Maximum Deficit Reduction
COliver416
Posts: 87 Member
Has anyone heard of this. It's the process of taking your weight, figuring out your body fat percentage and figuring out how many pounds of fat you have and then creating a deficit based on 30 calories for each pound of fat. So if you're 200 pounds, with 20% body fat, you have 40 pounds of fat on you, and you'd want to create a 1,200 calorie deficit daily. Now, if you're 200 pounds, odds are you probably burn between 1,800 to 2,000 calories. So, your goal would be to cut 600 calories and then workout and burn another 600 calories, creating a maximum deficit, allowing you to the lose the weight you have the fastest while preserving your muscle.
0
Replies
-
This sounds like a horrible idea. According to my current bf% estimates, I still have 70lbs of fat on my body. That would mean I need a deficit of 2100 calories a day. Considering my TDEE is only around 2500ish calories, your theory would have me eating 400 calories a day. That would not go well...0
-
This is similar to what I do, except it really applies most when you're close to your goal weight. When you have 70 lbs of fat, you probably shouldn't be anywhere near your maximum deficit. When you have 20 pounds and are trying to lose that last 10, then it matters. You don't want to be aiming for a 1,000 calorie a day deficit because your fat can't sustain you at that level. You'll have to aim for a 600 calorie of smaller deficit. And, as you get down near the end... going from 11 lbs to 10 lbs... you should be at around 300 calories a day below your TDEE.
The big thing to remember is that this is a MAXIMUM deficit. Not the goal deficit. You're supposed to have a smaller deficit than this.0 -
Has anyone heard of this. It's the process of taking your weight, figuring out your body fat percentage and figuring out how many pounds of fat you have and then creating a deficit based on 30 calories for each pound of fat. So if you're 200 pounds, with 20% body fat, you have 40 pounds of fat on you, and you'd want to create a 1,200 calorie deficit daily. Now, if you're 200 pounds, odds are you probably burn between 1,800 to 2,000 calories. So, your goal would be to cut 600 calories and then workout and burn another 600 calories, creating a maximum deficit, allowing you to the lose the weight you have the fastest while preserving your muscle.
No. Just no.
A 200 lb person eating that little will burn through muscle.
Eat the maximum number of calories possible to lose weight in a slow and controlled manner.0 -
I think you are failing to equate for relative fluctuations in NEAT.0
-
According to this, I would need to have a 4740 calorie deficit per day :laugh: Are you kidding me? (for reference my bf is 56% with about 158 pounds of fat, my numbers I got from fat2fitradio.com).
So I would have to eat 0 cals per day and burn 2340. Yeah, not happening :laugh:0 -
I think you are failing to equate for relative fluctuations in NEAT.
Not sure if that is aimed at myself or OP. In any case, I calculate my Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE). That accounts for NEAT as well as the Thermogenic effect of food and everything else. As, everything does vary daily, I ensure that I eat at a smaller deficit than I theoretically could. If I could get away with eating 1,700 calories, I still try and eat around 1,850+.
The main thing is to realize that this is a maximum safe deficit. Trying to ride the line as closely as possible will probably result in muscle loss and other negative effects, due to variations or potential errors in measurements.0 -
I think you are failing to equate for relative fluctuations in NEAT.
Not sure if that is aimed at myself or OP. In any case, I calculate my Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TDEE). That accounts for NEAT as well as the Thermogenic effect of food and everything else. As, everything does vary daily, I ensure that I eat at a smaller deficit than I theoretically could. If I could get away with eating 1,700 calories, I still try and eat around 1,850+.
The main thing is to realize that this is a maximum safe deficit. Trying to ride the line as closely as possible will probably result in muscle loss and other negative effects, due to variations or potential errors in measurements.
It was directed at the OP. That is why I did not quote you.0 -
Has anyone heard of this. It's the process of taking your weight, figuring out your body fat percentage and figuring out how many pounds of fat you have and then creating a deficit based on 30 calories for each pound of fat. So if you're 200 pounds, with 20% body fat, you have 40 pounds of fat on you, and you'd want to create a 1,200 calorie deficit daily. Now, if you're 200 pounds, odds are you probably burn between 1,800 to 2,000 calories. So, your goal would be to cut 600 calories and then workout and burn another 600 calories, creating a maximum deficit, allowing you to the lose the weight you have the fastest while preserving your muscle.
Yeah, forget science. Forgo medical and sport studies and decades of trials. Forget what the experts have determined. Just make up your own ****.0 -
Yeah, forget science. Forgo medical and sport studies and decades of trials. Forget what the experts have determined. Just make up your own ****.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
"A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia."A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted.
