if fat loss is priority over building muscle?
Strangegirlz
Posts: 92 Member
Hi Guys
I had been reading Lyle Mcdonalds rapid fat loss plan and some people seem to react negatively to the idea of it as it involves a serious deficit and despite the fact that is meant to be used as a short term plan to promote rapid fat loss whilst maintaining LBM, people still think it is a bad idea. I just wondered, if fat loss is number one priority, followed by wanting to gain strength, would it not be a feasible tool to use? If a person whose priority is muscle and strength buliding is prepared to sacrifice a little leanness during a bulk, is this not the same idea as a person with a considerable amount of body fat to lose sacrificing a little muscle in order to achieve a lower body fat %? Both these groups follow their plan for a set amount of time, assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives. For bulkers it's a quicker way to build muscle as opposed to body recomp eating at maintenance, so for "dieters" would Lyle's approach not be an equivalent quicker option. I'm not saying a better option(def not the easiest or most fun)because it's personal preference as to what would feel best for an individual. Appreciate your opinions?
I had been reading Lyle Mcdonalds rapid fat loss plan and some people seem to react negatively to the idea of it as it involves a serious deficit and despite the fact that is meant to be used as a short term plan to promote rapid fat loss whilst maintaining LBM, people still think it is a bad idea. I just wondered, if fat loss is number one priority, followed by wanting to gain strength, would it not be a feasible tool to use? If a person whose priority is muscle and strength buliding is prepared to sacrifice a little leanness during a bulk, is this not the same idea as a person with a considerable amount of body fat to lose sacrificing a little muscle in order to achieve a lower body fat %? Both these groups follow their plan for a set amount of time, assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives. For bulkers it's a quicker way to build muscle as opposed to body recomp eating at maintenance, so for "dieters" would Lyle's approach not be an equivalent quicker option. I'm not saying a better option(def not the easiest or most fun)because it's personal preference as to what would feel best for an individual. Appreciate your opinions?
0
Replies
-
I'm no expert and I've never done any of those advertised diets focussed solely on rapid fat loss, but I do have 3 things to comment on/point out.
1) If you REALLY have a lot of body fat to lose, then a drastic deficit is rarely required. The more you have to lose, the easier it is to lose it and therefore you will usually see results without such drastic measures. ie; you would most likely still see great results with a 15% calorie reduction, rather than a +30% reduction, which I'd imagine is more in the ball park of where these programs put you.
2) If you start out at a drastic calorie deficit, let's say 25%, and you're successful in losing 15kg, but you still have 5-10kg to lose, then you don't really have much to play with to lose that last bit of weight. What I mean is that if you're already at a 25% deficit when you're weight loss plateaus, you would have to cut even further which is really not ideal and isn't going to serve you well at all. So in my opinion, you'd be better off starting with a slightly smaller deficit, say 15%, and see how you go for a few weeks, then re-evaluate. As well as taking a 'diet break' every 6 weeks where you eat at your TDEE to remind your body of what it should be getting, so it doesn't adjust to thinking your deficit calories are maintenance calories.
3) From what I've seen, these programs offer no advice or guidance on how to 'phase out' of the drastic calorie deficits. If you cut calories by 25% and reach your goal weight, it would make sense that you would then go back to eating your normal maintenance calories. Except that your body has been given no adjustment period so it starts to think you're eating too much (after being at a deficit for a significant period of time) and you end up putting some of that weight back on.
I don't believe that such drastic programs are necessary or beneficial in the long run, and I know of quite a few people who have tried them and ended up putting all the weight they lost back on, if not more.
At the end of the day you need to do what works for you, but if it were me I'd much rather focus on eating a balanced, whole foods diet, getting a good balance of protein, good fats and carbs, and moving more... It's not hard to log your food to ensure you stay at a deficit, and that way you can do it on your own terms and still enjoy your food...0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?
This is my current opinion:
I think that it's a very, very challenging diet to stick to and to come out of, and I think that many people will fail at it, and I think many people will over-eat after coming out of the diet and not net any fat loss from it when the smoke clears.
I'm making generalizations here but:
1) A competitive athlete that is used to more rigorous adherence might have the mentality to suffer through it.
2) A random person looking to lose weight that has tried all sorts of diets and sees RFL as a possible solution will probably crash and burn and might come out of it worse than they went into it with.
It's a possible method for the first category and potentially a very bad idea for the second category.
And obviously there's several folks in between.
Now just to clarify further, I'm not saying that nobody should do it ever. But I do think that it has a lot of appeal to it, and people get drawn in by that appeal without considering the challenges/possible crashing and burning.0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?
This is my current opinion:
I think that it's a very, very challenging diet to stick to and to come out of, and I think that many people will fail at it, and I think many people will over-eat after coming out of the diet and not net any fat loss from it when the smoke clears.
