^^^ 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:)

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?

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

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...