Good Dieting with Great Exercising?
IconStillFree
Posts: 262 Member
I know that as one decrease in weight, they need to burn less fat. The person would lose lean muscle and not receive enough nutrients. However, what if one were to eat 1700 calories and burn 1000 calories with fitness and exercise. Combined with a TDEE of 1700 calories, one would have a calorie deficit of 1000 calories per day. Thus, losing 2 pounds each week. They would be getting the nutrients they need and at the same time burning the excess fat. If the diet consisted high in protein, the ER would be able to transport the molecules into needed cells resulting in lean muscle consistency. Would this hypothetical situation be valid?
PS. Please don't comment if you don't have a clear understanding on this situation. "I read it on a the forums and it makes sense" isn't a legitimate source.
PS. Please don't comment if you don't have a clear understanding on this situation. "I read it on a the forums and it makes sense" isn't a legitimate source.
0
Replies
-
No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
0 -
No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?0 -
There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
0 -
There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?0 -
When you're trying to weight lift and build muscle, you need the available nutrients to repair torn muscle fibers. If you're eating at a deficit to lose weight, there isn't enough proteins available to build the fibers up, only to repair them. Eating mostly protein helps, but the priority for your body is to use the calories that you eat to operate your organs to live, then it will look at building up your muscles. Your muscles will remain the same size (relatively if you keep working out with weights) with enough protein, but for sure will not increase in size in deficit.0
-
IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.0 -
When you're trying to weight lift and build muscle, you need the available nutrients to repair torn muscle fibers. If you're eating at a deficit to lose weight, there isn't enough proteins available to build the fibers up, only to repair them. Eating mostly protein helps, but the priority for your body is to use the calories that you eat to operate your organs to live, then it will look at building up your muscles. Your muscles will remain the same size (relatively if you keep working out with weights) with enough protein, but for sure will not increase in size in deficit.
Yeah if they remain the same, wouldn't that mean that one could extend their calorie deficit to 1000 calories a day and maintain lean muscle?
It won't help with gaining muscle, but it would speed up weight loss even at a lower weight class such as 1500 -
But at the lower weight class and that large of a deficit, you run into a nutrient deficiency as well. You're not getting enough vitamins that you need to keep your hair or skin or anything else functioning well. There is a minimum number of calories for women and men that is needed to let your body function at a healthy level without hair loss, skin dulling, etc.
This would be the reason.0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.0 -
But at the lower weight class and that large of a deficit, you run into a nutrient deficiency as well. You're not getting enough vitamins that you need to keep your hair or skin or anything else functioning well. There is a minimum number of calories for women and men that is needed to let your body function at a healthy level without hair loss, skin dulling, etc.
This would be the reason.
Yeah good point but the person is still eating the nutrients. The person eats them, the nutrients get absorbed, the person burns the rest of the excess fat. Another stance would be to take supplements. They are able to provide key vitamins and other essential nutrients. Example include B-Complex and One-A-Day. Also once they reach their desired weight goal. They can stop the diet and start bulking. And I apologize for playing the devil's advocate but I want to handle this situation from every perspective.0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.
Running that large of a deficit will also affect your workouts. I can't lift as much if I'm not eating enough. If I can't lift as much, eventually I'll lose muscle. At which point, I definitely can't lift as much, which means I'll lose more muscle. And I'll still be hungry.
Why make losing weight harder than it needs to be?0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.
Running that large of a deficit will also affect your workouts. I can't lift as much if I'm not eating enough. If I can't lift as much, eventually I'll lose muscle. At which point, I definitely can't lift as much, which means I'll lose more muscle. And I'll still be hungry.
Why make losing weight harder than it needs to be?
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"0 -
Yeah good point but the person is still eating the nutrients. The person eats them, the nutrients get absorbed, the person burns the rest of the excess fat. Another stance would be to take supplements. They are able to provide key vitamins and other essential nutrients. Example include B-Complex and One-A-Day.
There are issues with your logic here. Absorption of nutrients in these supplements depends on presence of other nutrients as well as dietary fat and fiber, and the body's capacity (e.g., how much the body will absorb at once).0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.
Running that large of a deficit will also affect your workouts. I can't lift as much if I'm not eating enough. If I can't lift as much, eventually I'll lose muscle. At which point, I definitely can't lift as much, which means I'll lose more muscle. And I'll still be hungry.
Why make losing weight harder than it needs to be?
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"
K.0 -
You haven't taken into account that the body in stress will burn the most easily available fuel first. All the good food and supliments recently consumed.