I'm making generalizations here but:
1) A competitive athlete that is used to more rigorous adherence might have the mentality to suffer through it.
2) A random person looking to lose weight that has tried all sorts of diets and sees RFL as a possible solution will probably crash and burn and might come out of it worse than they went into it with.
It's a possible method for the first category and potentially a very bad idea for the second category.
And obviously there's several folks in between.
Now just to clarify further, I'm not saying that nobody should do it ever. But I do think that it has a lot of appeal to it, and people get drawn in by that appeal without considering the challenges/possible crashing and burning.
Thank You Sidesteel
Appreciate that you obviously have a clear understanding of this specific diet and your points are very relevant. I guess my thoughts during my original post kind of overlooked the fact that the strict adherence to both the diet, and the guidelines given for moving back to maintenance would obviously be fundamental to the overall success of this plan and given its extremism, would be something that the majority of people probably would struggle with. I was thinking very simplistically, without being realistic about the true challenge involved to actually benefit long term from a plan like this.
Like you say, people could benefit, but probably not as many who think they will actually will!0 -
I despise any diet that involves losing muscle. Just too damn hard to get it back once it's gone. Bulking (muscle + fat) is completely different because it isn't that hard to lose fat. A diet that loses fat and muscle: it takes a lot of work to get that muscle back. Not worth the trade off, IMHO.
SAVE ALL MUSCLE.
Tom0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Probably need the OP's goals/priority?0
-
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?
This is my current opinion:
I think that it's a very, very challenging diet to stick to and to come out of, and I think that many people will fail at it, and I think many people will over-eat after coming out of the diet and not net any fat loss from it when the smoke clears.
I'm making generalizations here but:
1) A competitive athlete that is used to more rigorous adherence might have the mentality to suffer through it.
2) A random person looking to lose weight that has tried all sorts of diets and sees RFL as a possible solution will probably crash and burn and might come out of it worse than they went into it with.
It's a possible method for the first category and potentially a very bad idea for the second category.
And obviously there's several folks in between.
Now just to clarify further, I'm not saying that nobody should do it ever. But I do think that it has a lot of appeal to it, and people get drawn in by that appeal without considering the challenges/possible crashing and burning.
Just to add to this, even competitive bb'ers often have a real issue reversing out of a deep cut and basically binge and blow up. And these peeps are those that are extremely goal driven focused on body comp and often slightly OCD about their tracking.0 -
Ok, so what IS a reasonable rate at which to drop fat after a bulk? I have no interest in crash dieting or sacrificing any hard-earned muscle unnecessarily. At the end of August I was about 128lbs and around 19% bf; I'm a week and a half away from the end of my bulk and I'm now around 140 lbs. I'm not sure what my current bf is. Let's be optimistic and say that half of the gain was muscle, leaving me with 6ish lbs of fat to lose. What would be an appropriate rate of loss that would optimize muscle retention?0
-
Ok, so what IS a reasonable rate at which to drop fat after a bulk? I have no interest in crash dieting or sacrificing any hard-earned muscle unnecessarily. At the end of August I was about 128lbs and around 19% bf; I'm a week and a half away from the end of my bulk and I'm now around 140 lbs. I'm not sure what my current bf is. Let's be optimistic and say that half of the gain was muscle, leaving me with 6ish lbs of fat to lose. What would be an appropriate rate of loss that would optimize muscle retention?
.5-1% change in body weight per week is a good general figure but you have to consider what the individual needs to adhere to in order to declare what would be "reasonable".0 -
FWIW... my personal experience matches most of SS's thoughts.
It's an exceptionally hard program to stick to for more than a couple of days, and to cut that hard for a full 7-10 days is brutal. I've done RFL a couple of times for 3-5 days and never come out of it with the control I want and should have to make it worth while. I'm not sure the resulting binge completely reversed any positives from RFL, but it certainly did to some degree. I no longer find it beneficial to cut that hard for what ultimately ends up being minimal progress, when I can make the same progress, enjoy the process more, and maintain greater control in only a slightly longer time frame.0 -
Ok, so what IS a reasonable rate at which to drop fat after a bulk? I have no interest in crash dieting or sacrificing any hard-earned muscle unnecessarily. At the end of August I was about 128lbs and around 19% bf; I'm a week and a half away from the end of my bulk and I'm now around 140 lbs. I'm not sure what my current bf is. Let's be optimistic and say that half of the gain was muscle, leaving me with 6ish lbs of fat to lose. What would be an appropriate rate of loss that would optimize muscle retention?
.5-1% change in body weight per week is a good general figure but you have to consider what the individual needs to adhere to in order to declare what would be "reasonable".
Cool, thanks! .75-1 lb/week sounds manageable
1.5 is a bit on the high end, I think. I want to get back into maintenance asap but I know myself and my healthy appetite 
0 -
priority is losing fat, goals are becoming lean and strong.Probably need the OP's goals/priority?
