Tell me why? Only serious replies please.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

I switched to the TDEE methods several months ago. If you use the spreadsheet, you can track lean body mass. When you lose weight you will lose both lean body mass & fat mass no matter what. What you WANT to do is lose more Fat mass than LEAN mass. I can attest to the fact that the TDEE method works. I have lost some lean body mass, but much more fat mass. Your lean body mass is what drives your BMR, if you lose lean body mass (i.e. the muscle) then you BMR slows down. That is physiology NOT bro-science!!! Everyone's body works according to that physiologic rule! Lose muscle mass & your BMR will slow, no way around it. If you have been following all your measurements over the course of months/years, download the Excel spreadsheet from the "In place of a roadmap" thread & plug in your numbers going back in time; that way you can see the changes in your lean body mass, which have already occurred. I wouldn't endorse eating a net 1000 calories ever (I'm a physician), but if you're going to try, at least follow your numbers, so you can see your changes in lean body mass. If you start dropping precipitously, then "get out"! I don't think it will take long to see that 1000 calories isn't healthy!

Yes I have done the TDEE method and it does work. My trainer recommended a cut. I just thought if I ate more BMR but netted lower. I would still get my nutrients from food. My body could still use the calories I eat for brain fuction and etc then use fat for the burn but maybe I am missing something.

I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken? One of the issues with rapid weightloss is not just decreased lean mass (which means that you may be making your weight loss goals, but you'll spend more time than necessary chasing the bf% goals), but also to do with appearance and stretched skin. The slower you lose the weight the more your skin will rebound with your body. You may always be a little lose around the edges, but not so much as with unusually rapid weight loss. It's no certainty, but it give you a better chance.

deksgrl

I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken?

Because she is only going to the trainer for 5 weeks and she went in with a goal to lower BF% as much as possible while she still has the trainer. The trainer is complying with that goal/request and is simply giving the paying customer what she wants, rather than what she would probably normally recommend if she was a long term client.

joleenl

Will you still sacrifice lean mass even with high protein, amino acid supplements and weight training? I want to preserve muscle mass. I only can afford my trainer for another 5 weeks so I had planned to do a cut (like a body builders) during that time to maximize my results with her. I don't plan to do this long term. I will go back to a TDEE-20% deficit or eating back my exercise calories (via MFP) at the end of the 5 weeks. I want to do lifting for life but not the huge deficit.

With a calorie deficit that big? Yes.

Your body can only generate so many calories a day from fat. The more fat mass you have, the more calories your body can generate per day from fat. That's why we tell people that people with more fat to lose can run larger deficits. That's all well and good, but the fact remains that as you increase the calories your body has to generate from its own mass, you increase the proportion of those calories that come from non-fat mass.

Your method will, necessarily, result in more lean mass loss than the slower more reasonable approach that pretty much everyone recommends. It will also make you feel worse.

Thanks for the reply.

I think what I will do, is each week I will have my trainer test my bodyfat and lean bodymass percentages and at the first site of loss of lean bodymass I will stop. I can't argue with how my body responds no matter what the logic is. I do want to do this safely. I do want to lose weight and gain strength for life not just temporarily. I just was trying to maximize my results during my last few weeks with my trainer with a cut.

I guess I only asked the question is because I though maybe the MFP community would have some articles to share in regards to health effects from netting low calories.

joleenl

I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken?

Because she is only going to the trainer for 5 weeks and she went in with a goal to lower BF% as much as possible while she still has the trainer. The trainer is complying with that goal/request and is simply giving the paying customer what she wants, rather than what she would probably normally recommend if she was a long term client.

Exactly!

caly_man

try searching here

http://scholar.google.com/

Showcase_Brodown

3. A calorie is a calorie (in regards to energy not nutrition)

Majoring in Nutrition Science - I want to scratch my eyes out everytime I read this!!

why?

because WHAT is in your food , and not in your food matters just as much as the energy (calorie) you gain from it!

