Body fat % and Diet aggression

RHachicho

I have heard it said on the forums that those with higher body fat % can get away with greater deficits. This has come to my attention because when I averaged my losses over the length of my diet it came to my attention that I was losing 3lb a week. Which puts me at a 1500 daily deficit which according to many people on this forum is a shade too low for just about anyone. Except someone rather obese.

I am currently at 27% body-fat taken with an impedance meter. Not that accurate I know but I'm using it to track trends. The important thing to realize is that I still am obese. Although at this point not very far from the overweight line. But on to my question. Is there any hard facts and/or numbers as to how aggressive you can be with your diet when you are obese without it biting you in the *kitten*. It would be nice to see some sort of chart with body fat % and maximum sustainable deficit or something. Yes yes I know someone will copy and paste all that if you have 75+ plus to lose 2lb per week etc etc stuff. But people have contradicted that to me all the time in the case of people with high body fat %.

Failing that it would be nice for someone to give me the numbers as to how long a deficit of 1500 is really sustainable for without bad stuff happening. I have not noticed any so far. Butt the numbers feel like they are getting to the cut off point for me. And my progress at the gym has begun to slow quite a bit. Though I HAVE been able to make a lot of progress. I did try pushing the deficit to 1800 a day as well at one point. With disastrous results. Which further leads me to believe I am close to the cut off point.

Any thoughts?

Chickaboo2014

I think your body will let you know if you're pushing it too far. You don't want your metabolism to slow down (starvation mode). At some point you will need to add strength training in addition to your cardio (if you aren't already) to establish muscle that will provide you with greater calorie burn. Good luck!

usmcmp

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

WBB55

One way to look at it is to aim for a deficit that corresponds to no more than 1% of your bodyweight per week. So, mathematically, if you are 250 lbs, 1% of your weight is 2.5 lbs. Which translates into 8750 calorie deficit for the week. Which equals 1250 per day.

WalkingAlong

... how long a deficit of 1500 is really sustainable for without bad stuff happening. I have not noticed any so far. Butt the numbers feel like they are getting to the cut off point for me. And my progress at the gym has begun to slow quite a bit.

I don't know the answer but last week you posted a thread saying that you were ready to give up dieting, which would suggest that maybe the deficit is or was too steep for your own compliance for much longer.

WalkingAlong

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish

There is no "set point" It depends on how closely you watch and modify your macro and micro nutrients, your medical conditions, your genetic possible factors and it becomes more difficult to get enough of everything the bigger the deficit. That's why they list 1200/day minimum and -2lbs/wk max. Not because you CANT do more, but because it becomes more and more difficult to do it without experiencing problems, and MFP doesn't want to be responsible for the results, neither would I, I'd say officially on the record don't too because of this. Because one can't know that you have the knowledge, skill, timing and monitoring to even know when you are running into trouble...most don't. Most refuse to even realize basic facts on here, let alone diligently monitor themselves for possible problems.

For example, in one of the last threads I commented on, the lady is wondering the same thing, and saying she is is in a rather large deficit, very diligent and records everything correctly, while very probably she is in a moderate deficit due to her "normal measured" weightloss, erroneous burn recordings, and probably under reported food recordings to boot. Yet she refuses to see any of this and insists she has a very high that she was warned against and is still "OK"! If she measured correctly and logged her exercise correctly she probably would have run into trouble, especially if she was told a bit higher deficit was OK.

RHachicho

... how long a deficit of 1500 is really sustainable for without bad stuff happening. I have not noticed any so far. Butt the numbers feel like they are getting to the cut off point for me. And my progress at the gym has begun to slow quite a bit.

I don't know the answer but last week you posted a thread saying that you were ready to give up dieting, which would suggest that maybe the deficit is or was too steep for your own compliance for much longer.

Yeah back then my deficit was more like 1800 I cut it back some and my sanity returned. But it's still obvious that I'm on the bleeding edge of things. That's kind of the point of this thread. I would like to know where that edge IS so i can stay close to it for maximum results without going over it and going barmy.

