Too few calories to cut fat?!

MDC2957
MDC2957 Posts: 417 Member
in Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
I just watched a video on YouTube which said that you can actually lower your calories too much and that will cause a slowdown in fat loss. Is that true?

According to my body fat calipers, I am right at 14.8% and eating between 1750 to 1800 calories.

Weight has been see-sawing up and down between workout and non workout days. Should I actually consume more calories like the video said, or should I continue to reduce calories until I reach my body fat percentage goal? Am 39, 6'1" 183.2 lbs today, the day after the workout. Pretty sure if I eat the same amount of calories, I will probably go back up to 184 tomorrow morning.

Replies

  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    If you cut for too long you could reset your metabolic set point which could slow down any loss and make cutting in the future more difficult. How long have you been in a deficit? Not knowing what your workout is like the amount of calories you are consuming may be too low for your stats and goals.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Jthanmyfitnesspal
    Jthanmyfitnesspal Posts: 3,522 Member
    I have learned from another post that there is a measurable adaptation to reduced calorie intake that, in fact, does reduce the calories you need in a day. But, I've concluded that this effect is fairly small, particularly if you exercise regularly (which raises your metabolic rate in general) and stay active in general. You certainly won't lose weight by eating more calories in this case, the point is that you would have to eat somewhat less.

    Not sure why you're worried at 15%BF. That is a very healthy level and I don't know of any particular reason to go lower. (Unless you count looking good in a Speedo.)

    Most people should use the "sedentary" setting in MFP to estimate their caloric needs (TDEE), adding in only for significant aerobic workouts. In this case, your TDEE estimate will scale with your body weight to some degree.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • anubis609
    anubis609 Posts: 3,966 Member
    MDC2957 wrote: »
    I've read that it's beneficial to get the body fat to 12% or below before bulking to add muscle from lifting weights. Something about how your body will use more of the calories for muscle than for fat. But if you already have a lot of body fat, then it's not good to bulk, because then it's easier to put fat on at that time.

    I think you're misunderstanding the concept of muscle development and actual bulking. You can gain muscle at any size, especially if you're untrained. If you're overfat and untrained (or previously trained coming back after a layoff or on performance enhancing drugs), you have the advantage of being able to gain muscle and lose fat, even at a caloric deficit simply because new muscle stimulus will cause growth.

    Bulking in the sense of adding more mass to your current physique is differently applied once you're considered an intermediate lifter with enough experience to understand that your muscle growth rate has been reduced and takes longer to gain size than before. Then yes, you would be placed in a caloric surplus, but a proper application of that would reduce the amount of appreciable fat that would be gained.
  • GaryRuns
    GaryRuns Posts: 508 Member
    In general the idea that if you eat too little you'll stall your weight loss is false. I have heard about studies on physique competitors who are really low on body fat, like pre competition level, single-digit, body fat percentages, and they do see an effect via what they refer to as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogensis). That's a fancy way of describing semi-conscious things we all do, like bounce our knee when we're sitting, or tap our fingers or stretch periodically, that burn calories. What the studies have seen is that NEAT levels drop when you are in a calorie deficit and are low on body fat. But even then I believe it was something like a 10 or 15 percent effect and it was nothing we mere mortals (non-physique competitors) typically have to worry about.

    The other effect is that if you're losing weight, and keeping your calorie intake constant, weight loss will slow slightly. If I'm 200lbs and I lose 10 I'm now at 190 and therefore if my activity is relatively constant I'm moving 10lbs less weight than I was before, and burning fewer calories because I'm moving around less weight. I haven't done the math but 10lbs isn't much so the reduction in calorie burn isn't going to be significant in this example, but you get the idea.
  • cathipa
    cathipa Posts: 2,991 Member
    https://www.mindpumpmedia.com/blog/what-is-metabolic-adaptation

    https://www.strongerbyscience.com/metabolic-adaptation/
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • GaryRuns
    GaryRuns Posts: 508 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    GaryRuns wrote: »
    In general the idea that if you eat too little you'll stall your weight loss is false. I have heard about studies on physique competitors who are really low on body fat, like pre competition level, single-digit, body fat percentages, and they do see an effect via what they refer to as NEAT (Non Exercise Activity Thermogensis). That's a fancy way of describing semi-conscious things we all do, like bounce our knee when we're sitting, or tap our fingers or stretch periodically, that burn calories. What the studies have seen is that NEAT levels drop when you are in a calorie deficit and are low on body fat. But even then I believe it was something like a 10 or 15 percent effect and it was nothing we mere mortals (non-physique competitors) typically have to worry about.

    The other effect is that if you're losing weight, and keeping your calorie intake constant, weight loss will slow slightly. If I'm 200lbs and I lose 10 I'm now at 190 and therefore if my activity is relatively constant I'm moving 10lbs less weight than I was before, and burning fewer calories because I'm moving around less weight. I haven't done the math but 10lbs isn't much so the reduction in calorie burn isn't going to be significant in this example, but you get the idea.

    Let me add onto this.

    The biggest issue I see is people think numbers are always linear. We get a general understanding of our TDEE value, and believe it will always be that. But in reality, that number is always changing. It's changes during weight loss because of things like TEF, NEAT and even TEA drop and it would change in overfeeding/bulking because those numbers subsequently increase. So yea, there is a bit of adaptation. Menno Henselman speaks of this a bit in one of the metabolic adaptation interviews. He maintains at 3000 calories, but to lose 1 lb per week, he has to cut to 1800 calories. Mathematically, it wouldn't make sense. Maybe it's because he is lean or maybe his body just adapts a lot. Personally, for the 3rd time, I have seen increased weight loss when I consume 2200 - 2400 calories vs when I consume 1800 calories. Maybe my natural energy is increased, I move more or my workouts are better, but either way, it doesn't make sense. I noticed this when I was doing PSMF. I guess my body has a sweet spot and if I drop below, it causes issues. Similarly, if you look at people in the refeed thread, there are several cases of people increasing calories significantly, and still maintaining (I think one as high as 1000 calories).

    Ultimately, I think you should play around a little bit to see where your sweet spot is. Getting into this game about the semantic beliefs on numbers is only going to slow you down. If you want, run a 2 week experiment to see if that helps you. It it doesn't work, adjust back.

    That second article that @cathipa posted a link to by Trexler does a great job of explaining a lot of what @psuLemon is talking about.

    Shamelessly copying it again here:

    https://strongerbyscience.com/metabolic-adaptation/
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    edited October 2019
    But I don't think OP is dealing with metabolic adaptation keeping him from losing faster, which is what he was concerned about, so I'm a little confused by the focus. He's losing 1.5 lbs per week, which considering his stats and calories I think makes sense (especially considering the likelihood of small logging errors). Perhaps he needs to worry about causing metabolic adaptation if he continues to lose quickly, but right now the only issue is his expectations IMHO. He's eating 1800 cals and losing 1.5 lbs per week, which all sounds pretty normal to me.
  • Tic78
    Tic78 Posts: 232 Member
    As well as the excellent advice already mentioned in this thread I think you could also benefit from logging your weight in a trending app.

    For iOS happy scale is free. For android its libra. You need to watch the trend for weight loss rather than daily (normal) fluctuations. Weight can go up and down for all sorts of reasons but cutting calories unnecessarily due to a water fluctuations isnt the way to go.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.

Categories