Maximum deficit - 31cal per lb of fat?

ladyraven68
ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have seen this mentioned in other places, but the article Lyle McDonald wrote on it seems to have dissapeared. Maybe he changed his mind. Do any of you Lyle fans have the original article?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

Taken from another site

It has been found in scientific work that a sedentary person can oxidize 31 calories from adipose tissue every 24 hours.

This means that the more fat you carry, the larger your deficit can be, without catabolized non-fatty tissues (muscle).

Example: A 200 pound man with 20% bodyfat carries 40 pounds of fat, thus he can maintain 40x31 calories = 1240 calorie deficit per day, without losing muscle tissue.

Example: A 200 pound man with 5% bodyfat carries only 10 pounds of fat, thus he can only maintain 10x31 calories = 310 calorie deficit per day.

So, the bigger and fatter you are, the bigger your deficit can be. Large, obese persons can maintain large deficits. The leaner you get, the smaller your deficit should be.

here is an article written along these lines, authored by Lyle McDonald, whose is generally credited to be one of the foremost experts in fat loss anatomy.

http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/lyle_mc donald/maximum_fatloss"

Replies

  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Found the article but it's a few years old.

    So, not sure if it is still true or has since been misproven.

    http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=109897051&page=1
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    *duplicated*
  • thegoya
    thegoya Posts: 100 Member
    bump
  • Goal_Seeker_1988
    Goal_Seeker_1988 Posts: 1,619 Member
    bump
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    time travel.....

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080417050946/http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/lyle_mcdonald/maximum_fatloss?page=0,0

    In 4 weeks the subjects at http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf lost an average of 5.4 kg of fat. That's 0.42 pounds per day or 1486 calories worth per day which is probably about right for their deficit. At the end the fat mass was an average of 26 kg / 57 lbs which would make the final release rate 1486 / 57 = 26 calories per day per lb of fat mass.

    So that fits with the original result.
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    time travel.....

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080417050946/http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/lyle_mcdonald/maximum_fatloss?page=0,0

    Yes, that's the article I linked to in my second post.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    Since Facebooks "Timeline" Screws up notes, this is a copy of what Martin Berkhan says about fat loss and body mass.
    In essence, the bigger you are the better you lose fat...and vise versa.

    http://forum.fitnessbloggen.no/threads/the-logics-of-weight-loss-artikkel-av-martin-berkhan.3181/
  • meredithashton
    meredithashton Posts: 52 Member
    bump
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Yes, that's the article I linked to in my second post.

    it's the original, archived. When I got to your second post I saw that someone had repeated it in a forum that was still active.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,427 MFP Moderator
    Very interesting find.
  • Toddrific
    Toddrific Posts: 1,114 Member
    So applying this to myself..208lb ~26% body fat I can have around a 1700 calorie deficit, but deficit from what? Obviously not BMR.
    Maintenance calories is around 2600..that'd put me at...900???

    Meh.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    Not sure if this was covered, but I'm sure with deficits that large the dieter must be ingesting a *kitten* load of protein and partaking in a heavy lifting resistance training program to not lose lean muscle while losing fat on such a large deficit.

    I would assume a minimum of 1gram protein per lb of lean body mass, and a routine that hits every muscle group at least twice/week in order to not lose lean mass.
  • persian_star
    persian_star Posts: 197 Member
    Just to clarify, I assume this applies to men only*? Having done the maths for my small female stats (23% of 124lb x 31 = 884, take from TDEE of 1600) that would allow me to only eat 750 cals a day, which isn't my idea of healthy!

    Edit *I say this because men can get to a much lower body fat %
  • ladyraven68
    ladyraven68 Posts: 2,003 Member
    Not sure if this was covered, but I'm sure with deficits that large the dieter must be ingesting a *kitten* load of protein and partaking in a heavy lifting resistance training program to not lose lean muscle while losing fat on such a large deficit.

    I would assume a minimum of 1gram protein per lb of lean body mass, and a routine that hits every muscle group at least twice/week in order to not lose lean mass.

    That's why I was wondering if it had been disproved.

    It's also being used here - http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/ as a basis for maximum fat metabolism.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    That's why I was wondering if it had been disproved.

    Disproved could mean higher rates are possible, or other studies couldn't get that high. Like I said above the Newcastle diabetes study was pretty close to this result - large calorie deficit, no specific exercise regime, 46.4% carbohydrate, 32.5% protein and 20.1% fat PSMF.

    31 cal per lb suggests a limiting weight loss of 31*100*7/3500 = 6.2% of your body fat per week.

    The Newcastle folks lost fat at 5.1% of their fat mass per week at the end, when fat loss was 94% of total weight loss.
    http://www.diabetologia-journal.org/Lim.pdf

    Very interesting.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Just to clarify, I assume this applies to men only*

    No reason to say that as far as I can see.

    For clarity, this number is proposed as the maximum rate at which energy can be released from fat stores, for example during a fast or a high deficit diet. It isn't a proposal for a target for dieting, it's a limit above which bad things might happen

    The original paper is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Bump to read the articles/studies later. Thanks for posting.
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Okay---assuming a 15% bf (generous estimation)...I can have a 465 deficit--woo hoo. awesome!
  • Mercenary1914
    Mercenary1914 Posts: 1,087 Member
    I have seen this mentioned in other places, but the article Lyle McDonald wrote on it seems to have dissapeared. Maybe he changed his mind. Do any of you Lyle fans have the original article?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

    Taken from another site

    It has been found in scientific work that a sedentary person can oxidize 31 calories from adipose tissue every 24 hours.

