Losing body fat without losing protein..

leew88 wrote: »

So I want to lose body fat but dont want to lose muscle..
I have been keeping my protein intake up to 196gram (I weigh 196lb)..
My overall calorie values are: 2000 bmr / 3000 tdee (500 deficit would be 2500)

However I am intermittent fasting and I am often force feeding myself to get the 2500, even the 2000 at times... making myself feel bloated and horrible.

Do I really need to be eating at my BMR minimum for muscle retention?

Or aslong as I keep my protein intake as high as it is, will I be ok regardless of my calories?

Thanks

If you struggle to get adequate nutrition while on IF, simple solution is to get off IF. IF is not magic by any means. Second, protein requirements are .8-1g per lb of lean body mass, so you don't really need that much protein. Third, your training is a key part of maintaining muscle. So what does your training look like.

leew88 wrote: »

So I want to lose body fat but dont want to lose muscle..
I have been keeping my protein intake up to 196gram (I weigh 196lb)..
My overall calorie values are: 2000 bmr / 3000 tdee (500 deficit would be 2500)

However I am intermittent fasting and I am often force feeding myself to get the 2500, even the 2000 at times... making myself feel bloated and horrible.

Do I really need to be eating at my BMR minimum for muscle retention?

Or aslong as I keep my protein intake as high as it is, will I be ok regardless of my calories?

Thanks

Up Protein, down carbs, do 30 minutes of gentle cardio every day before breakfast.

Watch it melt away!

leew88 wrote: »

I like what I have read about IF and the benefits it brings so I want to continue with it, such as the body burning fat more when in the fasted state than the fed state,
Training I tend to do chest monday, legs tuesday, back wednesday, legs or chest thursday (depends how legs are), then legs or chest friday (depends what i did thursday), then back saturday..... and rest sunday

Considering calories being equal, IF does NOT burn more fat than a conventional 3x or 6x per day eating pattern. The results of IF have been overblown for quite some time. At best, it would improve Insulin Sensitivity which is beneficial for those with IR issues.

I'd probably change your training to get on a well designed progressive overload program, something like below:

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1

You can always try keto!

kknight899 wrote: »

Also, keep in mind amino acids will help you with muscle loss, because no matter what, you will lose strength and some muscle when you trying to burn fat, its up to you to meet your daily macros and supplements to meet your goals

He will get plenty of amino acids with his current protein intake so there is no need to supplement.

leew88 wrote: »

I take amino acids yes

There is really no need to. You get in enough protein that supplementation is pretty useless.

OP, the main benefits to IF, and this is coming from someone who has practiced it for about 6 years now and is a huge proponent of it, is appetite control and convenience. The parts of IF that are appealing to most people are actually causing you trouble. If you are unable to eat your calorie goal because you are too full then you really have little reason to continue with IF. While you might burn more fat during the fasted period, net fat loss is ultimately all about calories in vs. calories out and will be no different with 1, 3, 6, or 12 meals a day. Net fat loss is really all that is important in terms of body composition. Most of the benefits of IF are anecdotal or are supported by limited research. This is an area that deserves much more study but for now there is no concrete evidence whatsoever that IF will cause enhanced fat loss if calories and macros remain constant.

As for maintaining muscle mass, eating in a steep deficit is not helping you. While it's not guaranteed that a 1000 calorie deficit is going to result in more muscle loss then say a 500 calorie deficit it certainly could. I would feel pretty confident making the statement "you are less likely to lose muscle with a 500 calorie deficit vs. 1000 calorie". It would also depend how long you did it. You can eat very low calories for brief periods of time and if protein is high and training is optimal you can prevent muscle losses but this is not something you can't/shouldn't do long term. How much body fat you have to lose is also a big factor in muscle losses. A male who is 100lbs overweight has a much lower risk of losing muscle and can get away with a much more aggressive deficit than someone who isn't overweight at all and just want to go from a healthy weight to being very lean. If maintaining muscle is your chief concern I'd keep the deficit moderate (500 or so calories), keep protein where you have it, and make sure to do a good resistance training program that focuses on keeping intensity high even if volume and frequency have to remain much lower then when you weren't in a deficit.

psuLemon wrote: »

Second, protein requirements are .8-1g per lb of lean body mass, so you don't really need that much protein. Third, your training is a key part of maintaining muscle.

OP, don't miss these key points. For example, at 212 pounds, my current weight, if I eat 1g per pound of lean body mass I need roughly 160g of protein.

I don't think you'll lose as much muscle as you think while in a deficit if you are keeping at least that amount and doing some strength training. You won't bulk, but you should be able to keep your strength. I'm not sure that the extra protein you are getting is helping much. If you feel like you are "cramming" to reach your goals, some fat in your diet probably wouldn't hurt. There are lots of good sources of fat and they are more calorie dense (9cals/g) than carbs and protein (4cals/g).

[ETA - I would refer to vismal's post above for a much better explanation (his post came while I was writing mine - and I'm a novice by comparison].

leew88 wrote: »

I already been doing this for a month, seeing results, only eating between 11 and 7. Eating minimum bmr, maximum is 2500. Protein high

All I'm really asking is what is the importance of eating to my bmr as the minimum? Do I risk losing muscle more if I don't

If you drop your calorie intake too low you will lose mass. Fact.

