High deficit - opinions

DX2JX2

heybales wrote: »

DX2JX2 wrote: »

emrahm23 wrote: »

Hi everyone I am new to dieting and want to get your feedback on my weight loss plan.

I am 30 yrs old, 6'2 and 240kg, currently going into my third week of a diet and exercise program.

My maintenance calories come in a little over 3000 per day. I am currently eating 1500 calories per day, and one day a week I have a high calorie day which is anywhere between 2500 and 3000 calories. 5 days a week I ride the exercise bike at my gym which burns 500 calories per session, or 2500 per week.

I know that I need a 7500 calorie deficit per week to lose 1kg (2lbs) which I have no problem with, as I am averaging a deficit of approx 8500 per week, which I plan to continue for 6 more weeks, and then reduce the deficit to a more acceptable level.

My question is, has anyone tried a 1500 calorie deficit before and what has you experience been? I've read online that a high deficit is not necessarily a good thing, but I've lost 3kg in 2 weeks and seeing a tangible result increases my motivation to do better. Knowing myself if I had a lower deficit and only lost a marginal amount after 2 weeks of strict diet and painful exercise I would lose motivation and give up, as has happened numerous times in the past. To that end I like the fact that results are visible quickly, and I want to see if anyone else out there has had similar experiences and if you have any recommendations.

OP - this will fly directly in the face of some of the conservative advice generally given on this board, but like you, I started at 6'2" and 230 pounds. I ate a net of 1500 calories per day for the duration of my weight loss efforts (intake less exercise calories) and was absolutely fine. My nails haven't fallen out, I still have the hair I started with, and I'm fairly certain that my brain is still functioning properly.


The advice to lose at a moderated pace is generally because of two issues: 1.) falling below the calorie level your body needs just to survive, and 2.) a very large deficit makes it too mentally hard on yourself to sustain your efforts and can lead towards binges and reverting back to old ways.

Totally forgot about the big #3 - loss of muscle mass.

Those other side effects mentioned are results of body not able to slow you down daily enough to leave enough calories for basic metabolism functions.

OP would lose muscle mass anyway during weight loss provided that there is no resistance exercise added. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how would eating more prevent the loss of muscle? If anything, wouldn't it only slow the overall weight loss (and thus, slow the related muscle loss)?

All else equal, wouldn't the OP still lose the same amount of muscle for a given total weight loss regardless of how long it took to achieve that weight loss?

BTW - I swear I'm not posing an argument as hypothetical questions, these are truly questions. I have never heard of the notion that muscle loss in proportion to total weight loss changes with calorie levels.

Tacklewasher

DX2JX2 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I'm about your weight and trying to lose 1.5 lbs per week. Biggest fear for me for losing more than 2 lbs for me is gallstones.

From here https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/gallstones

Rapid weight loss. As the body breaks down fat during prolonged fasting and rapid weight loss, the liver secretes extra cholesterol into bile. Rapid weight loss can also prevent the gallbladder from emptying properly. Low-calorie diets and bariatric surgery—surgery that limits the amount of food a person can eat or digest—lead to rapid weight loss and increased risk of gallstones.

Being overweight also increases your chances for gallstones.

In the gallstone study, something like 1% of people on a calorie restricted diet developed gallstones and of that 1%, approximately 75% of them were on a 'crash' diet of 500 calories per day. Studies suggest that a loss of 3 pounds is the upper limit before gallstone risks increase. At a 1500 calorie/day deficit plus one day per week at a smaller deficit (<2.5 pounds per week), the OP wouldn't seem to trigger much extra risk. I don't disagree that the risk is out there, I'm just saying that it's no more or less than what most people trying to lose weight face.

Do you have a link to the study (or is it on the page I linked to)? I'd love to read it.

Thanks

Tacklewasher

I agree with the bulk and tone of your post. Just one thing

Quasita wrote: »

Here's the thing... If you were healthfully and safely cutting 1500+ calories a day, you would be losing more than 1.5kg per week.

1500 would lead to ~ 3 lbs per week. So a little less than the 1.5kg per week. Given rounding, it does sound about right

Please, be safe.

Agree 100%

DX2JX2

Tacklewasher wrote: »

DX2JX2 wrote: »

Tacklewasher wrote: »

I'm about your weight and trying to lose 1.5 lbs per week. Biggest fear for me for losing more than 2 lbs for me is gallstones.

From here https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/gallstones

Rapid weight loss. As the body breaks down fat during prolonged fasting and rapid weight loss, the liver secretes extra cholesterol into bile. Rapid weight loss can also prevent the gallbladder from emptying properly. Low-calorie diets and bariatric surgery—surgery that limits the amount of food a person can eat or digest—lead to rapid weight loss and increased risk of gallstones.

Being overweight also increases your chances for gallstones.