    This means that the more fat you carry, the larger your deficit can be, without catabolized non-fatty tissues (muscle).

    Example: A 200 pound man with 20% bodyfat carries 40 pounds of fat, thus he can maintain 40x31 calories = 1240 calorie deficit per day, without losing muscle tissue.

    Example: A 200 pound man with 5% bodyfat carries only 10 pounds of fat, thus he can only maintain 10x31 calories = 310 calorie deficit per day.

    So, the bigger and fatter you are, the bigger your deficit can be. Large, obese persons can maintain large deficits. The leaner you get, the smaller your deficit should be.

    here is an article written along these lines, authored by Lyle McDonald, whose is generally credited to be one of the foremost experts in fat loss anatomy.

    http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/lyle_mc donald/maximum_fatloss"

    I truely do buy into this...was talking about this the other day...Body fat is STORED energy...if you take in less energy than you need to get through the day your body will burn fat..especially if it's high %'s before muscle...

    I know someone who is 5'7" weighed 210...lost 50 lbs since January using the 1200 cal diet AND lifting weights and working out....He is ripped like crazy right now...
  • love4fitnesslove4food_wechange
    love4fitnesslove4food_wechange Posts: 6,897 Member
    Just to clarify, I assume this applies to men only*? Having done the maths for my small female stats (23% of 124lb x 31 = 884, take from TDEE of 1600) that would allow me to only eat 750 cals a day, which isn't my idea of healthy!

    Edit *I say this because men can get to a much lower body fat %

    I doubt that your TDEE is 1600...but even assuming it's more, the 31 cals per pound of fat is not a RECOMMENDED deficit it is a maximum deficit. All the recommendation is alluding to is the GREATEST POSSIBLE deficit you can have after which you will MOST CERTAINLY catabolize your muscles in order to fuel your metabolic processes. For you it would be if your deficit is greater than 868 (.23 * 124 = 28. 28 x 31 = 868).
  • UponThisRock
    UponThisRock Posts: 4,519 Member
    I was just thinking about this topic this morning, lol.

    It is true that larger people can tolerate larger deficits. I think it's both because of having more fat to lose and because of insulin resistance/sensitivity issues.

    I would caution folks against trying to nitpick over exact numbers though, a lot of other factors come into play when you're dealing with real-world weight loss.
  • Phrak
    Phrak Posts: 353 Member
    This is the basis of the reverse taper diet a Brad Pilon and John Barban creation. You start by eating a deficit close to that 31g/lb of fat you hold. Then as body fat reduces, your deficit reduces with it. So you may actually end up with a higher caloric intake at the end of the diet then at the start.
  • Loony33
    Loony33 Posts: 2
    This is the basis of the reverse taper diet a Brad Pilon and John Barban creation. You start by eating a deficit close to that 31g/lb of fat you hold. Then as body fat reduces, your deficit reduces with it. So you may actually end up with a higher caloric intake at the end of the diet then at the start.

    That's an interesting concept, but Barban seems to suggest that this needs to be compensated for via extra exercise or physical activity for continued weight loss which would make sense. I wonder how this 31 number changes with activity levels - especially low intensity ones such as walking where there typically is a high oxidation demand from the adipocytes.
  • happy_travels
    happy_travels Posts: 51 Member
    Bump

    I was curious how the reverse diet worked. Thanks for posting.
  • iballin
    iballin Posts: 21
    how does this make sense,,, if a 330 lb obese person is carrying 150 lbs of body fat , then 150 x 31 = 4650 . well that doesn't make sense because a 330 persons maintenance calories are less then that if not close to the same, so an obese person can eat nothing and lose 0 muscle while starving away?? interesting non the less, i know Ian McCarthy and Lyle MacDonald both advocate this.. and they're smart guys but how does it work for the bigger ppl 150 lbs or more.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    how does this make sense,,, if a 330 lb obese person is carrying 150 lbs of body fat , then 150 x 31 = 4650 . well that doesn't make sense because a 330 persons maintenance calories are less then that if not close to the same, so an obese person can eat nothing and lose 0 muscle while starving away?? interesting non the less, i know Ian McCarthy and Lyle MacDonald both advocate this.. and they're smart guys but how does it work for the bigger ppl 150 lbs or more.
    Yes, well not zero muscle but fasting is protective of muscle. Our bodies are quite capable of going long periods of time without food.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm
  • iballin
    iballin Posts: 21
    naw not really in a lean person though, 72 hours equals Catabolic ie loss of non-fatty tissue(muscle). wasent really talking about fasting per say, just wondering how its possible for someone to have deficit greater then there maintenance and i found out how, and its obvious.. lol silly me, it would entail cardio, and eating like 1500 calories, as to not be micro nutrient deficient crazy how an obese person with 150 pounds to lose could be in a 4600 deficit, without risk of any muscle break down, and if they did strength training, that deficit could actually be higher according to science, obviously as theyre weight adjusts the deficit would need to actually become smaller, and they would actually need to eat more calories, as to not destroy metabolism ,
  • malimisko
    malimisko Posts: 17 Member
    Is 31 cal/lb fat same for everyone ? If we assume 3500 cal per lb of fat then this gives 31/3500 = 0.88% loss of fat per day max.
    But is .88% same for all of us ? What happens if you have greater caloric deficit - do you lose muscle ?

    Look at this guy

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

    This article is about 207kg (over 450lb) man who did not eat anything for little over a year and lost 125kg. He did get multivitamins and yeast. He lived at least 5 years later since article claims he regained only 7 kg.

Categories