I wouldn't recommend that if you want to maintain muscle. I'd recommend to listen to the guy above me as he's explained it well.

leew88 wrote: »

"To understand how intermittent fasting leads to fat loss we first need to understand the difference between the fed state and the fasted state.

Your body is in the fed state when it is digesting and absorbing food. Typically, the fed state starts when you begin eating and lasts for three to five hours as your body digests and absorbs the food you just ate. When you are in the fed state, it's very hard for your body to burn fat because your insulin levels are high.

After that timespan, your body goes into what is known as the post–absorptive state, which is just a fancy way of saying that your body isn’t processing a meal. The post–absorptive state lasts until 8 to 12 hours after your last meal, which is when you enter the fasted state. It is much easier for you body to burn fat in the fasted state because your insulin levels are low.

When you're in the fasted state your body can burn fat that has been inaccessible during the fed state.

Because we don't enter the fasted state until 12 hours after our last meal, it's rare that our bodies are in this fat burning state. This is one of the reasons why many people who start intermittent fasting will lose fat without changing what they eat, how much they eat, or how often they exercise. Fasting puts your body in a fat burning state that you rarely make it to during a normal eating schedule."

This is a bit disingenuous because it doesn't discuss the fact that if you jam a huge amount of calories in a small window, it takes a lot longer to digest as compared to smaller amounts of food in small windows. But equal amounts of time and same TEF impact over a full day.

leew88 wrote: »

"To understand how intermittent fasting leads to fat loss we first need to understand the difference between the fed state and the fasted state.

Your body is in the fed state when it is digesting and absorbing food. Typically, the fed state starts when you begin eating and lasts for three to five hours as your body digests and absorbs the food you just ate. When you are in the fed state, it's very hard for your body to burn fat because your insulin levels are high.

After that timespan, your body goes into what is known as the post–absorptive state, which is just a fancy way of saying that your body isn’t processing a meal. The post–absorptive state lasts until 8 to 12 hours after your last meal, which is when you enter the fasted state. It is much easier for you body to burn fat in the fasted state because your insulin levels are low.

When you're in the fasted state your body can burn fat that has been inaccessible during the fed state.

Because we don't enter the fasted state until 12 hours after our last meal, it's rare that our bodies are in this fat burning state. This is one of the reasons why many people who start intermittent fasting will lose fat without changing what they eat, how much they eat, or how often they exercise. Fasting puts your body in a fat burning state that you rarely make it to during a normal eating schedule."

Do you have a source? Because this (the bolded part) would not make sense if you were eating at a surplus and not a deficit. You would still gain weight right?

If I'm already eating at deficit and losing weight on schedule, how would IF benefit someone like me?

leew88 wrote: »

"To understand how intermittent fasting leads to fat loss we first need to understand the difference between the fed state and the fasted state.

Your body is in the fed state when it is digesting and absorbing food. Typically, the fed state starts when you begin eating and lasts for three to five hours as your body digests and absorbs the food you just ate. When you are in the fed state, it's very hard for your body to burn fat because your insulin levels are high.

After that timespan, your body goes into what is known as the post–absorptive state, which is just a fancy way of saying that your body isn’t processing a meal. The post–absorptive state lasts until 8 to 12 hours after your last meal, which is when you enter the fasted state. It is much easier for you body to burn fat in the fasted state because your insulin levels are low.

When you're in the fasted state your body can burn fat that has been inaccessible during the fed state.

Because we don't enter the fasted state until 12 hours after our last meal, it's rare that our bodies are in this fat burning state. This is one of the reasons why many people who start intermittent fasting will lose fat without changing what they eat, how much they eat, or how often they exercise. Fasting puts your body in a fat burning state that you rarely make it to during a normal eating schedule."

This is mostly nonsense. The last paragraph is complete nonsense.

Your body is constantly burning body fat, regardless of being fasting or fed. It's just different rates. And if you're still consuming the same amount of Calories during the feeding window, your net energy balance (fat reserves) will be the same.

Silentpadna wrote: »

leew88 wrote: »

"To understand how intermittent fasting leads to fat loss we first need to understand the difference between the fed state and the fasted state.

Your body is in the fed state when it is digesting and absorbing food. Typically, the fed state starts when you begin eating and lasts for three to five hours as your body digests and absorbs the food you just ate. When you are in the fed state, it's very hard for your body to burn fat because your insulin levels are high.

After that timespan, your body goes into what is known as the post–absorptive state, which is just a fancy way of saying that your body isn’t processing a meal. The post–absorptive state lasts until 8 to 12 hours after your last meal, which is when you enter the fasted state. It is much easier for you body to burn fat in the fasted state because your insulin levels are low.

When you're in the fasted state your body can burn fat that has been inaccessible during the fed state.

Because we don't enter the fasted state until 12 hours after our last meal, it's rare that our bodies are in this fat burning state. This is one of the reasons why many people who start intermittent fasting will lose fat without changing what they eat, how much they eat, or how often they exercise. Fasting puts your body in a fat burning state that you rarely make it to during a normal eating schedule."

Do you have a source? Because this (the bolded part) would not make sense if you were eating at a surplus and not a deficit. You would still gain weight right?

If I'm already eating at deficit and losing weight on schedule, how would IF benefit someone like me?

I used the old google-fu to find it here:

http://jamesclear.com/the-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting