Body fat % and Diet aggression

likitisplit

... 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.

You can seriously tell when a regular on the MFP forum is cutting

You can build strength and fitness on a deficit.

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.

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?

"More" than what? Presuming you are correct, how much more lean mass will I lose on a diet that averaged three pounds a week so that I am at my lean goal weight in 33 weeks rather than 100 or more? How much mass can I add back at a surplus during those 67 weeks I don't spend in a deficit?

ETA: If I recall correctly, the recommended loss rate would take me 105 weeks to lose down to my lean target. Then it would be time to bulk. If I can do it in 33 weeks -- maybe not feasible, we'll see -- that gives me 72 weeks to bulk to gain back any lean mass I lost. Would it be your contention that it would take 72 weeks of bulking to get to the muscle I would have had if I had lost weight at the recommended rates?

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

Impressive, no doubt. I didn't mean to say that I couldn't gain muscle on a deficit, just that it wouldn't be as efficient or as easy as in a surplus. I'm lifting three times a week as heavily as I can, so I'm hoping I'll have something to show for it even at a deficit.

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

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.

I found a workout regime that looks like something I could do I would like your opinion on it and advice for subs on a couple of exercises I just can't do at this point. However that's not really on topic mind if I PM you with it ?

@ DeguelloTex Yeah I realize what you are saying mate. But my question was more ... just how far can we push the envelope before lean mass loss becomes a significant issue compared to the speed of weight loss? I know that mfp recommendations err on the side of caution because people often eat a lot of empty calories. But I want to know how hard someone who really pays attention to their nutrition and exercise can go. I want to know where the real limits are

EDIT : ah nm lost track of the convo and got confused. Your asking the same questions I am.

That being said if I can trigger some hypertrophy in a deficit and start actually growing such desperation becomes moot. And I will probably just hit tdee-20%

SueInAz

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.

And all of that is a bunch of BS. At 5'3" and 48 years of age my BMR is calculated at 1312. That means if I'm not moving around much my maintenance calories are only 1574. It's not dangerous for me to be 100 calories under that for any length of time. If it were I'm sure I'd be dead already and not sitting here with 10 or 15 pounds to lose.

I have a hard enough time swallowing the "everyone, regardless of any factor, should net 1200 calories per day" when I know that there are women much smaller than me who would gain weight eating 1200 calories per day; they just don't have the mass to burn more than that without a good deal of extra activity each day.

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?

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).

Well, that is good to hear. I figure I'm at least low-30s% BF. I was 10 lbs. lighter when a gym tested me at mid-30s. Even if we assume 30%BF, that's 154*.30=46 lbs. of fat and a 1400 calorie deficit, so an ok to eat under 500/day. Not that I would obviously, but I think it's clear that 1200-1500 is not hurting me.

And SueInAz- I totally hear ya. Keep speaking out. The men think we make this **** up.

likitisplit

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).

Well, that is good to hear. I figure I'm at least low-30s% BF. I was 10 lbs. lighter when a gym tested me at mid-30s. Even if we assume 30%BF, that's 154*.30=46 lbs. of fat and a 1400 calorie deficit, so an ok to eat under 500/day. Not that I would obviously, but I think it's clear that 1200-1500 is not hurting me.

And SueInAz- I totally hear ya. Keep speaking out. The men think we make this **** up.

If all you were looking at is calories and not daily protein/fat requirements. But I'm not sure what this has to do with a 1500 deficit?

RHachicho

Ok I'm not really very sure where my own thread is going now. I hope you guys don't intend to have an argument about how little calories you should eat. I would like this to be a sensible pragmatic discussion. Let's face it people on both sides of the fence tend to get a bit over eager about this one. There are people who are on 1200 calorie diets who really should eat more. And there are people who think that nobody should eat 1200 calories ever. Largely because of group number 1. I would prefer it if we keep the discussion centered around actual concrete ways to tell how much of a deficit you can sustain with your current diet, body fat % and activity level. Lord knows there have been enough 1200 calorie b*tch fights already.

For the record I will restate my initial question. Is there any concrete way to tell when severe detriments kick in due to calorie restriction that take into account body fat% and diet quality.

likitisplit

Ok I'm not really very sure where my own thread is going now. I hope you guys don't intend to have an argument about how little calories you should eat. I would like this to be a sensible pragmatic discussion. Let's face it people on both sides of the fence tend to get a bit over eager about this one. There are people who are on 1200 calorie diets who really should eat more. And there are people who think that nobody should eat 1200 calories ever. Largely because of group number 1. I would prefer it if we keep the discussion centered around actual concrete ways to tell how much of a deficit you can sustain with your current diet, body fat % and activity level. Lord knows there have been enough 1200 calorie b*tch fights already.

My experience at 32% body fat (42-year-old woman) was that I lost about 3-4 pounds a week for the first six weeks I was on MFP at 2300 calories, which *should have* been a 500 calorie deficit and then that slowed down to 1/2 pound to a pound a week. And that was fine.

But that's different than where you are, since you've lost a significant (way to go!) amount of weight and have a handle on your numbers at this point.

ETA - you've probably gotten all the deep insights you are going to get from this thread.

RHachicho

Ok I'm not really very sure where my own thread is going now. I hope you guys don't intend to have an argument about how little calories you should eat. I would like this to be a sensible pragmatic discussion. Let's face it people on both sides of the fence tend to get a bit over eager about this one. There are people who are on 1200 calorie diets who really should eat more. And there are people who think that nobody should eat 1200 calories ever. Largely because of group number 1. I would prefer it if we keep the discussion centered around actual concrete ways to tell how much of a deficit you can sustain with your current diet, body fat % and activity level. Lord knows there have been enough 1200 calorie b*tch fights already.

My experience at 32% body fat (42-year-old woman) was that I lost about 3-4 pounds a week for the first six weeks I was on MFP at 2300 calories, which *should have* been a 500 calorie deficit and then that slowed down to 1/2 pound to a pound a week. And that was fine.

But that's different than where you are, since you've lost a significant (way to go!) amount of weight and have a handle on your numbers at this point.

ETA - you've probably gotten all the deep insights you are going to get from this thread.

Yeah .. you are probably right about that.

DeguelloTex

I think the only relatively concrete answer is going to be based on an individual's situation. If you're stalled on weight progression, maybe you need more calories... or maybe you need a more advanced program because you're past the beginner/noob gains.

It sounds like, as you say, that you're probably about as low as you can go calorie-wise and might be close to the point where your deficit needs to shrink a bit to continue progression.

likitisplit

I think the only relatively concrete answer is going to be based on an individual's situation. If you're stalled on weight progression, maybe you need more calories... or maybe you need a more advanced program because you're past the beginner/noob gains.

It sounds like, as you say, that you're probably about as low as you can go calorie-wise and might be close to the point where your deficit needs to shrink a bit to continue progression.

I'd try adding calories before changing programs. When you get to the point where you get to eat at or slightly above maintenance, you will flip out about how much easier it all is. You'll be moving serious weight around.