Maximum deficit - 31cal per lb of fat?

UponThisRock

I was just thinking about this topic this morning, lol.

It is true that larger people can tolerate larger deficits. I think it's both because of having more fat to lose and because of insulin resistance/sensitivity issues.

I would caution folks against trying to nitpick over exact numbers though, a lot of other factors come into play when you're dealing with real-world weight loss.

Phrak

This is the basis of the reverse taper diet a Brad Pilon and John Barban creation. You start by eating a deficit close to that 31g/lb of fat you hold. Then as body fat reduces, your deficit reduces with it. So you may actually end up with a higher caloric intake at the end of the diet then at the start.

Loony33

This is the basis of the reverse taper diet a Brad Pilon and John Barban creation. You start by eating a deficit close to that 31g/lb of fat you hold. Then as body fat reduces, your deficit reduces with it. So you may actually end up with a higher caloric intake at the end of the diet then at the start.

That's an interesting concept, but Barban seems to suggest that this needs to be compensated for via extra exercise or physical activity for continued weight loss which would make sense. I wonder how this 31 number changes with activity levels - especially low intensity ones such as walking where there typically is a high oxidation demand from the adipocytes.

happy_travels

Bump

I was curious how the reverse diet worked. Thanks for posting.

iballin

how does this make sense,,, if a 330 lb obese person is carrying 150 lbs of body fat , then 150 x 31 = 4650 . well that doesn't make sense because a 330 persons maintenance calories are less then that if not close to the same, so an obese person can eat nothing and lose 0 muscle while starving away?? interesting non the less, i know Ian McCarthy and Lyle MacDonald both advocate this.. and they're smart guys but how does it work for the bigger ppl 150 lbs or more.

AlabasterVerve

how does this make sense,,, if a 330 lb obese person is carrying 150 lbs of body fat , then 150 x 31 = 4650 . well that doesn't make sense because a 330 persons maintenance calories are less then that if not close to the same, so an obese person can eat nothing and lose 0 muscle while starving away?? interesting non the less, i know Ian McCarthy and Lyle MacDonald both advocate this.. and they're smart guys but how does it work for the bigger ppl 150 lbs or more.

Yes, well not zero muscle but fasting is protective of muscle. Our bodies are quite capable of going long periods of time without food.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

iballin

naw not really in a lean person though, 72 hours equals Catabolic ie loss of non-fatty tissue(muscle). wasent really talking about fasting per say, just wondering how its possible for someone to have deficit greater then there maintenance and i found out how, and its obvious.. lol silly me, it would entail cardio, and eating like 1500 calories, as to not be micro nutrient deficient crazy how an obese person with 150 pounds to lose could be in a 4600 deficit, without risk of any muscle break down, and if they did strength training, that deficit could actually be higher according to science, obviously as theyre weight adjusts the deficit would need to actually become smaller, and they would actually need to eat more calories, as to not destroy metabolism ,

malimisko

Is 31 cal/lb fat same for everyone ? If we assume 3500 cal per lb of fat then this gives 31/3500 = 0.88% loss of fat per day max.
But is .88% same for all of us ? What happens if you have greater caloric deficit - do you lose muscle ?

Look at this guy

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

This article is about 207kg (over 450lb) man who did not eat anything for little over a year and lost 125kg. He did get multivitamins and yeast. He lived at least 5 years later since article claims he regained only 7 kg.