"Body recomposition"

CorvusCorax77

What the what???

Can someone who looks better than me read this and tell me if it makes sense or is this rubbish?

http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding_900/988_body-recomposition.html

Also, if it isn't utter rubbish, is his math for guys only? I'm 136 lbs, 20% bf I want to lose 6 lbs of fat to be 16% bf. According to this, I should eat 1600 cals lifting days and only 1000 on non-lifting days. That seems wrong. My TDEE is 2000. I'm currently eating 1700 a day. Would it be more realistic for me to eat say 1300 on rest days and 1700 on lift days?

GiGi76

Not sure about this but i would think the 1700/1300 split or a 1700/1200split would be better!!! Here is the calculator i use to use but havent in some time!!! Need to get more serious about diet again!!!

http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/

GiGi76

Dont know how tall you are but looks like this one gives you more of a 2000/1300 split!!! This is for IFing too!!! Dont know if you do that or not!!!

geekyjock76

If you know you don't maintain off of 1523 calories when you truly do at 2000, then I wouldn't go by his guidelines.

DontStopB_Leakin

I would take any article off of Askmen.com, especially one pertaining to fitness, with a grain of salt.

According to his article, I maintain at 1800 (wrong), I should eat 1300 on rest days (LOLWUT?) and I should eat 1900 on training days (again, LOLWUT?)

In actuality, I maintain at about 2100, and I generally consume 1700 calories on rest days, and anywhere from 2000-2300 calories on training days.

I'm steadily decreasing my BF% just fine.

joejccva71

Meh. Recomps.

chrisdavey

if you believe your TDEE is 2000 and you are currently at 1700 and losing weight then stick with that until it stops working. You don't need to cycle carbs/cals. As long as you continue lifting and maintain a deficit then it's all about consistency and patience

EvgeniZyntx

His math is bad and used the old linear calcs from the 70s - Katch and McArdle outline these simplifications in their book and then recommend their formula.

I'd listen to Chris or Lea on this depending on hunger.

Sarauk2sf

if you believe your TDEE is 2000 and you are currently at 1700 and losing weight then stick with that until it stops working. You don't need to cycle carbs/cals. As long as you continue lifting and maintain a deficit then it's all about consistency and patience

^^this. However, cycling may be useful for gym performance. I have high and low days for that reason...not for weight loss/recomp reasons.

monty619

cutting and bulking much more effective and easier to do... or better yet cut weight then reverse diet to get ur metabolism back and build a little more muscle.

chrisdavey

if you believe your TDEE is 2000 and you are currently at 1700 and losing weight then stick with that until it stops working. You don't need to cycle carbs/cals. As long as you continue lifting and maintain a deficit then it's all about consistency and patience

^^this. However, cycling may be useful for gym performance. I have high and low days for that reason...not for weight loss/recomp reasons.

Do you go higher on workout days or the day before? (like CBL) And if on workout days, pre or post workout?

Or just go by hunger?

michellekicks

I say read this: http://gokaleo.com/?p=666

Sarauk2sf

if you believe your TDEE is 2000 and you are currently at 1700 and losing weight then stick with that until it stops working. You don't need to cycle carbs/cals. As long as you continue lifting and maintain a deficit then it's all about consistency and patience

^^this. However, cycling may be useful for gym performance. I have high and low days for that reason...not for weight loss/recomp reasons.

Do you go higher on workout days or the day before? (like CBL) And if on workout days, pre or post workout?

Or just go by hunger?

I work out semi fasted in the morning (latte only) so I eat the night before for my lifting days. I don't carb backload as much as calorie backload although a greater % of my carbs often do come in the evening...especially with my ice-cream in bed!. It's really just an energy thing...I do not do well at all at the gym under a certain amount of calories and when mine got low (for me) I started playing around with them to get the biggest bang for my buck so to speak. It's not even a hunger thing - just a "Sara will turn into a whiny bish as her gym session went cr@ppy" thing.