And also I am quite aware of the inaccuracy of logging and burn's So I turn to the ultimate arbiter of things like this. My weight loss. Averaging out my weight loss per week over a 4 month period my average loss is 3lb per week. Which puts me at an average daily deficit of 1500. I would say over that long a period variances probably even out. And my knowledge of my own deficit is at least accurate at this point

If it helps I have made a habit of avoiding junk food almost entirely. With very few exceptions if it's not nutritious I don't eat it. Perhaps that's why I've been able to go this long without running into trouble. I also supplement with a multivitamin and cod liver oil.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

... how long a deficit of 1500 is really sustainable for without bad stuff happening. I have not noticed any so far. Butt the numbers feel like they are getting to the cut off point for me. And my progress at the gym has begun to slow quite a bit.

I don't know the answer but last week you posted a thread saying that you were ready to give up dieting, which would suggest that maybe the deficit is or was too steep for your own compliance for much longer.

Yeah back then my deficit was more like 1800 I cut it back some and my sanity returned. But it's still obvious that I'm on the bleeding edge of things. That's kind of the point of this thread. I would like to know where that edge IS so i can stay close to it for maximum results without going over it and going barmy.

And also I am quite aware of the inaccuracy of logging and burn's So I turn to the ultimate arbiter of things like this. My weight loss. Averaging out my weight loss per week over a 4 month period my average loss is 3lb per week. Which puts me at an average daily deficit of 1500. I would say over that long a period variances probably even out. And my knowledge of my own deficit is at least accurate at this point

But why? Why do you NEED "maximum results"? Why is there a rush?

FIT_Goat

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

Fat is your non-LBM. You don't need to further isolate it. A person with 50 lbs of fat would be able to get that many calories from fat each day. But, the lower limit is closer to (protein-requirements * 4 + 30g-fat *9). Which would be about 600 calories a day if you eat 80g of protein. The main thing is eating enough to get all your nutrients and avoid losing too much muscle. I'd probably encourage higher protein than even 80g a day to further protect against fat loss.

After posting this, I notice that the article you reference already says that. Super-low calorie diets need to be especially well balanced to ensure there's no deficiencies being developed. They should also be short-term to avoid metabolic effects, which are unrelated to the muscle mass argument relating to the 31 cal/lb.

maidentl

Yeah back then my deficit was more like 1800

I'm jealous. Being quite short I can't even achieve a 1000 calorie deficit unless I eat 1200 calories and have a very active day. My typical day, including gym time, only gives me about a 500 calorie deficit when I eat in the 1500 range. BUT, I do have a very high body fat percentage and am considered morbidly obese because my BMI is 35 and I have high blood pressure. But wait there's more! I "only" weigh 190 so I "only" need to lose 54 pounds to be a normal BMI again. So on one side I am told not to be too agressive. On the other I am told to get the weight off NOW so I don't die. :frown:

RHachicho

... how long a deficit of 1500 is really sustainable for without bad stuff happening. I have not noticed any so far. Butt the numbers feel like they are getting to the cut off point for me. And my progress at the gym has begun to slow quite a bit.

I don't know the answer but last week you posted a thread saying that you were ready to give up dieting, which would suggest that maybe the deficit is or was too steep for your own compliance for much longer.

Yeah back then my deficit was more like 1800 I cut it back some and my sanity returned. But it's still obvious that I'm on the bleeding edge of things. That's kind of the point of this thread. I would like to know where that edge IS so i can stay close to it for maximum results without going over it and going barmy.

And also I am quite aware of the inaccuracy of logging and burn's So I turn to the ultimate arbiter of things like this. My weight loss. Averaging out my weight loss per week over a 4 month period my average loss is 3lb per week. Which puts me at an average daily deficit of 1500. I would say over that long a period variances probably even out. And my knowledge of my own deficit is at least accurate at this point

But why? Why do you NEED "maximum results"? Why is there a rush?

