How fast is too fast for a cut?

MrGonzo05

I've been bulking for months. After my powerlifting meet in 1 week, I will start a cut. I'm 195 lbs and 20-21% BF according to two different impedance method BF estimators, and my mirror, LOL. I will lose 15-20 lbs.

When it comes to retaining lean mass, how fast is too fast for a cut? During my last cut, I experienced a decrease in gym performance, particularly decreased strength on bench press and OHP. That caused me to get concerned I'm going too fast.
But I hate cutting and would rather not cut slower than I really need to.

DopeItUp

I've always read that optimum cutting is .5-1% of BW per week.

Outside of that, PERSONALLY, I think to avoid lifts dropping off, you have to adjust expectations and volume/frequency. My first cut I lost a ton of strength and it took me months of bulking just to catch back up. This cut (4 months) I have maintained and even made some small PRs. How? As I cut calories I cut out volume. I'm doing 5/3/1 and doing the basic 5/3/1 stuff and just 3 sets of two different accessories and that's it. On DL/Squat day it's wussy accessories too, like abs and hypers. I'm also taking every 4th week as a deload (used to be every 7th during a bulk).

Calorie deficit == recovery deficit.

Having said that, to actually answer your question, I think it depends on the person. I've been curious myself and have been slowly cutting more and more calories to see where my cut-off is, but I've found that as long as I compensate volume/frequency appropriately, I seem to be okay. I started at 3000 calories and am now at 2000 and still matching previous lifts (barely, admittedly). As I cut calories, random bad days start cropping up more and more though.

I think length of cut is a factor too. I've read reports of people doing PSMF diets and cutting huge weight (4lbs/week) and maintaining strength - as long as they kept the cut short (8-12 weeks or so). Here's an example: http://www.powerliftingtowin.com/rapid-fatloss-handbook-before-and-after-results-review/

I think I might try it for 8 weeks next spring. These long, drawn out cuts just suck my will to live. Plus, shorter cut == more time bulking. Even if I drop a little LBM I can bulk for so much longer and potentially come out ahead. I like experimentation too.

Other than that, there's just so many other factors that it's hard to give a real answer. Age, genetics, training age, training program, diet/macros/meal timing/rest and everything else are all going to play a factor. Just gotta try things and find out, IMO.

chrisdavey

^^^ very well said.

I believe the .5-1% figure is aimed at people who are relatively lean getting very lean so basically guys about 15% or less. I'd say you can probably get away with a slightly higher loss from 20% but I'd only do that short term.

FWIW I've done Lyle's RFL in the past 3 times and have maintained strength. I am a category 1 so only last 12 days so you would hope that you couldn't lose too much LBM in that time. I will say, the diet is VERY tough and I personally think it is quite difficult to go back to a "normal" intake afterwards. After the refeed (1200g of carbs in 2 days for me) I just wanted to eat everything. (moreso than normal :laugh:)

heybales

Here's study comparing 1.4% to 0.7% loss rates.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571

When weight loss (WL) is necessary, athletes are advised to accomplish it gradually, at a rate of 0.5-1 kg/wk. However, it is possible that losing 0.5 kg/wk is better than 1 kg/wk in terms of preserving lean body mass (LBM) and performance.

The aim of this study was to compare changes in body composition, strength, and power during a weekly body-weight (BW) loss of 0.7% slow reduction (SR) vs. 1.4% fast reduction (FR). We hypothesized that the faster WL regimen would result in more detrimental effects on both LBM and strength-related performance.

Twenty-four athletes were randomized to SR (n = 13, 24 ± 3 yr, 71.9 ± 12.7 kg) or FR (n = 11, 22 ± 5 yr, 74.8 ± 11.7 kg).
They followed energy-restricted diets promoting the predetermined weekly WL.
All athletes included 4 resistance-training sessions/wk in their usual training regimen.
The mean times spent in intervention for SR and FR were 8.5 ± 2.2 and 5.3 ± 0.9 wk, respectively (p < .001).
BW, body composition (DEXA), 1-repetition-maximum (1RM) tests, 40-m sprint, and countermovement jump were measured before and after intervention.
Energy intake was reduced by 19% ± 2% and 30% ± 4% in SR and FR, respectively (p = .003).

BW and fat mass decreased in both SR and FR by 5.6% ± 0.8% and 5.5% ± 0.7% (0.7% ± 0.8% vs. 1.0% ± 0.4%/wk) and 31% ± 3% and 21 ± 4%, respectively.
LBM increased in SR by 2.1% ± 0.4% (p < .001), whereas it was unchanged in FR (-0.2% ± 0.7%), with significant differences between groups (p < .01).