In the gallstone study, something like 1% of people on a calorie restricted diet developed gallstones and of that 1%, approximately 75% of them were on a 'crash' diet of 500 calories per day. Studies suggest that a loss of 3 pounds is the upper limit before gallstone risks increase. At a 1500 calorie/day deficit plus one day per week at a smaller deficit (<2.5 pounds per week), the OP wouldn't seem to trigger much extra risk. I don't disagree that the risk is out there, I'm just saying that it's no more or less than what most people trying to lose weight face.

Do you have a link to the study (or is it on the page I linked to)? I'd love to read it.

Thanks

It's not on the page you linked to but you can google "Sweden Gallstones Weight Loss" to get the abstract. The study itself points towards a threefold increase in gallstone risk for crash dieters (500 calories per day) vs. low calorie dieters (1200-1500 calories per day). The abstract does not say if the study concluded on a limit for safe weight loss, but a number of internet sources say that researchers point towards 1.5kg (3.3lbs) per week as the borderline between normal and increased gallstone risk.

Tacklewasher

@DX2JX2 Thanks.

heybales

DX2JX2 wrote: »

heybales wrote: »

DX2JX2 wrote: »

emrahm23 wrote: »

Hi everyone I am new to dieting and want to get your feedback on my weight loss plan.

I am 30 yrs old, 6'2 and 240kg, currently going into my third week of a diet and exercise program.

My maintenance calories come in a little over 3000 per day. I am currently eating 1500 calories per day, and one day a week I have a high calorie day which is anywhere between 2500 and 3000 calories. 5 days a week I ride the exercise bike at my gym which burns 500 calories per session, or 2500 per week.

I know that I need a 7500 calorie deficit per week to lose 1kg (2lbs) which I have no problem with, as I am averaging a deficit of approx 8500 per week, which I plan to continue for 6 more weeks, and then reduce the deficit to a more acceptable level.

My question is, has anyone tried a 1500 calorie deficit before and what has you experience been? I've read online that a high deficit is not necessarily a good thing, but I've lost 3kg in 2 weeks and seeing a tangible result increases my motivation to do better. Knowing myself if I had a lower deficit and only lost a marginal amount after 2 weeks of strict diet and painful exercise I would lose motivation and give up, as has happened numerous times in the past. To that end I like the fact that results are visible quickly, and I want to see if anyone else out there has had similar experiences and if you have any recommendations.

OP - this will fly directly in the face of some of the conservative advice generally given on this board, but like you, I started at 6'2" and 230 pounds. I ate a net of 1500 calories per day for the duration of my weight loss efforts (intake less exercise calories) and was absolutely fine. My nails haven't fallen out, I still have the hair I started with, and I'm fairly certain that my brain is still functioning properly.


The advice to lose at a moderated pace is generally because of two issues: 1.) falling below the calorie level your body needs just to survive, and 2.) a very large deficit makes it too mentally hard on yourself to sustain your efforts and can lead towards binges and reverting back to old ways.

Totally forgot about the big #3 - loss of muscle mass.

Those other side effects mentioned are results of body not able to slow you down daily enough to leave enough calories for basic metabolism functions.

OP would lose muscle mass anyway during weight loss provided that there is no resistance exercise added. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but how would eating more prevent the loss of muscle? If anything, wouldn't it only slow the overall weight loss (and thus, slow the related muscle loss)?

All else equal, wouldn't the OP still lose the same amount of muscle for a given total weight loss regardless of how long it took to achieve that weight loss?

BTW - I swear I'm not posing an argument as hypothetical questions, these are truly questions. I have never heard of the notion that muscle loss in proportion to total weight loss changes with calorie levels.

No to your questions - minor deficit by itself has shown to retain muscle mass in studies.
Now - these were people that were merely daily active and stayed such - so the muscle they had for daily life continued to be used the same amount, albeit with less weight as time went on. So it's not like a body-builder prior with excess muscle to worry about.

Just as it's been shown with a minor deficit not eating a lot of protein (as commonly recommended but still hitting FDA guidelines) and resistance training retain muscle mass.

But for the general masses that aren't measured out the whazoo and would prefer not to skate the line of muscle loss or no loss - recommendation is to do all 3 things that will help - reasonable deficit, more than minimal protein, resistance training.

The deficit (and the bodies ability to partition the food it does get) seems to be the biggest factor in there.
Just as someone that eats in surplus or maintenance after gaining fat, but stopped resistance training a long time ago, have been found to keep their muscle/strength though unused basically. Body has no need to not build it back up because it's getting enough food to sustain it.

So no - the same % amount of muscle mass isn't going to be lost eventually no matter the deficit amount. You can have 0 loss.

Now, LBM will drop, because you need less blood volume, less interstitial water, ect.