Because what I REALLY want to do ... is build some muscle. And I don't want to try a bulk till I've gotten rid of the fat. I'm impatient to feel stronger. I've really gotten the bug for strength training and physical fitness. I like it and want more of it. I was in such a bad place you see. Every time I get stronger and fitter it's like breaking out of prison a bit. I love it and want to be free to push and improve. But the constant dieting really does slow things right down. Not to mention the fact that all the extra fat weight makes things many times more difficult. I suppose I am in a rush. But not for the usual vanity driven reasons. Hell I just plain fell in love with being active and I want to be able to explore the greatest heights of my new fascination with it. At the moment my diet AND my fat feel like the last ball and chain and i want to shake em off.

That being said if my deficit goes to truly unhealthy levels then I don't want that either Like I said I want to be active and healthy not skinny. It's all worth nothing if it's just my damn muscles wasting away.

@ Maidentl Don't be I nearly went barmy on those calories. I was shouting at perfectly helpful strangers and got quite close to quitting my diet. It was a stupid mistake that I hope not to repeat. In fact if the conclusion is that there is no way of knowing how close I am to the edge of things at this point. Then I will probably ramp my diet back some for safety reasons. I am not a mental case and would rather be well this side of the safety line especially when I don't know where it is XD.

RHachicho

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

It's an interesting start but it doesn't take into account the fact that muscle glycogen needs to be refilled, ideally with carbs and that the human body doesn't just run on calories. Perhaps such an equation only really becomes applicable if you are active enough that you can sustain the deficit and achieve nominal nutrition? I'm not exactly inactive and I eat 2000 - 2500 calories a day. My fitbit has my tdee roaming between 3.5 - 4k. And considering my weight loss rate I have no real reason to dispute those numbers. Perhaps the situation changes between someone who is outright starving themselves and someone very active who in turn maintains a larger deficit because of it?

WBB55

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

If you were certain that your body was getting all of its energy from the fat, then I suppose yes. But 154 lb bodies at that large of a deficit wouldn't typically only use fat as its fuel source. It would also use bone, skeletal muscle and other connective tissue, brain matter, heart muscle, etc.

WalkingAlong

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

Fat is your non-LBM. You don't need to further isolate it. A person with 50 lbs of fat would be able to get that many calories from fat each day. But, the lower limit is closer to (protein-requirements * 4 + 30g-fat *9). Which would be about 600 calories a day if you eat 80g of protein. The main thing is eating enough to get all your nutrients and avoid losing too much muscle. I'd probably encourage higher protein than even 80g a day to further protect against fat loss.

After posting this, I notice that the article you reference already says that. Super-low calorie diets need to be especially well balanced to ensure there's no deficiencies being developed. They should also be short-term to avoid metabolic effects, which are unrelated to the muscle mass argument relating to the 31 cal/lb.

Thanks! I eat around 1400/day but I'm just tired of hearing how anything sub-1500 or so is dangerous for anyone, for any span, at any body fat or size or gender or age or activity level. Though it's getting less and less that you hear it to that extreme.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I don't think anyone can tell you "You need to eat at exactly at 1298 calorie deficit to maximize fat loss and prevent strength and muscle loss". It's just not measurable to that degree. Trying to get too close will most likely results in poor adherence and/or muscle loss. Considering your goals, I would think you'd want to avoid muscle loss at all cost even if that means going slightly slower on the fat loss. You would probably be able to increase strength longer at a smaller deficit than you can at a big one. Take a step back. Calm down. Realize you'll get there when you get there. It's a process not just a destination.

usmcmp

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

I don't understand how you can have 50 pounds of non-LBM. Anything that isn't fat is lean mass. That includes water, blood, organs, skin, bones, muscles, and anything else you can think of.