stonel94

this is all very complicated and hard to follow, especially because not many people know their actual BF% because it's expensive to get done at a doctor and scales and calculators are wrong, so don't even attempt this if you haven't gotten a bod pod or something done. Basically, what you need to do is simple in terms, just hard to stick to, Eat above your BMR but below your TDEE to lose weight, now weight is both fat and muscle, eat high protein, and weight train to help build and maintain muscle so you lose more fat. I changed my settings to 40% carbs, 30% for both fat and protein. Try to eat lean protein, good fats, and high quality carbs. Weight train 2-3 times a week on your heaviest weights to build and maintain muscle (drink or eat something high protein after), and do some cardio to speed up the fat loss (but eat back most of your calories, if you don't have a heart rate monitor then don't eat back all of them because it's probably wrong). it's scary to start weight training, and up your calories, but it really does work. I've lost inches (idk about weight, but inches and fat and have gotten more muscular) very quickly from following my above formula and I follow New Rules of Lifting for Women.
It is hard to eat that much protein, but it gets easier, I'm at school so have limited options so I have a protein shake for breakfast (23-26 grams of protein) usually chicken at least twice a day, sometimes fish, turkey, beef, things like jerky (but watch the salt) are great. And I always have a protein shake after working out (and usually then eat a meal with protein as well) and since doing this I have been much less sore depsite doing hard lifting workouts and also hard cardio.
Try eating whole foods not reduced fat reduced carb etc. (except in things like milk that's fine) and drink lots of water (i recommend aiming for a gallon)

Vailara

The rest of you can count yourself lucky! : D It gives me maintenance calories of 1222! I'm supposed to eat 722 calories on non-workout days and 1322 on workout days! I suppose that would certainly recompose my body, one way or another.

Sarauk2sf

Oh, and you cannot use the bf% maintenance calories, even if it did work as they are for guys.

neandermagnon

Just making notes as I read through....

carb/calorie cycling is nothing new

his comments about calorie calculators, while he's not technically incorrect, there are two problems with what he's saying:
a) the Katch McArdle formula DOES take into account the different calorie needs that arise from having more/less lean body mass than usual, that's why it's based on weight and body fat percentage, rather than weight and height (like most)
b) the fact that calorie calculators only give an estimate is neither here nor there, you use that as a starting point then adjust your calories up or down, if necessary, based on real world results. Even though they're not that accurate, they're usually close enough that you can use them as a starting point.
c) when he discusses "More advanced formulas" (i.e. Katch McArdle) that are based on LBM, he says they don't take into account the difference between a lean person or fat person with the same lean body mass - actually the Katch McArdle formula does, which is why it requires the person's weight and their body fat percentage.

So he's devised his own....

well I typed in my data. According to him, I would maintain at 1300 cals/day. Errr what??? I don't think so!!

I actually maintain at 1800-1900 cals a day.

Katch McArdle formula predicts I'd maintain at around 1870 cals/day

Then he suggests subtracting 500 from his magic number to lose weight

errrrrrrrr NO!

I ate 1300 cals/day when obese and just starting out with losing fat

that went up to 1400 and then 1500 cals/day as I got leaner. My cutting phase calories are 1570 cals/day.


I didn't have the patience to read through the rest of it.

Especially as he's claiming to be able to make people lose fat and gain muscle at the same time with calorie/carb cycling (which, in itself is not incorrect as you can do that if you alternate between phases of surplus and deficit, however his calorie calculator gives wildly innaccurate numbers that would not result in "body recomposition")

Personally I'm sticking to Katch McArdle....

and the question about whether it's suitable for women and not just men, well I'd say he's only got men in mind seeing as is highest category is 22%+ body fat, which is not overfat for a woman, it's in the middle of the healthy range. However if in spite of this it's greatly underestimating womens' calorie needs, it's going to be underestimating men's calorie needs even more.

ETA: actually it won't... because gender doesn't make a difference if you're basing it on lean body mass and body fat percentage, because the reason why men burn more calories on average than women, is because they have more lean body mass and a lower body fat percentage (again, on average) than women.

I agree with his last little bit about all calorie estimates being a starting point from which you adjust based on real world results, however it contracts everything he said about traditional calorie calculators earlier in the article. IMO they give a much more reliable starting point than his formula would.

CorvusCorax77

Woof!

I'm just trying to make sense of things. The scale doesn't move. The measurements don't move. I feel like my belly is getting flatter but I also sometimes feel like the only measurable progress is in my ORMs.

I had my bf tested hydrostatic- it was 19.2% and I weighed 135.

I'm just feeling impatient I guess. And wondering if I should be eating less on non-workout days than 1700. Or should I be eating more on work out days. Shoukd I be eating at maintenance or what.