290 kj = 69.27 calories +/- 5.97 calories... per kg .... which works out to 29-34 calories per pound... which is where the OP got his 30 calories per pound of fat number.
So, it's not like he's making stuff up and not referencing the science. This is research which sought to find the maximum amount of fat loss before you're losing fat free mass as well.0 -
Has anyone heard of this. It's the process of taking your weight, figuring out your body fat percentage and figuring out how many pounds of fat you have and then creating a deficit based on 30 calories for each pound of fat. So if you're 200 pounds, with 20% body fat, you have 40 pounds of fat on you, and you'd want to create a 1,200 calorie deficit daily. Now, if you're 200 pounds, odds are you probably burn between 1,800 to 2,000 calories. So, your goal would be to cut 600 calories and then workout and burn another 600 calories, creating a maximum deficit, allowing you to the lose the weight you have the fastest while preserving your muscle.
This method is linear and does not adjust for a persons weight. At the extremes it is way WAY off in an unhealthy way.
I mean just picture what this would mean for someone who weighed 400 pounds. and was 45% bodyfat. That's 180 pounds of fat so that would be a recommended 5,400 calorie deficit per DAY. Yeah, no.
There might be one weight and one bodyfat percentage in which this formula works, kind of like how a broken clock is right twice a day.0 -
"of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels" This sounds very unhealthy... Underfed!!!0
-
"of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels" This sounds very unhealthy... Underfed!!!
What do you think a caloric deficit is? If you're losing weight, you are underfed by definition. That's basically a clinical way to describe the conditions MFP was meant to create (e.g. burning more calories than you need to maintain your current weight and activity level).0 -
Has anyone heard of this. It's the process of taking your weight, figuring out your body fat percentage and figuring out how many pounds of fat you have and then creating a deficit based on 30 calories for each pound of fat. So if you're 200 pounds, with 20% body fat, you have 40 pounds of fat on you, and you'd want to create a 1,200 calorie deficit daily. Now, if you're 200 pounds, odds are you probably burn between 1,800 to 2,000 calories. So, your goal would be to cut 600 calories and then workout and burn another 600 calories, creating a maximum deficit, allowing you to the lose the weight you have the fastest while preserving your muscle.
i just realized how lazy I am that i skimmed the math part of this and can't even begin to figure out what my deficit would be based on this...0 -
"of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels" This sounds very unhealthy... Underfed!!!
What do you think a caloric deficit is? If you're losing weight, you are underfed by definition. That's basically a clinical way to describe the conditions MFP was meant to create (e.g. burning more calories than you need to maintain your current weight and activity level).
I guess, but for some reason this looked unhealthy. I eat at a deficit but I don't feel under fed. So moving on.0 -
This method is linear and does not adjust for a persons weight. At the extremes it is way WAY off in an unhealthy way.
I mean just picture what this would mean for someone who weighed 400 pounds. and was 45% bodyfat. That's 180 pounds of fat so that would be a recommended 5,400 calorie deficit per DAY. Yeah, no.
There might be one weight and one bodyfat percentage in which this formula works, kind of like how a broken clock is right twice a day.
It is way off at the high end of the obese extremes. It is not way off at the lower end though. Your body fat can only release a certain amount of energy each day. If your caloric deficit is too large for your fat cells to compensate for, you start losing Fat Free Mass (aka muscle) to make up for the shortage. If you're very lean, you need a very small deficit if you wish to avoid burning muscle along with the fat you lose.
I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong even for the obese. The maximum amount of calories their fat could provide may be way more than their body would need each day. That's not to say their fat couldn't provide it. I don't think that aiming to meet this max deficit is wise. But, making sure you are under it probably is--especially as you get close to your goal weight.0 -
Yeah, forget science. Forgo medical and sport studies and decades of trials. Forget what the experts have determined. Just make up your own ****.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
"A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia."A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted.
290 kj = 69.27 calories +/- 5.97 calories... per kg .... which works out to 29-34 calories per pound... which is where the OP got his 30 calories per pound of fat number.
So, it's not like he's making stuff up and not referencing the science. This is research which sought to find the maximum amount of fat loss before you're losing fat free mass as well.
Interesting, thanks! I thought that the transfer from fat was less than this, but I'm not sure where I got that from.
I guess what this is saying to the obese is that they can have a large deficit and not be afraid of losing lean body mass. Not that they should have the maximal deficit possible to simply lose weight (because the body does kind of like nutrients and stuff). Although I do think I've read of obese people can/do lose FFM while dieting... I'd have to look into this further!0 -
Also, I'm not arguing with anyone nor do I support the OP's method of using this science. I do think that knowing that there is a maximum safe deficit is a good thing. People who have 20 pounds of body fat and want to lose 10 pounds shouldn't be trying to lose 2 pounds a week.
I use this myself. Right now, I know that I should maintain a deficit of less than 900ish calories (I give myself a pretty safe margin and use 28 calories per pound as well). It would be great to lose 1.5 pounds a week... but that wouldn't be realistic for how much left I have to lose. As I lose 4-5 pounds, I progressively reduce my deficit to stay within the safe range.
Oddly enough, knowing this makes me more realistic about my weight loss pace and more patient. I know that I can't lose 20 pounds in 12 weeks, even though I am losing at that rate right now. The minimum time it will take me is 23 weeks... and it will probably take a little longer than that because I don't want to ride the edge the whole time.0 -
Interesting, thanks! I thought that the transfer from fat was less than this, but I'm not sure where I got that from.
I guess what this is saying to the obese is that they can have a large deficit and not be afraid of losing lean body mass. Not that they should have the maximal deficit possible to simply lose weight (because the body does kind of like nutrients and stuff). Although I do think I've read of obese people can/do lose FFM while dieting... I'd have to look into this further!
I'm sure have lost some FFM while dieting recently. It's been fairly limited (15-20% appears to be FFM based on my BF% calculations). My goal is to keep it to a minimum. I'm not sure it can ever truly be kept at 0%. But, when you exceed the limit your fat can handle, a larger percentage of your losses will be muscle.0 -
Wait, you're saying it's an accurate formula even for the obese? So in the above example, if that person ate zero calories and burned 2000 calories a day (or whatever combination gave them 5400 calories as a deficit), they would not lose muscle mass? Really?This method is linear and does not adjust for a persons weight. At the extremes it is way WAY off in an unhealthy way.
I mean just picture what this would mean for someone who weighed 400 pounds. and was 45% bodyfat. That's 180 pounds of fat so that would be a recommended 5,400 calorie deficit per DAY. Yeah, no.
There might be one weight and one bodyfat percentage in which this formula works, kind of like how a broken clock is right twice a day.
It is way off at the high end of the obese extremes. It is not way off at the lower end though. Your body fat can only release a certain amount of energy each day. If your caloric deficit is too large for your fat cells to compensate for, you start losing Fat Free Mass (aka muscle) to make up for the shortage. If you're very lean, you need a very small deficit if you wish to avoid burning muscle along with the fat you lose.
I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong even for the obese. The maximum amount of calories their fat could provide may be way more than their body would need each day. That's not to say their fat couldn't provide it. I don't think that aiming to meet this max deficit is wise. But, making sure you are under it probably is--especially as you get close to your goal weight.0 -
Wait, you're saying it's an accurate formula even for the obese? So in the above example, if that person ate zero calories and burned 2000 calories a day (or whatever combination gave them 5400 calories as a deficit), they would not lose muscle mass? Really?
That is not what I am saying. I am saying the maximum amount of energy their fat cells could provide would be that amount (say 5,400 here). If they were to somehow exceed that amount, it would start immediately coming from FFM. That's what the science says, at least. It is very likely that they would lose some muscle even at smaller deficits, as some amount of muscle loss seems inevitable with mass reduction.
The main point is that exceeding the upper limit of what your body fat can provide has immediate consequences in regards to your fat free mass... not that staying under that limit ensures that you don't loss an ounce of it.0 -
Interesting, thanks! I thought that the transfer from fat was less than this, but I'm not sure where I got that from.
I guess what this is saying to the obese is that they can have a large deficit and not be afraid of losing lean body mass. Not that they should have the maximal deficit possible to simply lose weight (because the body does kind of like nutrients and stuff). Although I do think I've read of obese people can/do lose FFM while dieting... I'd have to look into this further!
I'm sure have lost some FFM while dieting recently. It's been fairly limited (15-20% appears to be FFM based on my BF% calculations). My goal is to keep it to a minimum. I'm not sure it can ever truly be kept at 0%. But, when you exceed the limit your fat can handle, a larger percentage of your losses will be muscle.
But 15-20% of 24 kg is 4-7 kg FFM lost, along with 20-17 kg of fat. That isn't totally insignificant and seems to go against the premise of the paper (that a calorie deficit of less than ~30 cal per lb of FM is not FFM-depleting).
How much does diet (i.e. eating enough protein) and resistance training play into this?0 -
The 24kg is not the amount I've lost this time. That is closer to 15.4kg. I had lost weight earlier and restarted my weight loss back in October. My account was first created several years ago at almost my heaviest weight. The best I have are approximations for my body fat%. I have not had a dexa-scan or anything else. So, I use body measurements, the BMI calculations, and an impedance device to get several estimates of my BF% and then I average those together. There's so much error in all of those that my estimate of change in FFM could be completely wrong. But, that measurement does show a reduction of about 2.7kg in lean body mass.
Also, some of that number, naturally could be inflated by stuff like the BMI calcuations that estimate BF%. Those use nothing but the BMI number, age, and gender. They have no idea of my actual body composition. Using the tape measure values, I get a loss of 0.98kg based on their prediction of my body composition (only 6.4% of my loss). The BMI based ones say 4.34kg in lean body mass lost. They could be causing my estimates to go way up. In short... I really have little idea of how much (if any) lean body mass I have lost. To really have a solid idea, I would need a quality before/after bf% measurement.
It is possible that the mass was lost due to several days where I didn't maintain my deficit limit. I had the flu and barely ate for 5 days, at one point. That could have impacted it. There could be other areas as well. That said, I still think there's some loss of lean body mass with any mass reduction. I've seen predictions of the amount of that loss range from 10%-30% ... but I've never seen anyone claim they lost only fat and absolutely no lean mass.
It may be that the paper is claiming they saw no reduction in FFM until the subjects exceeded the ability of their fat to provide calories. I haven't read the whole study. I will go and see if I can find a link to more than the abstract. If that is the case, that's very interesting... and it would make me even more committed to stay above my daily minimum calories.
Edit: As for diet and training... I do minimal body weight based exercises a couple times a week (some push ups, a pull up or two, squats (no weights), and leg lifts). I walk the my dogs a couple miles a day. That's been the extent of my exercise. I tend to get plenty of protein (80g+ a day, sometimes up to 170g). So, not muscle building amounts, but it should be enough to preserve most muscle.0 -
thats what it is? i thought it was what the govenor did to my pay check0
-
accoriding to lyle mcdonald that doesn't actually hold true, it's based on the 'minnesota starvation experiment' where men were eating extremely inadequate protein (think ~40 grams a day) while being on HUGE deficits of over 50% of their tdee, in addition to not doing ANY weight lifting, and even at that their lean bodymass loss only really became significant once they hit around 7% bodyfat, so you can actually create larger deficits than 30 cal per lb of bodyfat while not losing any significant lean mass, provided you consume enough protein to make up for the huge deficit and do resistance training, which is evidenced with the psmf/rapid fat loss diet (diets which are basically nothing but pure protein, fibrous veggies and efa fish oil tabs) where people are in huge deficits but maintain their lean mass, not that I recommend this but it can be done.0
-
I also doubt that one can lose significant fat and not lose some FFM (including muscle). That's why I'm interested in this as they do say right in the abstract:
"A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted."
Implying that if you eat above this level, the FFM will not get touched. I've downloaded the paper (I could access it through work), but haven't looked closely enough at it yet. The math is doing my head in!0 -
I'm a huge fan of Lyle McDonald. But, I haven't seen him talk about this before. Do you have a link so I can check it out?0
-
he has a book dedicated purely this diet, and has a whole section on his forum for it, I've personally done the diet and while it was not pleasant at all I didn't lose any mass/strength and the fat dropped off me at an alarming rate srs, the man is a genius when it comes to nutrition tbhI'm a huge fan of Lyle McDonald. But, I haven't seen him talk about this before. Do you have a link so I can check it out?
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70 -
http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/determining-the-maximum-dietary-deficit-for-fat-loss/
This is the link I found to Lyle McDonald talking about this. He didn't seem to disagree with the the 31 calorie / pound of fat conclusions of the study. His main point regarding it was that your actual calories eaten may go down despite the fact that you're decreasing the amount of deficit--primarily because your TDEE has decreased due to weight loss and dieting.
I saw the Rapid Fat Loss book before. I didn't look into it because his own descriptions regarding who it was appropriate for excluded me.
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=12760
In this thread, he does dismiss that value as irrelevant with enough protein and resistance exercise.
In all, I am happy with the rate I am losing weight now and I'd rather err on the side of caution and get to my goal a few months later than rush and risk losing more muscle than I otherwise would. I was also able to find the full PDF of the study. I'm going to end up reading it, when I have the chance. Just to see if anything sticks out to me. Not that I would notice anything that he wouldn't have already mentioned.0 -
^^ that article you linked is from 2006, lyle's views have since changed and he says the 31 cal per lb of bf limit isn't true, like I said he doesn't recommend people do the rapid fat loss diet, but he knows people will crash diet anyway, so set out a guideline to do it safely without losing lean mass0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions