Cutting aggressively -- How low can I go without losing muscle?
Options
Replies
-
FWIW, I went from 265 to 168 in the space of a year, and I'm lifting heavier weights, with a greater frequency, than I did when I started. And it's not because I wasn't lifting as hard as I could when I started.
I'm not sure there's any way to explain that other than saying "I lost fat without losing muscle, and in fact I probably added muscle."
I realize that going from 168 to 150 is not nearly the same as going from 265 to 168, but my point is that I'm not sure your statement is necessarily true for everyone all the time.
I will add that I've been lifting weights on and off since I was 13, so there was definitely some muscle memory. Also, I think I use decent form and technique for an amateur.1 -
Not according to Lyle...
https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/size-of-deficit-and-muscle-catabolism-qa.html/
1 -
^^ Whoops -- I screwed up the quoting on that. The part from "FWIW" on is me, not AnvilHead.0
-
I've done the PSMF for a couple weeks. Cleaned up well. Didn't lose muscle. Not suggesting it to anyone but, it's there to read.5
-
Thanks, I'm checking out the PSMF and Lyle McDonald references.
BTW, the initial shot I posted didn't really get my arms. Here's a couple side shots to demonstrate just how rapidly I'm approaching the state of skinny fat:
3 -
Nice guns.2
-
As we age the ability to gain muscle fast decreases markedly.
As the amount of training we have under our belt increases the ability to gain muscle fast and easily rapidly decreases.
As we get leaner the ability to sustain rapid rate of fat loss without risking muscle loss decreases.
You have done well so far, don't throw it away due to impatience.12 -
I wouldn't say you look "skinny fat", maybe just a bit imbalanced where your fat stores are located (arms vs torso, no back/legs to go by). Probably not enough muscle to look "ripped/shredded" but good enough to be "lean" when you are dialed down in weight/bodyfat.
You definitely have some muscle, you might look higher BF with lots of body hair & due to your skin's elasticity (age)
<--I would consider myself "lean" not "shredded/ripped"...this is a very difficult look to attain & maintain without drugs of course. Lyle McDonald = good source for rapid fat loss/PSMF if you're experienced & strong willed enough (only for temporary use)2 -
Thanks, I'm checking out the PSMF and Lyle McDonald references.
BTW, the initial shot I posted didn't really get my arms. Here's a couple side shots to demonstrate just how rapidly I'm approaching the state of skinny fat:
Arms are on point. LOL to dust off an over used term... Core (abs obliques and back) is probably where you might want to add some focus?2 -
^^^ Yes, thanks. And yes, I'm on it. For many years, I only worked out my chest and arms, basically, so they're a bit overdeveloped compared to the rest of my body. A year ago I couldn't a single pull-up; now I can do five on a bad day. Working on the abs too.
I used to have very strong legs too, when I was much younger. But when I got fat it caused my knees to become sore. I'm just now getting past that, so I will be taking up a more aggressive lower body routine soon as well.3 -
I'm a 49-year-old male, 5'10", currently 168 pounds. I lift weights four times a week. I walk at least 30 mins a day, and I do cardio 1-2 times a week. But I have an office job, so apart from that exercise my lifestyle is pretty sedentary.
I'm aggressively cutting to lose the last 10-12 pounds of fat I need to drop to get really ripped. But I've got a decent amount of muscle, and I don't want to lose my gains.
How low can I go in my caloric intake without losing muscle? Assume I'm getting at least 150-175 grams of protein a day. I'm currently eating about 1,500 cals/day and I'm not getting weaker, but can I go any lower than that?
Cutting aggressively will make you loose your gains...no doubt about it and eating at 1500 calories is just crazy. I am 5'9 @ 165 lbs and I never went lower than 2000 calories on a cut, so imagine you at 5'10 @ 168 lbs...you shouldn't be starving yourself that low. I don't see why you need to cut weight aggressively, you're not obese, you don't have a lot of fat to lose.6 -
gearfreegains wrote: »
These charts are just a guideline. How did you measure your bodyfat %? Also if you are very lean with lack of definition and abs, you could be lacking the muscle base to have them show.4 -
@gearfreegains Blame genetics.2
-
gearfreegains wrote: »gearfreegains wrote: »
These charts are just a guideline. How did you measure your bodyfat %? Also if you are very lean with lack of definition and abs, you could be lacking the muscle base to have them show.
Ya I guess these charts really are just a general idea and not exact. I’m sure different people will be able to see abs at different BF %’s. I’ve seen a guy at ~15 - 16 and had a flat stomach. At that range I’d look pudgy.
Yea a combination of genetics and muscle. If you have more muscle on your frame you will likely look leaner at a higher bodyfat.0 -
As we age the ability to gain muscle fast decreases markedly.
As the amount of training we have under our belt increases the ability to gain muscle fast and easily rapidly decreases.
As we get leaner the ability to sustain rapid rate of fat loss without risking muscle loss decreases.
You have done well so far, don't throw it away due to impatience.
This! ^^ I think you are crazy to want to cut so aggressively. Especially in light of the fact that you don't want to lose muscle. At 1500 cals per day, that is pretty much guaranteed.3 -
I have been losing weight by fasting 24-36 hours at a time (occasionally longer, but not now that I have less body fat). During this time I have gained a fair amount of muscle. Fasters claim that it works differently than calorie restriction, and I have definitely found that to be the case.16
-
qofmiwok11 wrote: »I have been losing weight by fasting 24-36 hours at a time (occasionally longer, but not now that I have less body fat). During this time I have gained a fair amount of muscle. Fasters claim that it works differently than calorie restriction, and I have definitely found that to be the case.
Lol! Oh really? And just how did you gain this muscle while fasting? And how did you measure the muscle gains? This ought to be interesting. If you are right, there are medical researchers that would love to hear about this!!3 -
qofmiwok11 wrote: »I have been losing weight by fasting 24-36 hours at a time (occasionally longer, but not now that I have less body fat). During this time I have gained a fair amount of muscle. Fasters claim that it works differently than calorie restriction, and I have definitely found that to be the case.
Lol! Oh really? And just how did you gain this muscle while fasting? And how did you measure the muscle gains? This ought to be interesting. If you are right, there are medical researchers that would love to hear about this!!
Well...it IS April Fool's day, after all.6 -
qofmiwok11 wrote: »I have been losing weight by fasting 24-36 hours at a time (occasionally longer, but not now that I have less body fat). During this time I have gained a fair amount of muscle. Fasters claim that it works differently than calorie restriction, and I have definitely found that to be the case.
Lol! Oh really? And just how did you gain this muscle while fasting? And how did you measure the muscle gains? This ought to be interesting. If you are right, there are medical researchers that would love to hear about this!!
Well...it IS April Fool's day, after all.
I emphasize more on the word "Fool"2 -
Everybody on this site always asks, "Why are you in such a hurry?"
LOL. I understand the gist of the response -- that trying to lose weight too fast by cutting too much could cause you to lose lean muscle. But really, isn't the answer to the question completely obvious?
We all want to feel and look our best. Of course I want to get there sooner rather than later. Wouldn't you?
Would you rather be ripped by next week, or do you want to wait until next year? It's like asking someone, "Would you rather have a million dollars now, or should I give it to you some time in 2021?" I don't know anyone who wouldn't much rather prefer the former.
So yeah, of course I want to get there soon. Now, I don't want to go so fast that it ends up being detrimental, but that's exactly why I posted this thread.
The consensus seems to be that 1500 cal/day is too low. OK, so what is a better number? I've done about 2000/day for an extended period of time (a month or more) without losing any strength, so it seems like I might be able to go lower than that, provided I get enough protein.
I did buy the Lyle McDonald book (Ultimate Diet 2.0). That is way more advanced than I can handle right now. He says it's really geared toward people who have already gotten down to 12-15% BF, so I'm not going to try it yet.
I figure I'm somewhere about 20% BF. I'll do a DEXA soon to get a better estimate. But for now let's go with that.
Ultimately I'd love to get down to 10% BF, but it seems like 15% is a more realistic intermediate goal. By my calculations, I need to get down to about 160 lbs to be at 15%. Does that sound right?
That's much lighter than I thought I'd be when I started on this journey a year ago. (Again, I weight 265 lbs then.) I am a pretty strong guy for someone who's heading towards skinny fat (LOL again). I can do 12 reps of 120 lb overhead barbell presses without breaking a sweat. Is that typical for a muscular 160 lb person?9
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 924 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions