# P-Ratio, what are your thoughts?



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

There was a conversation going earlier in the chatbox about the p-ratio.

The P-Ratio is calorie partitioning, or, how your body handles an excess/shortage of calories.



			
				Lyle McDonald said:
			
		

> Essentially, it represents the amount of protein that is either gained (or lost) during over (or under) feeding. So a low P-ratio when dieting would mean you used very little protein and a lot of fat. A high P-ratio would mean that you used a lot of protein and very little fat. It looks like, for the most part, P-ratio is more or less the same for a given individual; as I mentioned above, they will gain about same amount of muscle when they overfeed as they lose when they diet. This is yet another example of the body’s attempts to maintain itself at a ‘normal’ level.
> So what controls P-ratio. As depressing as this is, the majority of of the P-ratio is out of our control; it’s mostly genetic. We can control, maybe 15-20% of it with how we eat or train. Supraphysiological amounts of certain compounds (supplements) and, of course, drugs, can also affect the P-ratio.





			
				Lyle McDonald said:
			
		

> "some hapless individuals will lose as much as one pound of muscle for every 2-3 pounds of fat that they lose when they diet. Typically, those same individuals will put on about the same amount of fat and muscle when they overfeed. Thus is the balance of the universe maintained."



What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## PillarofBalance (Feb 10, 2015)

Tren hard.......


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

PillarofBalance said:


> Tren hard.......



That is a pretty big caveat to his argument. Drugs can greatly swing the p-ratio one way or the other.

The topic being discussed that prompted me to post this was whether or not some (natural) bodies prefer to be lean or fatty.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> That is a pretty big caveat to his argument. Drugs can greatly swing the p-ratio one way or the other.


Exactly so why not take advantage of that since we are a bunch of jewce heads anyway.  Tren is particularly good, even shines in a caloric deficit. I will never try and cut fat without it again.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Feb 10, 2015)

With regards to Lyle's points about the P-ratio, he's absolutely correct. 
Its almost entirely based on genetics with caloric partitioning attempts through diet/training only having a very small impact.



Iron1 said:


> The topic being discussed that prompted me to post this was whether or not some (natural) bodies prefer to be lean or fatty.



This, again, is completely dependent on genetics and covered by set/settling points.
Set points - specific bf% and weight that your body wants to stay at. 
Settling points - a bf% range manipulated by lifestyle choices. 

For example, a natural athlete may have a settling point of 8-12% meaning he can comfortably stay in this zone year round with no issues but his set point may be right in the middle at 10% - I find that the most successful natural bodybuilders certainly fit into this category. 
For others, you may have a settling point of 12-20% meaning its impossible (without drugs) to stay any lower than this for a sufficient period of time. Note that I'm not saying you can't get lower, only you cant stay lower. These guys may have set points of 15% or so. 

I've worked very hard for a long time to try and manipulate genetic set points and, though it can be done, its an insanely slow process that I don't see anyone bothering with in reality.
To give you an idea, I had a set point of 18% with a range of 12-20 5 years ago. Now (5 years later) I have a set point of 13% and have still to reach the point where I'm outside my genetic comfort zone.

Basically, drugs solve all of these problems - I'm looking into peptides use in order to permanently deal with this but its a work in progress.


----------



## DF (Feb 10, 2015)

PP ratio??????


----------



## Spongy (Feb 10, 2015)

You can influence genetics through proper.dieting.  nothing is set in stone.  No, you will not become an ifbb pro without the genetics, but you can influence your genetics.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Feb 10, 2015)

Spongy said:


> You can influence genetics through proper.dieting.  nothing is set in stone.  No, you will not become an ifbb pro without the genetics, but you can influence your genetics.


Damn my cupcake genetics!!


----------



## Spongy (Feb 10, 2015)

PillarofBalance said:


> Damn my cupcake genetics!!



I love cupcake.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 10, 2015)

Everytime you stick a needle in your ass you're influencing your genetics


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

So is the consensus that the p-ratio is a real thing that can be influenced by drugs?


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> So is the consensus that the p-ratio is a real thing that can be influenced by drugs?



Yes drugs can influence p-ratio but as RippedZilla pointed out, it is largely genetic. You can only slightly influence it without drugs.


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

Docd187123 said:


> Yes drugs can influence p-ratio but as RippedZilla pointed out, it is largely genetic. You can only slightly influence it without drugs.



I was thinking of you when I posted this one. We had this discussion a few years back and thought it would make for decent conversation here.

What brought this about was a statement I had made earlier that for me personally, my body likes to be  on the fat side. I have never been lean in my life and trying to lean out takes extremely strict dieting. The person I was having that conversation with didn't believe that a body could have a preference for how it would store excess calories.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> I was thinking of you when I posted this one. We had this discussion a few years back and thought it would make for decent conversation here.
> 
> What brought this about was a statement I had made earlier that for me personally, my body likes to be  on the fat side. I have never been lean in my life and trying to lean out takes extremely strict dieting. The person I was having that conversation with didn't believe that a body could have a preference for how it would store excess calories.



It does a la set points as previously mentioned. A combination of hormones affects this not just p-ratio.


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

So, in talking about nutrient partitioning like this I have to ask.
With these "set points", is bulking/cutting while natural equivalent to treading water?

i.e. Your p-ratio/hormone profile has you gaining 1lb of muscle for every 3 lbs of fat. 

Wouldn't losing 1lb of muscle with every 3 lbs of fat leave you exactly where you started no many how many times you've done it?

This is probably where it gets deep into the sciency stuff.


----------



## Tren4Life (Feb 10, 2015)

I don't have anything to add other than 


I fukking love tren!! N


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> So, in talking about nutrient partitioning like this I have to ask.
> With these "set points", is bulking/cutting while natural equivalent to treading water?
> 
> i.e. Your p-ratio/hormone profile has you gaining 1lb of muscle for every 3 lbs of fat.
> ...



It can be for those ppl who got fukked by their parents in the genetics department unless they do everything right. You see them in the gym busting ass day in day out and their results just aren't wah you'd expect. On the other hand you have natties who do a lot of things "wrong" yet get impressive results. Also remember what RippedZilla said, you can get leaner or more muscular than your set point, it's maintaining that for a significant length of time that becomes the issue and why ppl tend to gravitate to drugs/PEDs.


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

I agree 100% that there are always going to be genetic outliers that break the normal rules. Jerks.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> I agree 100% that there are always going to be genetic outliers that break the normal rules. Jerks.



But even your genetically average gym-goer can get damn good results without drugs. They won't get to be 5'8" and 230lbs @ 10% but the power of placebo works both ways. If you truly believe you won't get progress bc of your p-ratio chances are you won't and it won't be just due to your p ratio either.


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

Docd187123 said:


> But even your genetically average gym-goer can get damn good results without drugs. They won't get to be 5'8" and 230lbs @ 10% but the power of placebo works both ways. If you truly believe you won't get progress bc of your p-ratio chances are you won't and it won't be just due to your p ratio either.



Absolutely not. I'm not offering up the p-ratio/hormone profile as an excuse at all. 

I'm looking at it purely as a way to modify an AAS regimen.
If you know your body likes to be on the fat side, perhaps planning a little tren with your blasts is a good idea.
If you have the genetics to stay lean regardless, you could use that slot for something more beneficial to your goals.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 10, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> Absolutely not. I'm not offering up the p-ratio/hormone profile as an excuse at all.
> I'm looking at it purely as a way to modify an AAS regimen.
> If you know your body likes to be on the fat side, perhaps planning a little tren with your blasts is a good idea.
> If you have the genetics to stay lean regardless, you could use that slot for something more beneficial to your goals.



All AAS will help in this regard not just tren. The size of your surplus, the macros you're eating, your starting point, etc also play Into this. Even testosterone has shown to have fat burning properties although not as significant as tren I would imagine. 

PS: I'd rape you right now if I could get my greasy hamburger hands on you. You get me so hot and bothered when you ask questions that make me think or have to look shit up


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 10, 2015)

This thread got into some gray area territory a while back as soon as AAS was mentioned. Of course that's going to sway things.

Agree 100% the AAS in general is huge in how your body handles nutrients. Tren was a crowd favorite in this thread.