Also, the race analogy doesn't work; any athlete training at that level has a well fueled furnace, and has been training, using a variety of methods, for a brief spell of extreme exertion.
You are looking at a constant under fueling; over performing scenario.
The arguments previously forwarded are valid.
Cheers, h.0 -
I really like this thread because I had similar questions when I first got started. Here's what I have to say on the subject now that I've had my own personal experiences and have done lots and lots of research on the subject.
First, there are some assumptions in the OP that need addressed:
1) 1,000 calories burned through exercise a day. This isn't likely. The amount of exertion necessary to burn 1,000 calories is so intense that it would be difficult for a beginner to accomplish in a single day once a week, let alone every day. For example, a 150-160lb male would have to run at a pace of about 8.5 min/mile for a distance of nearly 9 miles (about an hour and 15 minutes) to burn that many calories.
2) TDEE already incorporates calories burned through exercise, but that's been covered already.
3) Sustaining an extreme calorie deficit: this is not only difficult and could lead to binges etc. but is also not healthy. Regardless of how many nutrients you consume, if they are being burned to the degree that you're maintaining an extreme caloric deficit for long periods of time you won't be able to reap the benefits of those nutrients. More energy used = more nutrients needed so there is still a nutrient deficiency. Also, studies are starting to show that this approach can lead to adjustments in metabolism, lowering TDEE and reducing effectiveness of the diet.
4) No matter how much of your diet is protein, that protein will be burned for energy if you're eating at a calorie deficit sufficient for noticeable weight loss. Protein burned for energy will not be used for muscle gains. The calories consumed (whether from carbs, fat or protein) are first used to provide energy for activity. Only the calories left over (above TDEE) will be used to then repair/build/increase/retain the muscle tissues affected by the exercise. The diet you're describing will result in significant muscle loss no matter what your diet is composed of.
While it's conceivable that energy from fat stores could be used to rebuild muscle tissue broken down by exercise, it is not an efficient process and is usually only seen with "newbie gains" in beginning weight lifters. Some people take the "transformation" approach and eat at maintenance levels while following a muscle building program but they gain muscle much slower than those who eat at a surplus of calories and lose weight slower than those who eat at a deficit.
Here's a more valid scenario based on what I've learned:
Say you have a TDEE of 2,500 (BMR 1,600, daily activity 500 and avg. exercise 400) and eat 2,000 calories per day, making sure to get 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight and 20-40 grams of fiber total every day. That's a 500 calorie deficit every day on average. Assuming you are following a consistent (3-5 times a week) weight training program, you will have minimal muscle loss and optimum fat loss.
I say minimum muscle loss because, while it's possible you may still lose some muscle, the loss is greatly minimized by the intake of protein and the weight training. However, it's not because the protein is being used to build muscle.
Rather, the protein consumed satisfies the body's need for protein-based fuel, thus preventing the body from breaking down muscle tissue for fuel. Also, the heavy lifting involved in weight training signals the body that the muscles involved in the exercise are essential and should be preserved, further preventing the muscle from being broken down for fuel.
So you follow this plan until you reach your weight loss goal. You can then increase calories to maintenance at 2,500 to remain where you are or you can increase to 2,60-2,700 and start gaining muscle mass. At this point, you're burning 2,500 calories (TDEE) and you have 100-200 calories left over. If you're following a good weight lifting program, those calories can then be used by the recovering muscle tissues to build new muscle mass. Thus, they are not stored as fat (except in minimal amounts due to the fact that the numbers are really a guessing game). This way, you maintain your new lean physique while increasing muscle.
Repeat as necessary until you are satisfied with the body you are working to achieve.0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.
Running that large of a deficit will also affect your workouts. I can't lift as much if I'm not eating enough. If I can't lift as much, eventually I'll lose muscle. At which point, I definitely can't lift as much, which means I'll lose more muscle. And I'll still be hungry.
Why make losing weight harder than it needs to be?
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"
? Wut ?0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »IconStillFree wrote: »There are a few mistakes in your premise that you've stated. TDEE stands for Total Daily Energy Expenditure (expended, or whatever similar terminology). This would take into account your 1000 calories of fitness already. This is just how the calculation is determined. So eating 1700 and that is your TDEE would put you at maintenance calories.
However, BMR (basal metabolic rate) is the calories you need for your body to just operate doing nothing. BMR will always be lower than TDEE. MFP uses BMR and already calculates your desired deficit to lose however many pounds per week. Then you add in your exercise calories (preferably not all of what MFP states) to get a NET (calories in minus out) to be zero.
TDEE x 7 - 7000 = weekly caloric allotment with a 2 pound deficit
This being said, the exercise calculation is also averaged out and already taken into consideration in your TDEE. So no additional exercise calories can be taken into account, you just have to be consistent. Does this make sense?IconStillFree wrote: »No, it is not valid. Your TDEE is Total Daily Energy Expenditure. BMR + daily activity + exercise calories. A person eating 1700 plus exercising enough to have burned 1000 calories per day would have a much higher TDEE than 1700. In your scenario, the person would be netting 700 calories, which means they would be losing a lot of muscle along with the fat. And probably some hair, too.
Ok that helps him to get an understanding but what if the TDEE was 2800 calories? With a 1700 calorie?
What exactly are you asking? A TDEE of 2800 and only eating 1700 calories would be a deficit of 1100 calories. A 1000 calorie deficit is appropriate for someone with more than 75+ lbs to lose. For someone who has less to lose than that, a deficit that large is a recipe for losing muscle mass and an increased risk of injury and burnout. People with less fat stores simply cannot handle large deficits. It doesn't matter if that deficit comes from exercise or food intake, if you are not eating to fuel your body and your activity level, you're doing it wrong.
Yeah that helps to clear a good amount of things up. However, why can't someone that weighs 150 maintain a calorie deficit of 1000 calories. I understand the lean muscle loss. But what if the person was eating enough protein and nutrients while lifting weights 3-4 times a week, targeting all muscle groups periodically? And why else would it be a bad idea?
One reason is that it's hard to maintain that deficit long term simply because the body gets so hungry. Too large of a deficit is associated with eventual binging/overeating.
You make a good point. I noticed that when there's an excessive calorie deficit that is too high for the performance of your activity, it usually leads to overeating and binging. However, isn't that a will power situation? Couldn't someone with a high drive, motivation and discipline be able to do that? People say it's "hard to do" or "it can't be done." But isn't that just setting limits? Limits made by society. Once someone breaks it people realize it's possible. Example of Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mark when running a mile. No one did before but after it was broken, hundreds and hundreds of people have done it including high school students. Going beyond what is capable is where growth happens.
Running that large of a deficit will also affect your workouts. I can't lift as much if I'm not eating enough. If I can't lift as much, eventually I'll lose muscle. At which point, I definitely can't lift as much, which means I'll lose more muscle. And I'll still be hungry.
Why make losing weight harder than it needs to be?
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"
? Wut ?
I believe this is where the OP is talking about "mindset" etc.
Agreed that Mindset can often out perform an under nourished diet, but that was not the original question. The answers you have been provided are accurate and I would concur that more research is needed.
However if you still feel that the laws of physics are merely a suggestion... My recommendation would be to try it. Try your method for 2-3 weeks and see if "growth" in the form of physical gains are made i.e. muscle growth. In that severe of a deficit the laws of physics will soon enough catch up
0 -
If a person were to eat what they needed to replace what they burned without exercise and then burned an additional 1000 calories with exercise, they would lose weight at approximately 2 lbs a week. Theoretically, the exercise, combined with sufficient nutrients, would prevent the loss of muscle mass.0
-
IconStillFree wrote: »
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"
That tenacity pushes you beyond perceived limitations but not past real limitations. That drive allows you to overcome the mental hurdles of exhaustion and press further/harder than you would otherwise feel able but if there is not a source of energy to be burned as fuel to power the muscle it will not function no matter how driven the mind is.0 -
I love the irony of the statement requesting not to comment without a clear understanding, yet the OP's views and premise is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read on these forums.
Laws of physics are merely a suggestion.. .yea let me know how that works out for you.0 -
IconStillFree wrote: »
What's the force that makes you move? You could easily argue science but at the same time what makes one person more athletic than the other? Hard work? Genetics? Training? In the Summer Olympics, the 100 meter run is full of contestants that have trained years and years and years for the event. Learning, preparing and readying themselves. However, when the race starts, they all know there can only be 1 first place winner. That drive to win comes into play. The tenacity to win. That will force that makes you push a little harder. That power that comes from an unrecognized source.
Same goes for when you're working out, if you don't have enough food you don't have the biological energy. But that tenacity is still a source. You know that feeling you get when you're on you're 12 rep of the third set at the end of your workout? You're whole body is exhausted but you keep pushing. Keep pushing. Keep pushing. And then the growth happens.
"The laws of physics are merely a suggestion"
You know that feeling when you descent into a squat and simply cannot get up again, your body just cannot do it no matter how hard you push?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions