calorie goal for toning??

"Tone" is removing fat from your body, revealing the muscle that it is covering up. For you, there's probably 2 different ways to go about it.

What is your current lifting program? If you eat 2,000 and burn 200-400, you won't be able to add much, if any muscle. According to the TDEE calculator I looked at, that would have you in a 200-400 calorie deficit.

You can A) eat ~500 calories over, get on a heavy lifting program (cardio if you like, but make sure that's in the TDEE), and gain fat and muscle. After a few weeks of bulking, you could go back to the 500 cal deficit, continue to lift heavy to maintain the muscle you gained and allow your body to lose the fat gained. This will lower your BF% and reveal the muscle.

(B) Stick to right around maintenance (You should be in a surplus some days, some days in a deficit), lift heavy, and wait..... This is called a recomp and is painfully slow. What you're doing is trying to slowly add some muscle while slowly losing fat to improve your BF%.

(A) is normally the more efficient route, but many don't like to add the fat. (B) is a slower route, but many like it because you don't add much to your BF%.

Don't expect to see many gains to the scale due to muscle addition. Building muscle takes an on point diet, a ton of work, and time. It's normally exponentially harder and longer for women to see the same gains. You'll see some gains early on, but they slow rapidly. Any changes to the scale early one will most likely be added water weight from the new/added exercise routine.

RGv2 wrote: »

"Tone" is removing fat from your body, revealing the muscle that it is covering up. For you, there's probably 2 different ways to go about it.

What is your current lifting program? If you eat 2,000 and burn 200-400, you won't be able to add much, if any muscle. According to the TDEE calculator I looked at, that would have you in a 200-400 calorie deficit.

You can A) eat ~500 calories over, get on a heavy lifting program (cardio if you like, but make sure that's in the TDEE), and gain fat and muscle. After a few weeks of bulking, you could go back to the 500 cal deficit, continue to lift heavy to maintain the muscle you gained and allow your body to lose the fat gained. This will lower your BF% and reveal the muscle.

(B) Stick to right around maintenance (You should be in a surplus some days, some days in a deficit), lift heavy, and wait..... This is called a recomp and is painfully slow. What you're doing is trying to slowly add some muscle while slowly losing fat to improve your BF%.

(A) is normally the more efficient route, but many don't like to add the fat. (B) is a slower route, but many like it because you don't add much to your BF%.

Don't expect to see many gains to the scale due to muscle addition. Building muscle takes an on point diet, a ton of work, and time. It's normally exponentially harder and longer for women to see the same gains. You'll see some gains early on, but they slow rapidly. Any changes to the scale early one will most likely be added water weight from the new/added exercise routine.

If you're thinking of eating at a surplus (see A) you might want to consider starting at 250 calories over and see where it's going (you can always increase it later). A lot of women like to slow things down a notch since we gain muscle more slowly (hence 1 lb gain every 2 weeks gain).

OP, do you feel you have fat to lose? If so, you will still need to cut on a calorie deficit, continue to lift heavy to retain muscle mass. Then you can bulk and build muscle.

RavenLibra wrote: »

what weighs more...a pound of feathers or a pound of lead? ... they both weigh the same... what they differ in is volume you can put a pound of lead in a far smaller package than you can put a pound of feathers in... SO... FAT requires a larger amount of skin to cover it than the same weight of muscle... case in point Kim Kardashian's BUTT... mostly fat.. hence a large amount of skin to cover it... compare her butt to say.. that of a gymnast... and well you see where I am coming from... so weight does NOT equal density...fat takes up more room.. period

If that's the case, since you have more skin for XX lb of fat (in order to cover it) for the same XX lb of muscle, you technically WEIGH more (fat+skin or muscle+skin), especially when you've had that fat or muscle for a long period of time (enough time for skin to regenerate).

amandawanderlust wrote: »

So I'm 21, 5'8 144lbs and wanting to tone, so I'm hoping to slim down and change to muscle. I'm guessing I'll either stay the same weight or maybe even add on because i understand that muscle weighs more than fat. At the moment I've been having an intake of max 2,000 calories. (without minusing workout burnings), i usually burn 200-400calories at the gym. Do you think that sounds about good or should i be eating less?? Thanks!

2000 cals is if you're maintaining 144lbs assuming 3 x per week workouts. I would recommend you start lifting HEAVY. The biggest lie is that you will get bulky. Absolute false, the diet industry wants you to believe that. Hormonally, it's impossible, just look at NPC bikini competitors, they all lift. Squats, deadlifts, bench and presses. Bulky is if your on synthetic steroids. Cardio is a tool and should be used sparingly, about 20% of total gym time over week. For you I'd go down to 1700 cals, keeping to 1g if protein per lb. 50g of fat, 144g protein and 165g for carbs. Do so until you look toned. The scale us a tool and you should lose a .5 to 1lb per week. 2lb max to keep metabolism humming. Anymore and it can be detrimental. Always weigh yourself daily after using the toilet and take a 7 day average. Eat all foods that you can fit in. Body composition is about cals not as actual food. I prefer clients to have cheat meals everyday while hitting goals.

This content has been removed.

zachbonner wrote: »

auntrhon66 wrote: »

Linnaea27 wrote: »

CharlieBeansmom wrote: »

muscle doesnt weigh more than fat(common misconception) muscle is just more dense and takes up less space.but I agree with the poster above

Uuuhhhhh. . . That doesn't make sense. If you're going by mass, your statement is not true. The amount of muscle it takes to fill the same space as an amount of fat would indeed be heavier than said fat. "Muscle is more dense and takes up less space"= it weighs more than the amount of fat taking up a given amount of space.

A pound of muscle weighs the same of a pound of fat...

A cubed inch of muscle weighs more than a cubed inch of fat.

So what were we talking about density or mass? Muscle weighs more than fat if we are talking about volume but weighs the same if we are talking about mass. This always gets drawn out into what the poster means.

I'm currently sitting at 144lbs and am 5'9" and on a muscle building attempt. I'm aiming for 2400 calories per day alongside 4-5 days of heavy weight training and minimum cardio. I'd try upping your calories a bit and get lifting heavy for a few months and see what way your body changes. I'll be trying to gauge my progress using body measurements and pics instead of the scales. Good luck with it. Steph x