A year ago I weighed 123 eating 1200 cals plus. This was when I started lifting and upped my cals because I didn't like the way I still looked flabby and soft (I guess skinny fat is the term). I put on weight - I don't know maybe 7lbs. Then I fell off the wagon a few months and that's how I got to high 130's. In January I went to eating 1700 and being consistent with the lifting....

Oh I had the test done in I think June.

CorvusCorax77

Also, I do actually know better than to freak out about this... But I'm human so every once in a while I will.

EvgeniZyntx

Just making notes as I read through....

carb/calorie cycling is nothing new

his comments about calorie calculators, while he's not technically incorrect, there are two problems with what he's saying:
a) the Katch McArdle formula DOES take into account the different calorie needs that arise from having more/less lean body mass than usual, that's why it's based on weight and body fat percentage, rather than weight and height (like most)

Sort of correct.

The KM formula only accounts for LBM, here it is in it's limited glory:


It does not take into account Fat Mass. That is because FM is a lesser component in the BMR (LBM acounts for 60-70% of BMR)

The fixed term up front takes care of a "average" FM, non-muscle LBM and thermic effect of food, more or less.
I agree with the rest of your post.

It's an estimate. Use your real experience to determine your own TDEE range (which is really an average over a period), adjust from that.
___

Back to Corvus - What is your maintenance (not calculated but experienced over 20-30 days of really good logging)? I am assuming you have a small loss that you want to achieve, so eat at that maintenance - 10%.

Calculate the weekly calories of that (maintenance -10%) * 7 = weekly total for a slow loss

Spread those over the week as you like - constant or 200+ on days prior to training - remaining on other days. Your choice. It depends on your preference for performance/hunger.

Sara sees a performance difference with a pre-work out higher eat. (She's badass)
I do not because my performance sucks more due to sleep and other variables.

Is 1700 currently maintenance or do you gain at that over the last months?

CorvusCorax77

I have been at 1700 since January 2nd. My weight always fluctuates so its hard to tell if I have lost or gained- but it seems to be basically the same range it has been in since Nov (I was on 1300 + exercise cals in Nov and Dec). I also started 3/5/1 in December, but I have been lifting for a year (minus the hiatus I mentioned in aug-oct of last year).

So- basically- I have no fricken clue.

EvgeniZyntx

Ok - in the absence of a clue - here are a couple of options:

a) you are either at maintenance or close enough that it doesn't matter - but are in the mental area of "spinning your wheels". Things are probably changing up or down but since you can't tell, it just seems like an awful place to be. You can actually, if you want to test this, up your calories by 200 (yes, I said up, don't freak, read on.) And see if you gain over a period of 2-3 weeks. If you do, it will be a slight gain - 1/2 a lb at most - and it will be partially driven by your training and ... partially muscle. If you do gain over that period (and measure - without worrying since you are ok if a gain shows, just get data points for a linear regression) then you have confirmed your maintenance. Cost: a small weight gain and muscle. If you don't gain, rinse, repeat and eat +200.

b) go for a clear cut, drop 200 for 4 weeks and see how much you lose. Again measure, measure. Continue training. look at performance? If you are not seeing a drop, but see a drop in performance this is slightly under your maintenance needs. So you can keep anywhere between 1500-1700 to see slow changes. Slow is good, slow protects muscle while maintaining performance.

c) take a break - you've been at this for about 6 months, feeling impatient and might be losing motivation. Quit for two weeks and relax the calorie watch. Continue working out. Come back, fresh and go to it. The mental is just as important as the physical in all of this.

Once you have a clearer idea of your numbers you can decide to maintain, cut, bulk or "culk" with less second guessing yourself.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

cutting and bulking much more effective and easier to do...

This is what I've always read. And honestly I've been averaging around maintenance for about year and see pretty much no change in my body composition.

neandermagnon

Just making notes as I read through....

carb/calorie cycling is nothing new

his comments about calorie calculators, while he's not technically incorrect, there are two problems with what he's saying:
a) the Katch McArdle formula DOES take into account the different calorie needs that arise from having more/less lean body mass than usual, that's why it's based on weight and body fat percentage, rather than weight and height (like most)

Sort of correct.