If you are 37% body fat that means you have 97 pounds of lean mass and 57 pounds of fat mass. Unless you are under 5' you are using the calipers wrong (which is really easy to do, I get highly inaccurate measurements on myself after years of use).

usmcmp

Because what I REALLY want to do ... is build some muscle. And I don't want to try a bulk till I've gotten rid of the fat.

Have you been doing a program based on strength or on hypertrophy? How long have you been lifting? While I do understand the rush to want to bulk, as you pointed out in another thread women don't add mass very quickly (I average about a pound a month). I can tell you that a solid hypertrophy routine made a huge impact between my first two shows. I was at a calorie deficit of 20% below TDEE and had a refeed (at my TDEE) every two weeks.

Not trying to hijack the thread, just point out that even though you aren't bulking you can benefit greatly from a solid program.

WBB55

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

I don't understand how you can have 50 pounds of non-LBM. Anything that isn't fat is lean mass. That includes water, blood, organs, skin, bones, muscles, and anything else you can think of.

If you are 37% body fat that means you have 97 pounds of lean mass and 57 pounds of fat mass. Unless you are under 5' you are using the calipers wrong (which is really easy to do, I get highly inaccurate measurements on myself after years of use).

At the end of my diet, at my new height of 5'5.5" (since I lost height during the diet) I was measured at about 90 lbs of lean mass (I had to have some bone density scans and stuff due to that I was breaking bones at the average of one per year). I could barely stand, I fell down a lot. I would run into walls when I tried to turn corners... they estimated I lost about 30 lbs of muscle and bone losing my weight. Which I guess isn't that uncommon.

I've spent the past 3 years rebuilding about 20 lbs of the muscle and bone I lost during my diet (without adding more fat). And it's been tough. It's just my experience, I know. But I'm a pretty big advocate for long term dieters getting adequate nutrition if they're not being monitored by a doctor or weightloss clinic.

SideSteel

Not that this answers your question, but I find it interesting. There is a paper by Alpert et al that compiled data from a bunch of studies (including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and they came up with a rate at which the body can get energy from it’s fat stores. That rate is about 31.4 calories per pound per day.

Interesting. Per pound of fat? So if I have maybe 50 lbs. of non-LBM (I don't know how to isolate fat from other non-LBM) I can carry a deficit of 50*31=1550 per day? So if my TDEE is 2000, I can eat 450? Hm, what did I do wrong?


I tried to find the answer so I googled this up. It looks like what I'm doing is right but maybe I'm overestimating my fat lbs.
http://baye.com/calculating-the-daily-calorie-deficit-for-maximum-fat-loss/

I dug out my calipers, which suggest I'm around 37% body fat (at 154 lbs.), which would make my allowed deficit just below what my average TDEE is (per Fitbit). I guess the moral is that women above normal BMI and not particularly muscular don't need to worry about it much?

Heres a link to the paper too:
http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15733&d=1156539730

Mykaelous

Say that your current BMR is 2500, and you are eating 1k below that at 1500. If your goal weight BMR is above that say 1750. Then I think you could just keep your daily intake at 1500 for the entire diet until you reach your goal weight. As you loose weight your BMR will drop so your deficit decreases naturally over time giving your body time to adjust. If you feel excess energy(because you are eating a higher ratio of calories to body weight) then you can always push yourself harder in the gym or during cardio sessions. I think what can happen sometimes though is someone looses weight to the point that their BMR is say 2k and they try to maintain a 1k deficit so now they drop their calorie intake to 1000 which then can lead to a breakdown in discipline.

oksanatkachuk

27% body fat is not "obese" . I m 27% fat too and Nobody ever called me obese but u )) kidding take ur time , dear, it's not a sprint, it's a marathon

usmcmp

27% body fat is not "obese" . I m 27% fat too and Nobody ever called me obese but u )) kidding take ur time , dear, it's not a sprint, it's a marathon

OP is male, you are female. Male 27% is like female 34%.

