What calorie DEFICIT do you use? -10%? -20%? or 100%?!

florentinovillaro
florentinovillaro Posts: 342 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
So here's the thing. There's a lot of research regarding the minimum amount of calories you should eat daily before you start to go into starvation mode.

I am currently at a 50% deficit daily, 6 days per week with one cheat day on you guessed it, Saturday or Sunday.

What percentage do you set your goal at, and are you still losing 2 lbs or more per week?

Mahalo (Thank you in Hawaiian) for your feedback.

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,281 Member
    Starvation mode isn't a 1st world problem, especially in the USA. If a person has low body fat and then decides to consume extremely low calories, then yes, it can happen, otherwise no. Saying that when someone decides to consume low calories like you, the chances that it doesn't lead to binge eating and completely demoralizing oneself, is pretty rare.....good luck with it.
  • Sreneesa
    Sreneesa Posts: 1,170 Member
    20 % but thinking of doing 15 %.

    We shall see.

    I haven't been keeping track how much weight I lose in a period of time.

    Guess I should. lol...
  • jenifr818
    jenifr818 Posts: 805 Member
    -20% officially, but usually works out to be around -25% since I have yet to really figure out how to get within 25-50 calories of goal. It's ok though, because I always have at least 1 day a week where I go over goal by 20-25%. It evens out by the end of the week and I end at -20ish%
  • Sreneesa
    Sreneesa Posts: 1,170 Member
    Not judging OP, but why 50%.

    Seems dangerously aggressive.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    There is no one answer. With the appropriate care, and if you have enough weight to lose, you can do a 100% deficit. With only a little to lose, the supportable deficit may not even be 10%.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    "starvation mode" is a really stupid and confusing term, that to some people means their body behaves like a magical unicorn and break the laws of physics, and will store fat even though they're eating at a deficit. Others use it as a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis (but why not just assume your audience is intelligent and able to read big words like adaptive thermogenesis).

    The main issue from too low calorie diets is that you get hungry and are more likely to make poor food choices further down the line, or fall into compensatory overeating or even binging. This is a survival response, and it's hard to fight against your body's own survival instincts so it's better to avoid triggering them.

    Then there's the issue of loss of lean mass.... too big a deficit you risk losing lean mass. The more fat you have, the a easier it is to lose it without loss of lean mass or other problems, so as a general rule, if you have a huge amount of fat to lose, 30% deficit is a good number, provided you're not getting excessively hungry. If you're moderately obese 20% is better. For losing the last few lbs then 10% is better. Try to lose too much and what you're losing isn't going to be pure fat. You want to look after your lean body mass for health, keeping your metabolism fast and also because you look better after the fat comes off if you have a decent amount of lean mass.
  • Sreneesa
    Sreneesa Posts: 1,170 Member
    "starvation mode" is a really stupid and confusing term, that to some people means their body behaves like a magical unicorn and break the laws of physics, and will store fat even though they're eating at a deficit. Others use it as a layman's term for adaptive thermogenesis (but why not just assume your audience is intelligent and able to read big words like adaptive thermogenesis).

    The main issue from too low calorie diets is that you get hungry and are more likely to make poor food choices further down the line, or fall into compensatory overeating or even binging. This is a survival response, and it's hard to fight against your body's own survival instincts so it's better to avoid triggering them.

    Then there's the issue of loss of lean mass.... too big a deficit you risk losing lean mass. The more fat you have, the a easier it is to lose it without loss of lean mass or other problems, so as a general rule, if you have a huge amount of fat to lose, 30% deficit is a good number, provided you're not getting excessively hungry. If you're moderately obese 20% is better. For losing the last few lbs then 10% is better. Try to lose too much and what you're losing isn't going to be pure fat. You want to look after your lean body mass for health, keeping your metabolism fast and also because you look better after the fat comes off if you have a decent amount of lean mass.


    Hmmm.... Gave me some stuff to think about. Thank you. Ive been struggling with this.
  • florentinovillaro
    florentinovillaro Posts: 342 Member
    Not judging OP, but why 50%.

    Seems dangerously aggressive.

    I got that number from a very old study, which seemed to be the threshold or magic number. It stated that if a person goes above the 50% deficit, then your metabolism would start to significantly slow down by as much as 40%. I have been slowly increasing the deficit over 4 weeks and watching losses at the same time. I address the loss of muscle by weight training and carb cycling (after workout days). Looking for the most efficient way to lose weight on a daily basis.

    Honestly, a 50% deficit doesn't even make me flinch. I could push it even more to say 55% or 60% but I'm careful about going anymore and wanted input from other users who are at a large deficit and are still losing fat while maintaining most of their muscle.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    I'd be a lot more worried about my LBM than I would be about starvation mode.


    I'm in maintenance so no deficit for me at the moment.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    I'd be a lot more worried about my LBM than I would be about starvation mode.


    I'm in maintenance so no deficit for me at the moment.

    Ditto
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • stonel94
    stonel94 Posts: 550 Member
    10-20% I have it set for 10 but I often eat under that
  • florentinovillaro
    florentinovillaro Posts: 342 Member
    OP, so if maintenance is 1800, you're only eating 900 calories a day?

    So, how many calories per day are you eating?

    Prior to this post, it was 2800, and 1400. But I since recalculated on this week's weigh in so I'm back up to 2800/1800.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    OP, so if maintenance is 1800, you're only eating 900 calories a day?

    So, how many calories per day are you eating?

    Prior to this post, it was 2800, and 1400. But I since recalculated on this week's weigh in so I'm back up to 2800/1800.

    Ok, so that's not so bad. While I don't agree at all with your method, it seems like you're eating enough for it not to be dangerous at all.

    OP also has 145lbs to lose, which is a different ball game to losing 30 or 40lbs.

Categories