The way you look when flexing vs. not flexing.

drewlfitness

nossmf wrote: »

I don't worry about looking flexed even when not, but it sure would be nice to be able to sit down and not have my gut look like I instantly gained 50 pounds compared to my gut when standing.

Agreed. I would be a perfect candidate for a before-after comparison on a TV commercial advertising diet pills. I could pose for both the before and after photo within minutes of each other.

drewlfitness

AllanMisner wrote: »

drewlamonte wrote: »

Gotcha. So when people say that your body chooses to keep fat over muscle, in response to taking in few calories, they aren't being specific enough on what "too few calories" really is? In other words, eating even as low as 1200 calories a day isn't low enough to cause your body to think it's deprived, thus prioritizing muscle burn over fat?

drewlamonte wrote: »

Also, I'm doing a calorie deficit, but also lifting heavy.

I do have muscle on my body. I used to be able to squat 450 and bench 315. I'm no serious body builder though, unless I actually am and I don't know it.

If you aren't lifting and you go on an extreme low calorie, your body will sacrifice both fat and muscle to cover the deficit (the amount of each depends on your genetics). If you're lifting and providing yourself with enough protein, you'll likely retain much of the muscle and just lose fat (again, genetics has some say here, but the stimulus and protein provide incentive to stay stronger/more muscular).

When you go on a deficit, your body has to decide what to keep going and what to let go. The brain is going to win out over everything else. Then, everything else is prioritized based on how long the body can stay alive. Lifting heavy signals your body that you need muscle/strength to do what you're doing, so it will more likely go for the fat (up to a point). There will be a point where you're going too deep (less than 1000 calories), and then your body may stop you from being able to lift (again, to stay alive it needs your liver and kidneys to keep functioning along with the brain). And below that, certain organs and other biological functions may stop happening.

I have a slight disconnect between "lifting heavy" and "used to be able to" since I lift heavy (have been for two years now) and I'm lifting right around where my max lifts were in my mid 20s. Heavy is relative to max lifts after all.

Appreciate the way you explained this. I didn't realize that if you lift while also taking in calories on a deficit, you'll be less likely to "burn muscle" because your body feels it has a need for muscle.

After my freshman year of college, where I gained about 40lbs from drinking alcohol and eating pizza, I decided to go on a diet to lose the weight. But what I did was apparently the wrong way to do it, as I decided not only cut calories but also do daily cardio, and barely lift.

I shrunk down my waist size by a lot, my legs became much "skinnier" than before, and my overall body weight was much lower. I lost all 40 lbs in about 4-6 months. But, I could tell that I had lost a lot of muscle, a lot.

This time around, I'm lifting heavy, and also working under a deficit, in hopes that I notice my body to tighten up and for the "chubby" layer of fat to reduce itself, but this time my #1 goal isn't to lose 40lbs. I just want to lower my body fat percentage. Ofcourse I do hope to drop a couple waist sizes, and for my overall body weight to decrease, but I'll take lowered body fat % over muscle loss.

The question I am thinking about now, is, what is the deal with people who say you need to lift less weight and high reps in order to "cut"? Sounds like doing that could simply be a waste of time, or perhaps an old way of thinking. A few replies on here and another thread have people saying that lifting "heavy" is very important. So maybe the "high reps with less weight" approach is a false myth, or maybe it simply accomplishes a different set of goals, none being to lower body fat %.