at least to start out. The 10-day trial period may indicate we’re not quite perfect and thus need to adjust calories up or down. But for now, it’s the way forward.

You’re now equipped with a few simple equations that’ll set you up for success anytime you need to determine your calorie intake and macro allotment. To be clear, you’d be way ahead of the pack if you were to simply consume these numbers daily and look no further. Most people are nowhere close to optimal intake, and thus continuing to navigate life well below their potential. But that’s not all! To even further optimize your results, a calorie cycling approach is in order.

Cycling Carbs (and Calories) for Optimal Performance

Carb cycling is a buzzword in the social media influencer sphere. 

“Join my 6 week carb-cycling challenge to get shredded for your vacation!”

As if a) everyone’s going on vacation in 6 weeks, and b) 6 weeks is enough time for every single human—regardless of starting point—to get shredded. And what happens after those 6 weeks?! 

If you couldn’t tell, it annoys me (put lightly). But in truth, it mostly irks me because it’s the wrong application of a potentially highly effective tool, especially for performance. (It can work for body composition, too—with proper application.)

When you’re training for multiple disciplines (hybrid, SOF prep), you’ll do multiple workouts throughout a given week, each with differing variables. Some longer, some shorter. Some higher intensity, some lower or moderate. You’ll also likely have at least one rest day each week (not always ‘required’, but usually suggested). 

As such, while you’d see solid results from eating the same calories and macros daily, I trust that if you’re still reading, you’re not cool with “solid results”. You’re likely chasing after extraordinary results. And with carb cycling, you’ll experience just that.

Part 3 will break down exactly how to implement carb and calorie cycling for optimal results. It’ll also include insights on how to properly implement a weight gain or loss phase, the best carb sources for performance goals, and how to dial in peri-workout (pre/during/post) nutrition so you’re covering every base and getting the most out of your training.

Thank you for reading! See you soon for part 3.