1500 Cal Deficit daily

brandonpruitt56

Im a 33 old Male at a weight of 370lbs. My BMI maint cals is around 3000 a day. So If I follow a Half of that 1500 a day I should make progress right?
Ps Im weight lifting as well 3 to 4 days a week with doing incline cardio 6 days a week and I walk until I hit 400 to 500 cals. Meal Ideas so that I get to 200g or more protein a day?

AnnPT77

A 50% deficit isn't a great idea, IMO. You don't say how tall you are or what your goal weight is, though. 1500 calories below estimated TDEE would be 3 pounds a week estimated loss. I'm not sure what you mean by "BMI maint cals". If you mean BMR, that isn't TDEE. BMR is how much you'd burn flat on your back in a coma, not even eating/digesting. You could be aiming for faster than 3 pounds a week, which is pretty extreme.

If it's your BMR (basal metabolic rate) that is 3000, which is not unreasonable at your age/weight, and you do 400-500+ calories of exercise most days, your TDEE is at least 3500, even before accounting for your daily life activity (non-exercise activity thermogenesis, NEAT - things like your job, home chores, non-exercise hobbies . . . all of which burn calories on top of your BMR).

One way to not make progress is to try a combination of extreme calorie restriction plus a major increase in exercise, which can be difficult to stick with (not to mention increasing health risks). A moderate, sensible weight loss rate can get a person to goal weight in less calendar time than an extreme regimen that causes deprivation-triggered over-eating, breaks in the action, or even giving up altogether.

If you need protein ideas, this thread may be helpful:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10247171/carbs-and-fats-are-cheap-heres-a-guide-to-getting-your-proteins-worth-fiber-also

I'm not trying to be mean or negative here. Even though I'm a total stranger, I'd love to see you succeed, because reaching reasonable fitness and a healthy weight has been a huge quality of life improvement for me. I wish it for everyone, sincerely.

Losing any meaningful total amount of weight - even doing it very fast - takes many weeks to months, even a small number of years. That puts a priority on finding a routine that doesn't require maximum deprivation and willpower for that whole time.

Then there's the real prize (IMO): Staying at a healthy weight long term after reaching goal. That depends on finding new, sustainable habits that can continue essentially forever almost on autopilot when other parts of life get demanding, because they will. Learning those habits and practicing them during weight loss is a plus.

Best wishes, sincerely!

tomcustombuilder

At your size you can run a big deficit, in fact it’s going to allow you to be to a healthier weight quicker which can overshadow some of the negatives from a low calorie diet.

Don’t feed the fat let the fat feed you.

cmriverside

Yeah, I agree with Tom. A big deficit when you're 370 might just save your life.

It won't be possible for the entire weight loss period, but the faster you lose that first 50 pounds, the better, really. The extreme amount of body fat you're carrying will be your fuel.

Definitely focus on sufficient protein and fat, and try to get in 4-6 servings of WHOLE fruit and/or vegetables.

kshama2001

There's no doubt you'll make progress on 1500 calories per day. That's the bare minimum for men. Read this and substitute 1500 for 1200 and men for women: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/1200-calorie-diet/

Like Ann said above, a 50% deficit is generally much higher than recommended.

I'm usually in the "have a moderate weekly rate of loss" camp due to it being more sustainable. The next two posters are recommending fast weight loss initially. As a "My 600 Pound Life" viewer, if you were 600 pounds I'd agree with them. With your current weight, weighing the risks of fast weight loss vs being close to 400 pounds is probably a discussion to be had with your doctor.

PAV8888

I would not aim for more than 1.5% of body weight per week.

Would reduce to 1% per week 2-3 months in or as soon as compliance issues crept up. Keeping it going is more important than how fast.

Would not hesitate to continue reducing to up to 0.5% of body weight per week for sustainability of effort and better compliance especially a few more months down the road.

3000 is sedentary estimate. Person sounds fairly active considering and willing to engage in activity. Real tdee could easily be in the 4-5000 range. Heck at <half his weight and just over +75% older, I've still hit a 4000Cal tdee more than once this year. 10000 steps a day puts us at a 1.6 activity multiplier

Eating a real 2500 Cal over an extended time period would be good future training

Given errors in logging let's call it 2000 to start... 1500 sounds not quite enough if he is active.

1500+a portion of exercise calories sounds like a better longer term plan

For protein I would consider 1g per lb of BMI 25 weight as a good enough approximation of more than meeting any needs. 200g sounds a bit on the high side but sure if you want to...

tomcustombuilder

PAV8888 wrote: »

I would not aim for more than 1.5% of body weight per week.

...

That is 5 1\2 lbs a week

So a 4K Maintenance would be
1,500 calories per day and fewer if maintenance is lower.

Corina1143

Are you going to live the good life for many years to come eating 1500 calories a day and lifting weights, doing cardio, and walking most days? Or when you lose weight and your tdee is 1500 will you half it and eat 750 calories a day while still exercising?
You're in this for the long haul, like it or not.
Maybe right now you can't see past tomorrow. But think about it. When you lay down and say "I just can't do it anymore " what will you do? Right now you're headed that direction. Have your next step ready.
Good luck and Happy Trails on your journey to better health.

tomcustombuilder

Corina1143 wrote: »

Are you going to live the good life for many years to come eating 1500 calories a day and lifting weights, doing cardio, and walking most days? Or when you lose weight and your tdee is 1500 will you half it and eat 750 calories a day while still exercising?

It doesn't work like that.

tomcustombuilder

The proven max daily calorie deficit is 33 calories per lb of bodyfat you carry, illustrating how as you lose fat the deficit becomes smaller. However as you become lighter, maintenance decreases unless the lighter weight leads to more activity so it's a moving target. Point in fact, someone with a lot of fat can run a big deficit

PAV8888

CAN does not mean MUST and does not mean OPTIMUM for the person or situation.

The OP **CAN** run a large deficit. For how long it would be optimal to do so is a question. Whether they MUST do so is an even bigger question.

The ANY deficit they run successfully that results in a 10% reduction to their weight that last a few years WILL positively impact their health.

So a little bit with success beats shooting for the moon and giving up in a few months and regaining.

Sure. You can and should aim for more than the minimum.

But then you get to the other end and have the people who push and push and push from both ends: 50% or more deficit AND increase exercise. Lift weights. Rah Rah Rah. Biggest Loser. Rah Rah. Win. Rah Rah. Competition. Rah Rah Rah.

One injury. One weekend. One reversal that happens to the person who has already been strung to their limits. That's all it takes and it happens again and again.

People give up the impossible BECAUSE THEIR CHOICES AND WEIGHT LOSS METHODS have made it impossible. And regain it all.

So yeah. No!

Being able and willing to adjust and keep going is WAY more important than raw speed or rigid goals and optimized as in FASTEST weight loss. Optimize in a way that it actually HAPPENS is the only optimization that wins.

As you pointed out yourself I am not against a large deficit initially though I believe that 1% is a heck of a lot more sane than 1.5%. A 1.6 multiplier on 3000 is closer to 5K than 4 and it is far from impossible (also far from likely in other cases, this is a case by case thing).

The point is to help someone frame their weight loss in a context of sanity. If aiming for speed was the only thing needed then everyone would lose weight fast and never regain it.

tomcustombuilder

PAV8888 wrote: »

CAN does not mean MUST and does not mean OPTIMUM for the person or situation.

The OP **CAN** run a large deficit. For how long it would be optimal to do so is a question. Whether they MUST do so is an even bigger question.

The ANY deficit they run successfully that results in a 10% reduction to their weight that last a few years WILL positively impact their health.

So a little bit with success beats shooting for the moon and giving up in a few months and regaining.

Sure. You can and should aim for more than the minimum.

But then you get to the other end and have the people who push and push and push from both ends: 50% or more deficit AND increase exercise. Lift weights. Rah Rah Rah. Biggest Loser. Rah Rah. Win. Rah Rah. Competition. Rah Rah Rah.

One injury. One weekend. One reversal that happens to the person who has already been strung to their limits. That's all it takes and it happens again and again.

People give up the impossible BECAUSE THEIR CHOICES AND WEIGHT LOSS METHODS have made it impossible. And regain it all.

So yeah. No!

Being able and willing to adjust and keep going is WAY more important than raw speed or rigid goals and optimized as in FASTEST weight loss. Optimize in a way that it actually HAPPENS is the only optimization that wins.

As you pointed out yourself I am not against a large deficit initially though I believe that 1% is a heck of a lot more sane than 1.5%. A 1.6 multiplier on 3000 is closer to 5K than 4 and it is far from impossible (also far from likely in other cases, this is a case by case thing).