You know I have to ask things like this from time to time to pull you out of the woodwork.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Feb 10, 2015)

The most interesting thing about the p-ratio is that its not effected whatsoever by the size of the caloric deficit; in other words the ratio of fat/muscle loss stays the same.
I've been preaching this for years but people still want to convince themselves that dieting "slowly" will save more muscle - but that's a topic for another time 

In terms of influencing the P ratio, for naturals your training is actually the best tool to impact nutrient partitioning in this regard NOT diet per se. 
For enhanced individuals, p ratio is completely irrelevant and doesn't really impact anything.


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 11, 2015)

Haven't had a chance to review these but they seemed to touch on the topic at hand. 

http://m.dmm.biologists.org/content/4/6/733.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/

http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.full


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 11, 2015)

MrRippedZilla said:


> The most interesting thing about the p-ratio is that its not effected whatsoever by the size of the caloric deficit; in other words the ratio of fat/muscle loss stays the same.



I have to ask the question; since the p-ratio is supposed to work the same whether you're going up or down in weight, do you believe it to work the same way on a bulk? i.e. Whatever the size of the surplus, muscle/fat gain stay within the same ratio?

It's worth noting that when I use these examples, they're almost laboratory conditions in my head.
i.e. Macros are all 100% on point, p-ratio/hormone profiles aren't affected by cutting/bulking.
Obviously that's not the way it plays out in reality but breaking it down with controlled variables helps my stupid brain to understand.


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Feb 11, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> I have to ask the question; since the p-ratio is supposed to work the same whether you're going up or down in weight, do you believe it to work the same way on a bulk? i.e. Whatever the size of the surplus, muscle/fat gain stay within the same ratio?



Yes.

Firstly, initial bf% and setpoints do influence the p-ratio:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10673906

Now if we remember the importance of initial bodyfat setpoints to p-ratio ranges, when bulking naturally leaner individuals will gain more muscle & less fat while for "fatter" individuals it will be the opposite.
Basically, leaner individuals have the advantage when it comes to bulking and can utilize a higher caloric surplus while naturally fatter individuals have the advantage when it comes to muscle preservation when dieting and can therefore utilize a higher caloric deficit. 
Its important to note that all this applies to genetic p-ratio levels and natural bodyfat setpoints - NOT to individuals who've dieted down to lean levels and then bulk, etc.

There was a study illustrating how p-ratio remains constant but my memory (again) fails me - 1998 study authored by Dulloo focusing on the constancy of the p-ratio if someone can track it down


----------



## Iron1 (Feb 11, 2015)

I was reading something similar.

The article I was reading did say that durations of caloric surplus/deficit can alter the hormone profiles enough to influence p-ratio but only during the duration of the surplus/deficit.

The article you're referring to is:
Dulloo AG. Partitioning between protein and fat during starvation and refeeding: is the assumption of intra-individual constancy of P-ratio valid? Br J Nutr. 1998 Jan;79(1):107-13

But I can only find abstract summaries


----------



## DocDePanda187123 (Feb 11, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> I was reading something similar.
> 
> The article I was reading did say that durations of caloric surplus/deficit can alter the hormone profiles enough to influence p-ratio but only during the duration of the surplus/deficit.
> 
> ...



I'll try and get you the full study


----------



## MrRippedZilla (Feb 11, 2015)

Iron1 said:


> I was reading something similar.
> 
> The article I was reading did say that durations of caloric surplus/deficit can alter the hormone profiles enough to influence p-ratio but only during the duration of the surplus/deficit.
> 
> ...



Correct - p ratio is temporarily altered after long term dieting to the benefit of fat gain and muscle loss. 
I should mention that this change in p-ratio is pretty minimal, but when put together with the other adaptations that occur during dieting - fat loss maintenance becomes a major issue. 
If you look at the hormonal profile, metabolism, P-ratio, etc of someone who's naturally 10%bf & then compare it to someone who has dieted down to that level (even if they maintain it for a sufficient period of time) - there is a huge difference in all of these categories despite body composition numbers being similar. 

Hopefully Doc can locate the study, it used to be available for free reading from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition but now I see that this is no longer the case. 
It was basically a re-analysis of the Minnesota starvation study - good stuff


----------