Yes, nutrition is important as well and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but the original point had to do with the energy content. In that context, calories are equal. It was even qualified with "in regards to energy, not nutrition."

In that context, calories are completely irrelevant. Of course a calorie is a calorie outside the body, it is a fixed measurement. What use is that if when ingested, it is not the same?

I should have left it alone. Derail. Sorry.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Certainly calories are relevant inside the body as well. Calories are a measurement of energy, but "nutrition" encompasses much more than just the energy part. However, when we are talking about weight loss/gain, the energy balance (calories in vs. out) is what determines that.

joleenl

I think you should toss out the NET calorie count and just work off of totals.

If you were to tell people that you work out x times per week and eat roughly 1800 calories per day, nobody would bat an eye. I don't think that, given your stats, that is a low number at all.

I hear ya.

pheona76

A calorie is a calorie is way too over simplified for this discussion. That statements is generally used for people thinking as long as the food is good for me I can eat as much as I like and loose weight, which is not true.

Look not to be to wonky. I am a biochemist and I work with feeding single cell organisms and variuos biolocial systems every day of my life.

The condition of the biological system greatly affects its performance. If you stop feeding (or make food scarce) anything the system will react. This could mean low energy, failing to actually build muscle or even organs starting to fail. It of course varies from organism to organism how it will respond. And I am not telling you what to do. If you are under truly educated monitoring and you feel good you will have to judge what is right for you.

I personally have consumed with no adverse affects low caloric intake (high nutrition) diets for extend periods of time (not sure it was as low as you are desrcibing), but you are increasing your odds for a problem and you should not fool yourself on that.

mnflame

the most annoying part of this thread is the use of 'legitly' as a word!

Haha! This ^^ I was just thinking the same thing....

AlsDonkBoxSquat

I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken?

Because she is only going to the trainer for 5 weeks and she went in with a goal to lower BF% as much as possible while she still has the trainer. The trainer is complying with that goal/request and is simply giving the paying customer what she wants, rather than what she would probably normally recommend if she was a long term client.

Exactly!

I'm still coming back to the bf% centric question however, if your goal is to decrease bf% (the best way is to lose fat while preserving lean mass), why would the trainer recommend a severe cut? By do this you're always chasing a moving target, because you're losing more lean mass than you would be if you continue to eat moderately. The recommendation is also not a sustainable lifestyle, so by doing this you're actually not learning anything about a sustainable lifestyle by "doing".

You need to pick your focus, it's either weight loss or a beginning to get you set for a healthy way of attaining and maintaining a goal bf%. Not saying that you can't eventually get to your goal bf% this way, it's just going to look a lot different when you get there.

joleenl

try searching here

http://scholar.google.com/

Thanks!

So what is the point of the forums? Yes, I could of just googled it but I put on the forums on a fitness site. I was hoping people would share information. But the forums do what they always do... get derailed and trolled for the most part.

JDBLY11

You don't have much weight to go. Just aim for a .5-1lb a week loss. There is no reason to rush it. You aren't that unhealthy. Try 1300+ net to lose the weight if you don't have any medical problems.

jenn_zimm

Ugh.

deksgrl

But the forums do what they always do... get derailed and trolled for the most part.

Ignore the thread jacks and take the useful stuff.

joleenl

I'm curious if you still have a high BF% and TDEE is working for you why your trainer would recommend a cut. A cut cycle pretty much indicates that later on there will be a build cycle . . . this has a totally different purpose than your general weight loss goal. If you're being successful with TDEE, and you're happy with the steady pace results you're getting, why fix what ain't broken?

Because she is only going to the trainer for 5 weeks and she went in with a goal to lower BF% as much as possible while she still has the trainer. The trainer is complying with that goal/request and is simply giving the paying customer what she wants, rather than what she would probably normally recommend if she was a long term client.

Exactly!