The point is to help someone frame their weight loss in a context of sanity. If aiming for speed was the only thing needed then everyone would lose weight fast and never regain it.

To each his own. The parameters of fatloss and deficits have boundaries. It’s up to the individual to decide how they want to move forward within those.

For clarity, CAN run a big deficit is a lot different than MUST run a big deficit.

AnnPT77

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

The proven max daily calorie deficit is 33 calories per lb of bodyfat you carry, illustrating how as you lose fat the deficit becomes smaller. However as you become lighter, maintenance decreases unless the lighter weight leads to more activity so it's a moving target. Point in fact, someone with a lot of fat can run a big deficit

Absolutely correct, in principal. And a useful concept for sure: Glad you brought it into the discussion.

However, it may not be wise to run that maximum deficit for reasons other than loss of muscle. That limit is about the point where there starts to be a serious hit on lean mass to make up the energy deficit, IMU.

For those into science geekery, here's a standard source (not the only study that made relevant estimates, of course, but they tend to be in a similar ballpark). If not into science geekery, don't open the spoiler.

The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

FM = Fat mass
FFM = fat free mass
290kJ = 69.3117 kCal
It's per kg d, so per calorie day, 31.5 (rounded)
There's an range of 25kJ per kJ, which is just a hair under six calories (5.975), which converts to 2.7 calories per pound.
Usually the publications I've seen say 31 calories/pound (not sure why), but that range (rounded to whole numbers) would be about 29 to 34 calories per pound per day. That's among young, active men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (that's what "Keys, et al. (1950)" is). The estimating methodology was somewhat indirect, as well, so this is an estimate, not exactly a measurement.

I know, I'm being pedantic. This finding isn't a proven or exact universal. The concept and approximate value lead to some interesting insights, though.

Personally, I wouldn't want to lose right up to that line, since it's not universal or exact, and it doesn't in itself support concluding that losing fat at the maximum rate has no other negative health effects. It's about losing fat vs. lean, not whether one's biochemistry and physiology keep functioning optimally or even well right up to that max.

I figure I have maybe 35-40ish pounds of FFM, give or take. That implies a maximum deficit of around 1100-1200 or so calories daily. A 2 pound a week loss rate (at 5'5", 135 pounds currently) wouldn't be good for my health. athletic performance or energy level, from experience. I had negative consequences from losing close to that accidentally when much heavier. Nutrition on 1000-ish calories (all I'd have left) wouldn't be optimal, either. For sure, the health/nutrition implications would vary individually with medical history, probably age, eating style, and more.

I agree that trying to lose faster than 31 kCal/lb/day is a really bad idea, sure. It might be a bad idea to even come close. It depends on how much risk a person likes to take, I guess. And that's without even considering sustainability for long enough to reach goal.

Corina1143

370 x 33 = 12,210.
370 x 31 = 11,470
I dont know what that means.

tomcustombuilder

AnnPT77 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

The proven max daily calorie deficit is 33 calories per lb of bodyfat you carry, illustrating how as you lose fat the deficit becomes smaller. However as you become lighter, maintenance decreases unless the lighter weight leads to more activity so it's a moving target. Point in fact, someone with a lot of fat can run a big deficit

Absolutely correct, in principal. And a useful concept for sure: Glad you brought it into the discussion.

However, it may not be wise to run that maximum deficit for reasons other than loss of muscle. That limit is about the point where there starts to be a serious hit on lean mass to make up the energy deficit, IMU.

For those into science geekery, here's a standard source (not the only study that made relevant estimates, of course, but they tend to be in a similar ballpark). If not into science geekery, don't open the spoiler.

The main thesis of this paper is that the FM is able to transfer energy to the FFM up to a maximum rate of (290±25) kJ/kg d. In realistic energy deficit situations, the actual transfer rate is decreased by activity considerations. The value of the maximum transfer rate is derived from data for young, active male subjects studied by Keys et al. (1950). The applicability of these results have not been directly verified in other populations and conditions.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15615615/

FM = Fat mass
FFM = fat free mass
290kJ = 69.3117 kCal
It's per kg d, so per calorie day, 31.5 (rounded)
There's an range of 25kJ per kJ, which is just a hair under six calories (5.975), which converts to 2.7 calories per pound.
Usually the publications I've seen say 31 calories/pound (not sure why), but that range (rounded to whole numbers) would be about 29 to 34 calories per pound per day. That's among young, active men in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (that's what "Keys, et al. (1950)" is). The estimating methodology was somewhat indirect, as well, so this is an estimate, not exactly a measurement.

I know, I'm being pedantic. This finding isn't a proven or exact universal. The concept and approximate value lead to some interesting insights, though.

Personally, I wouldn't want to lose right up to that line, since it's not universal or exact, and it doesn't in itself support concluding that losing fat at the maximum rate has no other negative health effects. It's about losing fat vs. lean, not whether one's biochemistry and physiology keep functioning optimally or even well right up to that max.

I figure I have maybe 35-40ish pounds of FFM, give or take. That implies a maximum deficit of around 1100-1200 or so calories daily. A 2 pound a week loss rate (at 5'5", 135 pounds currently) wouldn't be good for my health. athletic performance or energy level, from experience. I had negative consequences from losing close to that accidentally when much heavier. Nutrition on 1000-ish calories (all I'd have left) wouldn't be optimal, either. For sure, the health/nutrition implications would vary individually with medical history, probably age, eating style, and more.

I agree that trying to lose faster than 31 kCal/lb/day is a really bad idea, sure. It might be a bad idea to even come close. It depends on how much risk a person likes to take, I guess. And that's without even considering sustainability for long enough to reach goal.

I think the equation is more useful with someone with less fat however to state AGAIN it illustrates that the leaner you are the smaller the deficit must be.

Someone carrying a lot of fat will have a hard time going from their diet that got them where they are to a more structured diet that promotes rapid Fatloss, so again, it’s a personal challenge and a difficult challenge.

AnnPT77

Corina1143 wrote: »

370 x 33 = 12,210.
370 x 31 = 11,470
I dont know what that means.

The 31 vs. 33 is a minor issue, in practice.

You wouldn't use 370 as the base. You'd need an estimate of body fat pounds, not just body weight. For this purpose, a BIA scale or the "Navy Calculator"** kind of thing online may be close enough. Those would give a body fat percent, and that percent of one's body weight in pounds would be an estimate of body fat pounds.

** This kind of thing: https://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html

Since OP hasn't even told us height or anything, I wouldn't even hazard a guess at fat mass (FM), but it can be estimated in that way. (I'm still not sure it's all that useful a guide, except as a marker of a cliff we probably don't want to jump off. Still, the downhill slide in that direction could have other negative consequences before we even reach the cliff.)

At my size, my FFM is probably somewhere 95-100ish pounds, rough guess. I'd use the fat mass estimate (135-95 or 100, so FFM of 35-40, as in my PP). The result of body fat pounds times 31 for me is then 1085 to 1240. That would be the approximate theoretical daily deficit where my body would start seriously burning up lean mass because it hit its limited ability to metabolize stored body fat. Since my TDEE runs around 2100, I'd be eating around 1000 calories, and losing (in theory) a couple of pounds a week.

But it's all estimates/approximations, and only about the point where that "burning mostly fat" vs. "burning a lot of lean alongside fat" transition is estimated to happen.

Since OP is male and probably larger than me to boot, his fat free mass would likely be a good bit bigger than mine, but it'd be much smaller than 370. Part of my point is that bad things can happen short of 31 times fat pounds. If we totally make up out of sheer fantasy the idea that OP has 170 pounds of lean mass, so 200 pounds of fat, the number would be 6200 as a limiting daily deficit.

I'm betting OP's TDEE is less than 6200, or close. That would mean eating zero for a while to be at that theoretical deficit, maybe zero plus some extra exercise. That would probably be a bad plan for various reasons, though a few severely obese people have done something like that for a while, IMU.

sollyn23l2

Corina1143 wrote: »

370 x 33 = 12,210.
370 x 31 = 11,470
I dont know what that means.

I think it's a misguided logical leap that comes from the Minnesota Starvation Study...."Minnesota Starvation Experiment, concluded the rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores is about 31.4 calories per pound per day."

This does not, however, mean that that is the maximum deficit one should run. I'm not sure where that idea came from. They're two very, very different things. It simply means that your body can, at most, pull 31.4 calories per day from any given pound of fat per day to use for energy. Once you've multiplied that by the number of pounds of fat you have available, any excess energy used would have to come from muscle.

tomcustombuilder