It's not that I had intended to do this diet, but I had read a lot of Lyle McDs stuff and then out of interest read this and as it coincided with the Christmas period I started wondering if it would be a logical plan to follow for a very short time to recover from the post Christmas munchathon!
As I said in my follow up I think I prob didn't fully consider that not only the diet, but then the transition to my regular "diet"( TDEE-30%, which is fine for me as my TDEE is 2500, so still left with a high enough cal intake) would both need to be adhered to very accurately in order to achieve long term success. I think it would be that transitioning back that would be more problematic, for the same reasons others have mentioned, likeliness to binge etc after having been so restrictive.0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?
This is my current opinion:
I think that it's a very, very challenging diet to stick to and to come out of, and I think that many people will fail at it, and I think many people will over-eat after coming out of the diet and not net any fat loss from it when the smoke clears.
I'm making generalizations here but:
1) A competitive athlete that is used to more rigorous adherence might have the mentality to suffer through it.
2) A random person looking to lose weight that has tried all sorts of diets and sees RFL as a possible solution will probably crash and burn and might come out of it worse than they went into it with.
It's a possible method for the first category and potentially a very bad idea for the second category.
And obviously there's several folks in between.
Now just to clarify further, I'm not saying that nobody should do it ever. But I do think that it has a lot of appeal to it, and people get drawn in by that appeal without considering the challenges/possible crashing and burning.
Just to add to this, even competitive bb'ers often have a real issue reversing out of a deep cut and basically binge and blow up. And these peeps are those that are extremely goal driven focused on body comp and often slightly OCD about their tracking.
Yes Sara
I've seen it happen to guys in my gym. Couldn't quite understand why it happened as like you say they were always so focussed on tracking, just wondered is it a case of being all or nothing, once you start to reverse is it harder to maintain control. Is it psychological, physical, bit of both?0 -
I suspect because it's really tough to be that disciplined to get to that low BF ratio. Then have to maintain it until show day. Even sodium will bloat you and affect your looks.
I think they just binge because what they went though is such hard work.
I find just getting to 15% BF is really challenging to me. It makes hitting my strength goals easy. I've never been a lean/skinny and I want to see how I look just one time. Hopefully at around 10%. But I have 8% to go0 -
assuming the benefits out way the negatives and when they achieve their goal they are free to continue in a way that enables recovery from the negatives whilst still benefiting from the positives.
This is a massive assumption that, in my opinion, will be false for many.
Hey, do you mean it's a false assumption that the benefits out way the negatives or that it's unlikely an individual will recover from the negatives whilst benefiting from the positives, or both?
This is my current opinion:
I think that it's a very, very challenging diet to stick to and to come out of, and I think that many people will fail at it, and I think many people will over-eat after coming out of the diet and not net any fat loss from it when the smoke clears.
I'm making generalizations here but:
1) A competitive athlete that is used to more rigorous adherence might have the mentality to suffer through it.
2) A random person looking to lose weight that has tried all sorts of diets and sees RFL as a possible solution will probably crash and burn and might come out of it worse than they went into it with.
It's a possible method for the first category and potentially a very bad idea for the second category.
And obviously there's several folks in between.
Now just to clarify further, I'm not saying that nobody should do it ever. But I do think that it has a lot of appeal to it, and people get drawn in by that appeal without considering the challenges/possible crashing and burning.
Just to add to this, even competitive bb'ers often have a real issue reversing out of a deep cut and basically binge and blow up. And these peeps are those that are extremely goal driven focused on body comp and often slightly OCD about their tracking.
Yes Sara
I've seen it happen to guys in my gym. Couldn't quite understand why it happened as like you say they were always so focussed on tracking, just wondered is it a case of being all or nothing, once you start to reverse is it harder to maintain control. Is it psychological, physical, bit of both?
It's a bit of both, but mainly psychological. When you are losing, you have a goal....get to x weight/BF%, and with bb'ers, it's get to x weight by a certain date. After that, the goal is less tangible. Ideally you would reverse slowly, but I really find that reversing is harder than cutting. It's easy to justify in your head having a big eats day - I mean, you are supposed to upping calories..right? It is just harder to keep the breaks on when you are taking some of your restrictions away - made even harder when those restrictions have been pretty severe.0 -
Thanks Sara this makes sense. I guess it's the same thing I always found difficult, only on a far higher level. If I was on my plan, I'd be focussed, and then I would find it difficult just to loosen the reigns slightly, say at Christmas or if I was away somewhere. Although a big part of that was because in my head there were "good" and "bad" foods, so when intending to be more relaxed with diet it just became a binge of all things forbidden. This is one of the main things that changed for me when I started with IIFYM.0