RHachicho

@ usmcmp

What you say is very interesting. I have been lifting for about 6 months now. And I have been lifting on progressive overload to improve strength. On a combination of free weights and body weight exercises. It's true I haven't done much to encourage hypertrophy because I always thought it was a pointless effort in a deficit. However your results speak for themselves. I may indeed look into this

usmcmp

@ usmcmp

What you say is very interesting. I have been lifting for about 6 months now. And I have been lifting on progressive overload to improve strength. On a combination of free weights and body weight exercises. It's true I haven't done much to encourage hypertrophy because I always thought it was a pointless effort in a deficit. However your results speak for themselves. I may indeed look into this

There are a lot of trainers out there who start with a strength program to build a solid foundation for the lifts. That way when the client is moved to hypertrophy they can lift heavier for the greater volume. There are programs like Layne Norton's PHAT that have two days that are heavy and three that are higher volume. It's basically a mix between strength and hypertrophy. In the long run putting lots of effort into a less than optimal program is better than putting a little effort into an optimal program.

DeguelloTex

But why? Why do you NEED "maximum results"? Why is there a rush?

For me, the main reason is that I don't want to spend two years eating at a deficit to conform to the constantly pasted recommended rates. I also want to bulk and add whatever muscle I can, which I can't feasibly do at a deficit or while still overweight.

The sooner I can lose the weight, the sooner I can progress in hypertrophy and cardio health. So, my goal is to accomplish this sooner.

usmcmp

But why? Why do you NEED "maximum results"? Why is there a rush?

For me, the main reason is that I don't want to spend two years eating at a deficit to conform to the constantly pasted recommended rates. I also want to bulk and add whatever muscle I can, which I can't feasibly do at a deficit or while still overweight.

The sooner I can lose the weight, the sooner I can progress in hypertrophy and cardio health. So, my goal is to accomplish this sooner.

Check out the picture I posted a few posts back. That was done on a deficit.

laciemn

Definitely don't lose muscle mass! I lost 30 lbs of muscle due to having muscular dystrophy and it literally crippled me. I struggled with anything, walking, falling down, getting up, really everything. Since then, I've lost a lot of fat, and gotten a lot fitter. I did a heavy deficit whenever I felt like it. People should realize beyond educating oneself, there's no point speculating! Just make a plan based on what you currently know about nutrition. If you eat decent / low calorie and work out you'll definitely see fat loss .

likitisplit

Yeah back then my deficit was more like 1800

I'm jealous. Being quite short I can't even achieve a 1000 calorie deficit unless I eat 1200 calories and have a very active day. My typical day, including gym time, only gives me about a 500 calorie deficit when I eat in the 1500 range. BUT, I do have a very high body fat percentage and am considered morbidly obese because my BMI is 35 and I have high blood pressure. But wait there's more! I "only" weigh 190 so I "only" need to lose 54 pounds to be a normal BMI again. So on one side I am told not to be too aggressive. On the other I am told to get the weight off NOW so I don't die. :frown:

I feel for you. Would the goal of being simply obese appease people in the short term? That's probably around 10 or 15 pounds.

laciemn

But why? Why do you NEED "maximum results"? Why is there a rush?

For me, the main reason is that I don't want to spend two years eating at a deficit to conform to the constantly pasted recommended rates. I also want to bulk and add whatever muscle I can, which I can't feasibly do at a deficit or while still overweight.

The sooner I can lose the weight, the sooner I can progress in hypertrophy and cardio health. So, my goal is to accomplish this sooner.

This doesn't make sense, though. If your diet is very low in calories, you lose more lean mass. So if your goal is to gain muscle, why rush things and risk losing muscle tissue that you are just going to start working out to put on?

oksanatkachuk

27% body fat is not "obese" . I m 27% fat too and Nobody ever called me obese but u )) kidding take ur time , dear, it's not a sprint, it's a marathon

OP is male, you are female. Male 27% is like female 34%.

Oh my bad deceiving frog