Body Recomposition VS Calorie Cycling

Options
julie3461
julie3461 Posts: 65 Member
edited September 2020 in Health and Weight Loss
What is the difference between body recomposition an calorie cycling and is body recomposition the right move for me?
I am 5'3" 122 lbs. I want to lose 2 - 4 inches around my butt; size 2-4 pants. I've hovered around 122 lbs -130lbs and 38 - 38.5 in for a long time now. Female. 27 years old. Measurements and pant size are more imporant to me than the scale's reading. I would also like to increase my muscles in the back and define my arms.

From what I can tell, carlorie cycling appears to be a tool used in body recomposition. Body recomposition combines calorie cycling with a focus of weight lifiting on surplus days. Thoughts?

Replies

  • julie3461
    julie3461 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    Calorie cycling is an eating pattern. That's it.
    It doesn't cause recomposition (gaining muscle and losing fat) - that is a result of training effectively while keeping your body weight roughly stable.

    Some clueless trainers seek to make the totally normal process of recomp seem more complicated and special than it is, some just to come up with new/fresh content for their web sites, some because they mistakenly believe you have to do mini cut/bulk cycles to achieve recomp - you don't.

    If you are targetting a deliberate recomp (for many it's just a by-product of their lifestyle/exercise) then your focus should be on your training - diet supports the process but doesn't drive it.

    This makes sense. Thank you.
  • julie3461
    julie3461 Posts: 65 Member
    Options
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    That's an equivalence I've never heard before, and I've been around the block a couple of times.

    You're currently at BMI 21.6, toward the bottom end of the normal weight range. Without knowing anything more about you, I can't know for sure (because build matters), but if your hips are 38-38.5" at BMI 21.6, I'm going to guess that it's at least possible that you have fairly widely-spaced pelvic bones, rather than having a lot of body fat. (I'm 2" taller, but have about 36" hips at BMI 21.6 (about 130 pounds for me) and have medium-narrow (boyish) pelvic bone spacing.)

    Increasing muscle mass at constant weight will indeed mean being smaller (less fat). However, it won't chjange skeletal structure.

    You can learn more about recomposition here:

    https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fat

    It is not the same thing as calorie cycling. Some people use calorie cycling in conjunction with recomp goals, but it's not an essential linkage IMU. Optional.

    I'm not trying to be harsh with you - try to think of me as a blunt but caring internet granny type, because at 64 I'm for sure old enough. It's important, IMO, to have self improvement goals, but also important to love the body we were born to have, and optimize *that* body.

    Best wishes in accomplishing your goals!

    Thank you. I've just glanced at the thread you linked and this will help. Also, my hips are not wide.