The KM formula only accounts for LBM, here it is in it's limited glory:


It does not take into account Fat Mass. That is because FM is a lesser component in the BMR (LBM acounts for 60-70% of BMR)

The fixed term up front takes care of a "average" FM, non-muscle LBM and thermic effect of food, more or less.
I agree with the rest of your post.

It's an estimate. Use your real experience to determine your own TDEE range (which is really an average over a period), adjust from that.

Okay. thanks for the correction. :flowerforyou:

it works for me, but then my bf% is average (i.e. in the 20-25% range)

absolutely @ starting point and adjusting from there.

btw I tested out that formula to see if it gave me the same number as the calculators I use... kept getting a ridiculously high number until it dawned on me that the equation requires weight in kilos, not lbs. lol

CorvusCorax77

I'm laughing at the suggestion that I relax on watching cals the only days I haven't logged in the last three years have been when I was out of range of a network - like backpacking. I'm OCD about it. Haha.

monty619

if u increase calories ever so slowly (100 daily cals every week or two) you will be able to get ur metabolism maybe up to 2500 cals daily with like 5lbs gained then be able to cut cals again (slowly ofcourse) and be able to get to a lower body fat %.. strength training is also necessary but you should try reverse dieting.

LorinaLynn

I would take any article off of Askmen.com, especially one pertaining to fitness, with a grain of salt.

Agreed. I refer to the site as "Askmen... then do the opposite." It's like Cosmo for men, maybe worse.

EvgeniZyntx

Just making notes as I read through....

carb/calorie cycling is nothing new

his comments about calorie calculators, while he's not technically incorrect, there are two problems with what he's saying:
a) the Katch McArdle formula DOES take into account the different calorie needs that arise from having more/less lean body mass than usual, that's why it's based on weight and body fat percentage, rather than weight and height (like most)

Sort of correct.

The KM formula only accounts for LBM, here it is in it's limited glory:


It does not take into account Fat Mass. That is because FM is a lesser component in the BMR (LBM acounts for 60-70% of BMR)

The fixed term up front takes care of a "average" FM, non-muscle LBM and thermic effect of food, more or less.
I agree with the rest of your post.

It's an estimate. Use your real experience to determine your own TDEE range (which is really an average over a period), adjust from that.

Okay. thanks for the correction. :flowerforyou:

it works for me, but then my bf% is average (i.e. in the 20-25% range)

absolutely @ starting point and adjusting from there.

btw I tested out that formula to see if it gave me the same number as the calculators I use... kept getting a ridiculously high number until it dawned on me that the equation requires weight in kilos, not lbs. lol

ooops, yeah, kilos. sorry.

CorvusCorax77

I would take any article off of Askmen.com, especially one pertaining to fitness, with a grain of salt.

Agreed. I refer to the site as "Askmen... then do the opposite." It's like Cosmo for men, maybe worse.

Thanks for the tip. I'm so not a fan of pop culture so I really didn't know what it was. But of course even the name suggested it was potentially garbage. But I still thought the article itself may have merit.

Thanks everyone. Y'all can continue this converstaion if you want to, but I think I have made up my mind to continue on the track I am on. I can't be impatient. I also can't measure any difference because, as I said, my weight fluctuates 5 lbs in a day with water, and even more for TOM. I'm enjoying watching my ORM's go up. Maybe I'll revisit what i should be doing after i get my next hydrostatic test and have a better idea of if I'm heading in the right direction with my body fat.

Thanks!

BusyRaeNOTBusty

I would take any article off of Askmen.com, especially one pertaining to fitness, with a grain of salt.

Agreed. I refer to the site as "Askmen... then do the opposite." It's like Cosmo for men, maybe worse.

Thanks for the tip. I'm so not a fan of pop culture so I really didn't know what it was. But of course even the name suggested it was potentially garbage. But I still thought the article itself may have merit.

Thanks everyone. Y'all can continue this converstaion if you want to, but I think I have made up my mind to continue on the track I am on. I can't be impatient. I also can't measure any difference because, as I said, my weight fluctuates 5 lbs in a day with water, and even more for TOM. I'm enjoying watching my ORM's go up. Maybe I'll revisit what i should be doing after i get my next hydrostatic test and have a better idea of if I'm heading in the right direction with my body fat.

Thanks!

Start tracking your weight in excel, then add a trend line.:bigsmile: