BigSean86 Member

Hi pgp90xer, I would compare extra active to an athlete that trains 6 days a wk (over 2hrs intense exercise a day). I'm an office worker and sit at a desk most of the day but I found the weight loss very slow and steady using moderately active 1.55 (retaining more LBM) and this was with me training 5 days a week (3 days…

Just at a glance I can tell you right now your calories are too low. 12900 cals for the week is too low, I'd use the formula Harris benedict formula above and work out your low/high day cals. Training 5-6 plus times a week you really need to reassess your cals as I personally think your body hasn't come out of starvation…

Whoa that's a lot of activity, what's your low day and high day cals like? Also is your goal to lean mass or cut?

Hi MartialPanda, Your numbers look good, I've never cycled using your days method as I do 3:1. 3 low days in a row then refeed on the forth day then repeat. Also I believe if your weight training having a no carb day is crazy. Maybe go between the two low cals\carb day (60-80g carbs) then do your high cals and carbs…

I still think that's way too low man, try 2400 cals for your low day cals. Do the 3:1 cycle over two weeks and see how you fair.

That sounds a bit better for your maintenance, now -30% and those will be your low day cals. Yeah that's correct I eat 50% fat on low days and 50% carbs on refeed days. Apologies I've just realised my low days and refeed day are the wrong way round lol. It should be the below; 2400 calories - low days @ -30% Macros: Carbs…

Oh ok, given your working out 4x a week I would use the Harris benedict formula and multiply your BMR by 1.55.

Wow, for a guy your height and weight those calories are way to low man and don't neglect rice, pasta etc just have it in moderation. I wouldn't go by MFP's calculator it doesn't take into consideration a weightlifter imo. Out of interest how often do you weight train, do you do cardio at all?

also Dom, going back to you saying that your weight loss has stalled whats your current deficit and how long have you been on it? it could be one of two things, either you have been in a aggressive deficit for too long or you've been under eating cals.

Apologies, to add on to this, this was my interpretation of the Lean Gains guide by Martin Berkan. there are loads of interesting studies which are fairly meaty reads but the gems dropped on that page are priceless. http://www.leangains.com/ Sean

Hi dom1133, Well to begin with i used the harris-benedict formula to work out my maintenance calories. Harris-Benedict Formula BMR = 66 + (6.23 x weight in lbs) + (12.7 x height in inches (71") - (6.8 x age) Activity factor: Sedentary BMR x 1.2 Lightly active BMR x 1.375 Moderately BMR x 1.55 Very active BMR x 1.725 Extra…

Sorry I should of amended this, I do the below in a fasted state 6:30am- Cycle to gym (7 miles, located right next to work) 7:30-Train fasted for an hr 1-2pm Break fast at around I usually do the 16/8 protocol

My workouts tend to be two bodyparts per hr session consisting of 4 exercises per body part for 4 sets and 12 reps (increasing the weight per set)

I used the below calculator, using the very high activity rate option. That's how I came about a TDEE 3632. I just assumed for what I'm doing workout wise my expenditure must be real high. http://www.1percentedge.com/ifcalc/

Your right , I think it may be mental. I'm someone as soon as I start to feel weak on a cut I get scared and up cals . I just really hate my lifts being effected but I guess I just need to stick with 2700 cals

i went from 209lbs to 207lbs within that time but my strength went declined within this period.

the thing is i did stick with 2700 cal for a few weeks and i found my lifts were starting be effected hence me upping my cals.

so do you think i should stick with 3000 cals and measure up every month?

My TDEE is 3632, the only reason I'm opting to eat more is because i assume my energy expenditure is fairly high and my deficit is too big hence me eating more to close up the deficit and start steady fat loss.