In conclusion, data from this study suggest that athletes who want to gain LBM and increase 1RM strength during a WL period combined with strength training should aim for a weekly BW loss of 0.7%.

junlex123

Somewhat restating heybales' post, but for my own understanding: if I'm reading that paper correctly (and omitting the ranges for clarity)

over a mean weight loss period of 8.5 weeks, the slow loss group lost an average of 5.6% of their bodyweight (from average of 71.9kg to 67.8kg), 31% of their body fat (from average of 15.5kg to 10.5kg), and gained 2.1% LBM (from average of 53.7kg to average of 54.7kg). Increases of 5-10% in 1RM were seen for the three exercises tested over this 8.5 week period.

over a mean weight loss period of 5.3 weeks, the fast loss group lost an average of 5.5% of their bodyweight (from average of 74.8kg to 70.6kg), 21% of their body fat (from average of 17.6kg to 14.4kg), and saw a very slight loss of 0.2% in LBM (from average of 54.1kg to 53.8kg). Increases in 1RM were recorded, but of a significantly smaller magnitude (2.3% for bench press, 1.8% for bench pull, 7% for squat).


The most interesting (to me) finding from this study was that the slow dieting group actually gained absolute LBM over the course of their calorie restriction, and both groups gained some strength. The authors are quick to point out that this is not a result seen consistently across other studies into weight loss, and suggest that 'the reason for this may be that the heavy strength training during the intervention stimulated muscle growth and thereby overrode the catabolic effect of negative energy balance on LBM.' Nothing we've not heard already; lifting heavy preserves LBM in a decificit, but to see actual gains, especially in elite, already trained, athletes, is highly surprising to me. On the other hand, being trained athletes the subjects would probably have been better about adhering to their training and nutritional strategies than an average joe/jane with less investment. Also, despite being elite athletes, the subjects were from a variety of disciplines (weightlifting was not respresented) so it would be presumptuous to consider them to have undergone an elite level of weight training prior to the study.

This is ofc only one study though with a fairly small sample size, and breaking down the groups along gender lines, it turns out the men in the fast loss group did lose some LBM (2.0%), while those in the slow loss group did gain some LBM (1.7%). Women gained LBM in both groups, and the authors offer some possible explanations for this: 'the fact that women had a higher baseline percent body fat may have contributed to a greater potential for LBM increase in women, as well as other factors such as type of previous strength training.'


All that aside, the main question though is this: the slow weight loss group were on a deficit for an average of 3.2 weeks longer than the fast loss group; how would the fast loss group compare to the slow loss group after eating at surplus for those additional 3.2 weeks? It seems to me that there's quite a lot of ground for the fast loss group to make up in that period to catch up to the slow loss group's results.

The obvious suggestion for a further study would be to test a group on an even smaller deficit, or even maintenance, to see whether recomping really is less efficient than bulk/cut cycles - anyone aware of such studies?

MrGonzo05

I appreciate your comments, thank you.

tsimblist

Here is an article about a recent study that looks interesting:

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/07/750kcalday-deficit-approach-to-cutting.html

750kcal/day Deficit Approach to "Cutting" Beats Cautious 300kcal/day Deficit: Almost 2kg Fat in 4 Weeks + No Decline in Testosterone or Muscle Loss in Lean Athletes

heybales

Huh, lost almost 2 kg (say 4 lbs) of fat in 4 weeks with 750 cal deficit. (actually, study and his notes further down state 700 deficit)

700 x 28 days = 19600 / 3500 cal/lb fat = 5.6 lbs.

Or another way to look at it.
4 lbs lost x 3500 = 14000 / 28 days = 500 cal deficit.

Results don't seem to dictate what they claim.

Perhaps the guys not so good at logging what they ate, or rather eating where they were supposed to.

So a 500 cal deficit it would actually appear from results, from about an actual TDEE of 2500, is only 20% again.

And what were these male track and field athletes doing during this time to only hit a TDEE of 2500?
Was this a resting 4 weeks off with minimal exercise?

junlex123

Huh, lost almost 2 kg (say 4 lbs) of fat in 4 weeks with 750 cal deficit. (actually, study and his notes further down state 700 deficit)

700 x 28 days = 19600 / 3500 cal/lb fat = 5.6 lbs.

Or another way to look at it.
4 lbs lost x 3500 = 14000 / 28 days = 500 cal deficit.

Results don't seem to dictate what they claim.

Perhaps the guys not so good at logging what they ate, or rather eating where they were supposed to.

So a 500 cal deficit it would actually appear from results, from about an actual TDEE of 2500, is only 20% again.

And what were these male track and field athletes doing during this time to only hit a TDEE of 2500?
Was this a resting 4 weeks off with minimal exercise?

Yeah the article seems to be making some slightly dodgy claims compared to the original paper (which I can't access unfortunately). Just looking at figure 1, their cut was 700 cal/day rather than 750, and there was a clear lbm loss of about 600g in the -700cal/day group...

SideSteel

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said.

I think .5 to 1% BW/week is going to be reasonable in most contexts.

I do think that there may be merit in some people, at the beginning of a cut, to start out a bit aggressive. In the beginning of a cut you have more bodyfat so you can afford to go faster. Performance issues aren't quite as likely to show up early on, you're not as likely to lose LBM (because in the beginning of a cut you have more body fat), you're not as likely to have adherence issues because you just came off of a bulk.

Certainly there's not a one size fits all approach but in theory the above makes sense to me and in practice it works well. For me, I'm a bit more aggressive for 1 to 2 weeks. By more aggressive I'm talking about pinching off an extra 200-300 cals.