Cut more calories or add cardio?

MDC2957

I'm cutting to get body fat % down. Eating just over 2,000 at 38, 6'1", 185. Is it better to add cardio to burn more, or cut more calories? I've lost about 4 lbs since early September.

Riff1970

I think both will work but from what I've been reading, diet is for weight control and cardio is for heart health.

At 185 and 6'1", you must be pretty lean already, no?

sijomial

My preference is to exercise more and eat more as I enjoy both my exercise and my food - for me that's a win/win.
In terms of fat loss only then it's probably unlikely to be significantly different assuming you are also strength training while you cut.

Other benefits:

• Nutritional needs are easier to hit on a higher calorie allowance.
• Personally I find adherence easier with a high food intake and high exercise levels compared to the same calorie deficit created just by reducing calorie intake.
• CV health and fitness level.

amusedmonkey

It's up to you, what would feel easier?

I do better, personally, with more activity because I get to eat more. Cutting calories down further feels like punishment, but adding activity feels like being proactive with my health, both mental and physical.

funjen1972

Doesnt matter, just do what works for you. Also, it doesn't need to be an either - or situation. Adding some cardio and eating a bit less would work, too.

Burton_Bmc

If you add more cardio, you tend to lose muscle mass too. I am a long distance runner, not into bulking since I have to carry it around. Eat healthily, and keep what you are doing, slowly but gradually your fat percentage goes down. Another way is like me, follow Keto, since I follow it, my endurance increased, got leaner, lost the problem area fat. FYI, I'm 6"3 and come from 220 pounds down to 165. Yes, I know, scrawny, though a good enough runner All depends on your goals.

amusedmonkey

Burton_Bmc wrote: »

If you add more cardio, you tend to lose muscle mass too. I am a long distance runner, not into bulking since I have to carry it around. Eat healthily, and keep what you are doing, slowly but gradually your fat percentage goes down. Another way is like me, follow Keto, since I follow it, my endurance increased, got leaner, lost the problem area fat. FYI, I'm 6"3 and come from 220 pounds down to 165. Yes, I know, scrawny, though a good enough runner All depends on your goals.

Muscle loss will be minimal if he's doing progressive resistance and if his cardio doesn't end up creating too large of a deficit causing him to lose weight too fast.

jdog022

How much cardio are you currently doing? I am of the add more cardio camp before dipping into cals

jgnatca

The stat that is missing is how much cardio are you doing now?

There’s a tipping point where adding cardio hurts you.

I found my tipping point when my knees started to go. I dialled back slightly and problem resolved.

mmapags

My question is a little different. If you've lost 4 lbs in about 5 weeks, why go faster and risk losing muscle mass. The idea of a slow cut has the similar benefits to a slow bulk. In a slow bulk you minimize the amount of fat you gain. In a slow cut, you minimize the amount of muscle you lose. Just a thought.

TavistockToad

mmapags wrote: »

My question is a little different. If you've lost 4 lbs in about 5 weeks, why go faster and risk losing muscle mass. The idea of a slow cut has the similar benefits to a slow bulk. In a slow bulk you minimize the amount of fat you gain. In a slow cut, you minimize the amount of muscle you lose. Just a thought.

this.... why do you want a faster rate of loss?

deannalfisher

lots of info missing...

current body fat %/goal %
aside from cardio what is your current routine - are you lifting weights? doign some kind of progressive strength

quiksylver296

What is your goal? Is it a physical look? Because I suspect you should lift heavy, following a proven progressive lifting program and not cut calories or add cardio.

sardelsa

How much cardio are you doing? It seems like you are already at pretty big deficit (at 2000 cals for your stats) not sure why you want to add to that. Maybe add cardio and more calories?? More cardio while keeping cals the same could impact your lifting performance, which is not good for muscle retention. Keep that in mind.

sgt1372

I exercise more (rowing) to eat more with the goal maintaining my weight at current levels. Maintenance for me at 150# is 1850 but am trying to eat 2400 cal/day while burning about 550 cals/day rowing.

However, the reality is that I still eat at a slight deficit and have continued to lose weight at about 8/10th# per month over the past 12 months doing this. That's a loss of 10# in the past year.

