What's the ideal calorie deficit to lose fat and gain muscle?

junkmail4379

I know that in order to lose weight, there must be a calorie deficit between calories consumed and calories burnt. But I also know that it takes calories to build muscle. I'm told that it's possible to do both at the same time. That is, you can be in a calorie deficit in order to lose fat and still have enough calories to build muscle. But if the calorie deficit is too big, you not only lose fat but you burn muscle too.

So my question is: what is the ideal deficit to lose fat while at the same time build muscle? 300 calories? 500? 1000? At what point is the deficit so big that you start to burn muscle as well as fat?

Since I know the answer will depend on the individual, I will say that I am a 5'9" 46 year old male. I weigh roughly 200lb. If you need any more information than that, please ask.

Thanks!

lynn_glenmont

I don't know that there's a specific number we can point to with certainty but in general, the smaller the deficit, the better your chance of being able to build muscle in a deficit. I would recommend keeping the deficit below 500 kcal. 300 sounds like a good starting point. Don't forget to get plenty of protein and, of course, engage in a progressive resistance program.

Retroguy2000

You need energy to build muscle. Calories you eat are energy. Stored fat is also energy.

Lynn is correct.

If you're new to weights, you can also get beginner gains.

Depending on your goals and time frame, it may be faster to focus on cut then bulk/maingain. You can preserve muscle as best you can during the cut with lifting and a lot of protein.

neanderthin

Losing fat while build muscle is a theoretic possibility, no doubt about it and can be done but if you have an appreciable amount of fat to lose and you want to build muscle during this time, well imo, that's a fools errand and very frustrating trying to see any appreciable fat lose and muscle gain week after week, simply because of the narrow calorie deficits required and the inaccuracy of counting calories in general. This is more suited for people that have a smaller mount of body fat and make the decision to reduce body fat lower while maintaining or hopefully building muscle or minimizing fat gain while dedicating their diet to increasing muscle mass and is basically what is referred to as body recomposition, which is what I'm doing at the moment but

If your looking to lose a decent amount of body fat and from what you've divulged I'd say that you probably do, then imo, I'd recommend that you concentrated on fat lose primarily while minimizing muscle loss, which is more about diet and weight training with a decent amount of quality protein while endorsing a decent progressive overload weight regime and when your down to a more desirable overall weight then take on the exacting and surgical attempts at body recomposition, sorry for the descriptors, but that's how it feels at the moment trying to get to my goal with mm current recomp. Cheers and good luck with whatever you decide.

junkmail4379

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

jbs116

Yep, if you are a beginner lifter and/or have a lot of fat to lose you can certainly do both at the same time. A 5'9 male that weighs 200 probably means you do not have a crazy amount of fat to lose.

Bottom line... Prioritize one thing. Eat and train accordingly until you reach your goal in that area. Then prioritize the next thing. Otherwise you will likely spin your wheels and not make much progress with losing weight OR gaining muscle. I speak from experience.

neanderthin

jbshow wrote: »

Yep, if you are a beginner lifter and/or have a lot of fat to lose you can certainly do both at the same time. A 5'9 male that weighs 200 probably means you do not have a crazy amount of fat to lose.

Bottom line... Prioritize one thing. Eat and train accordingly until you reach your goal in that area. Then prioritize the next thing. Otherwise you will likely spin your wheels and not make much progress with losing weight OR gaining muscle. I speak from experience.

What is considered "a crazy amount"? I'm asking because it's all relative I'm guessing from an overweight perspective but I suspect theirs probably 40 or 50 lbs that could be lost. I'm just over 6' and 185 and looking at a small recomp to 190ish for a comparison for example.

nossmf

I'm 5'9" (same as OP) and weigh 190, and will say that I do not have 40-50lbs of fat I can lose.

Think about this, @junkmail4379. If you focus on losing fat while maintaining the muscle you already have, you'll appear more muscular as the fat hiding it is stripped away. An old personal trainer once told me you can get a better shoulders/waist ratio by either losing fat around the middle or gaining muscle up top, since it's often the ratio which is visually appealing more so than the actual amount of muscle itself. Keep the protein up, weight train, and cut calories by 300-500 to shed some fat away, and you'll LOOK more muscular. Then once you get down to your desired weight, you can reverse course and add 300-500 calories, still with protein and weights, to increase muscle further.

neanderthin

nossmf wrote: »

I'm 5'9" (same as OP) and weigh 190, and will say that I do not have 40-50lbs of fat I can lose.

Think about this, @junkmail4379. If you focus on losing fat while maintaining the muscle you already have, you'll appear more muscular as the fat hiding it is stripped away. An old personal trainer once told me you can get a better shoulders/waist ratio by either losing fat around the middle or gaining muscle up top, since it's often the ratio which is visually appealing more so than the actual amount of muscle itself. Keep the protein up, weight train, and cut calories by 300-500 to shed some fat away, and you'll LOOK more muscular. Then once you get down to your desired weight, you can reverse course and add 300-500 calories, still with protein and weights, to increase muscle further.

I'm also sure there are 5'9" males that weight more than190 that have single digit body fat.

nossmf

Steven Jackson, a former running back for the (then) St Louis Rams, was 6'2" by 238 lbs. BMI-wise he was obese, but with single digit body fat he was simply a beast.