I'm still coming back to the bf% centric question however, if your goal is to decrease bf% (the best way is to lose fat while preserving lean mass), why would the trainer recommend a severe cut? By do this you're always chasing a moving target, because you're losing more lean mass than you would be if you continue to eat moderately. The recommendation is also not a sustainable lifestyle, so by doing this you're actually not learning anything about a sustainable lifestyle by "doing".

You need to pick your focus, it's either weight loss or a beginning to get you set for a healthy way of attaining and maintaining a goal bf%. Not saying that you can't eventually get to your goal bf% this way, it's just going to look a lot different when you get there.

I am learning a lifestyle. A temporary cut is not my lifestyle. It's just maximizing results in a short time period. It's like a bodybuilder - on their off season they eat and work out then they do on their on season. I am using a cut as if I am training for a big sports competition. The only difference is there is no competition. I will go back to a more sustainable method after the 5 weeks.

My trainer is going to continuously monitor my %BF and % lean body mass and if I see a loss in the % lean body mass,,,, I will immediately stop. I agree - if I lose lean body mass this is counter productive to my goals.

joleenl

But the forums do what they always do... get derailed and trolled for the most part.

Ignore the thread jacks and take the useful stuff.

yep.

cynthiaj777

I am actually serious people. I like food too. I eat more then 1000 calories everyday. I NET LESS then 1000. I aint doing it for life. I am doing it as temporary cut. Like cycling between cuts and bulks.

And as soon as you eat more or work out less, you will gain it back because you will have ruined your metabolism by eating so few calories, and you will have made your body get used to functioning on such low net calories.

Once you change your lifestyle, the weight will come back on. So, you either always net 1000 calories after ruining your metabolism or because you "ain't doing it for life," you'll gain it back. I learned the hardway with calorie cutting. Took me a LONG time to correct it.

Why not just lose it in a more healthy way that allows you to retain the weight loss? Hell...net even 1200-1300. You will still be getting in all your nutritions (if you eat healthy), and you will have enough energy. I used to eat at net 700-800 calories because I have such high calorie burns, and I never realized how crappy I really felt. I started upping my calories over the last year, and I now eat around 2300 calories a day and net 1500-1800 (depending on the work out for the day). I haven't gained any weight upping my calories intake and decreasing my calorie burn over the last YEAR (I now lift instead of focusing on cardio). Had I simply went from eating net 800 calories to eating net 1800, my body would have freaked out and I would have gained weight instead of metabolism endurance/health. The point is: it is either a lifestyle change or a change that will take you years to fix. You can't just hit it then quit it like that. You will have consequences.

QuirkyD

I have worked with an amazing body builder nutritionist in the past and ended up feeling sadly betrayed. Beware that a body builder might not know what someone with a weight problem goes through. People who have never had a weight problem have different body responses to food.
Your calories seem way to low to me. Unless you are super human and unlike most who extreme diet, you will gain it back. Calories in and calories out is not true. You might learn something from this BBC documentary

10 Things You Need to know about Weight loss---

http://www.4shared.com/video/b0q_qDEj/10_things_you_need_to_know_abo.htm

3foldchord

my goal right now it so lose bf%. I eat 1500 calories a day (TDEE -12%) and eat 120-140 grams of protein and lift heavy.
My body fat is going down at a nice rate. I don't have a lot to go *started at 27% with a goal of 22%. went down from 27% to 23% in about 4 months. to me, that is a good rate, gradual and sustainable to live my life.

not sure why you want to go down lot in the 5 weeks of having the trainer. You don't need a trainer to keep progressing and you can maintain your level of progress after your 5 weeks. I only saw a trainer 3 times and that was just to work on lifting form, we never talked BF%.

pluckabee

I should have left it alone. Derail. Sorry.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. Certainly calories are relevant inside the body as well. Calories are a measurement of energy, but "nutrition" encompasses much more than just the energy part. However, when we are talking about weight loss/gain, the energy balance (calories in vs. out) is what determines that.

The composition of the food that makes up calories in will affect the variable calories out. So while the equation technically makes sense, it cannot be used reliably because you dont have complete control over the second variable.