Not a "problem" yet but 150 is my lower wt limit and it I continue to lose more, I'll have to eat more or exercise less.

jseams1234

I'm just going to link this from Lyle: Size of Deficit and Muscle Catabolism – Q&A

https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/size-of-deficit-and-muscle-catabolism-qa.html/

"Question: Hello Lyle, as you know in Bodybuilding there are two phases to build muscle (off-season) and to strip off excess fat. When you want to get rid of excess fat there are different ways to plan the deficit. You can use a low, medium or high deficit. The question to me is, what is the best way to keep muscle during that period (steroid free). You need to have a deficit and therefore you also will lose muscle. Let’s say, you are at the end of your bulking phase with 20% body fat and start dieting from there until you get to your 10% mark. Is there a difference in terms of muscle loss (catabolism) when you do it slowly with up to 500 kcal deficit or more aggressively with a deficit of 1000 kcal?? Both scenarios end when you hit the 10% mark! Do you have research on that?

Answer: Ok, first let me start with a big assumption in the above which is that you must lose muscle on a diet. This has been taken as fact for years and I’ll be honest that I used to repeat it many years ago. But it’s not really true. A lot of early dieting practices, much of which came out of the drug fuelled 80’s (and which didn’t work for naturals) do allow muscle loss. But it doesn’t have to happen if you do things right...

...The problem early on was that dieters tried to do what drug users were doing. They dropped heavy weight training for high-rep/short-rest training; that causes muscle loss. They tried to maintain the same lower protein (and naturals need much more protein to spare LBM); in his review Eric Helms recommends up to 2.3-3.1 g/kg (1.1-1.4 g/lb) which is exactly what I recommended in the Protein Book in 2007...

...Now, I’m not recommending that all dieters follow fast fat loss diets. But it’s pretty clear that given sufficient protein and training, any LBM loss is minimal overall. And it’s not much greater with fast fat loss. So most of these old ideas floating around are actually wrong. You don’t have to lose muscle and if you get sufficient protein, heavy training and don’t go nuts on cardio, you won’t lose more with a faster fat loss than with a slower fat loss. And you can get back to non-dieting training sooner."

mmapags

jseams1234 wrote: »

I'm just going to link this from Lyle: Size of Deficit and Muscle Catabolism – Q&A

https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/size-of-deficit-and-muscle-catabolism-qa.html/

"Question: Hello Lyle, as you know in Bodybuilding there are two phases to build muscle (off-season) and to strip off excess fat. When you want to get rid of excess fat there are different ways to plan the deficit. You can use a low, medium or high deficit. The question to me is, what is the best way to keep muscle during that period (steroid free). You need to have a deficit and therefore you also will lose muscle. Let’s say, you are at the end of your bulking phase with 20% body fat and start dieting from there until you get to your 10% mark. Is there a difference in terms of muscle loss (catabolism) when you do it slowly with up to 500 kcal deficit or more aggressively with a deficit of 1000 kcal?? Both scenarios end when you hit the 10% mark! Do you have research on that?

Answer: Ok, first let me start with a big assumption in the above which is that you must lose muscle on a diet. This has been taken as fact for years and I’ll be honest that I used to repeat it many years ago. But it’s not really true. A lot of early dieting practices, much of which came out of the drug fuelled 80’s (and which didn’t work for naturals) do allow muscle loss. But it doesn’t have to happen if you do things right...

...The problem early on was that dieters tried to do what drug users were doing. They dropped heavy weight training for high-rep/short-rest training; that causes muscle loss. They tried to maintain the same lower protein (and naturals need much more protein to spare LBM); in his review Eric Helms recommends up to 2.3-3.1 g/kg (1.1-1.4 g/lb) which is exactly what I recommended in the Protein Book in 2007...

...Now, I’m not recommending that all dieters follow fast fat loss diets. But it’s pretty clear that given sufficient protein and training, any LBM loss is minimal overall. And it’s not much greater with fast fat loss. So most of these old ideas floating around are actually wrong. You don’t have to lose muscle and if you get sufficient protein, heavy training and don’t go nuts on cardio, you won’t lose more with a faster fat loss than with a slower fat loss. And you can get back to non-dieting training sooner."

Good info! Thanks for posting this.

Unknown

This content has been removed.