# Calories! The more you can cut the better and faster results u'll get! With little muscle loss!



## Dan01010101 (Mar 16, 2016)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...bolism-qa.html

This whole notion that you should only have a small deficit to loose fat is flawed

The notion that if you cut too many calories youll loose more muscle than if you had cut slowly is wrong!

The notion that youll loose a heap of muscle if you cut too much is flawed. (If you get enough protein and dont do it too long youll just get fast fat loss results and save most of your muscle)

The notion that you metabolism will slow down heaps and ull get fat on the rebound is flawed, it will slow down heaps but its plastic, it will increase again as your calories increase, so long as you dont go on a massive binge right after the diet has stopped ull be fine. Gradually taper the calories back on slowly.

Agree or disagree and why?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Lyle must have been reading my posts, I have been saying that s**t for years.


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

Dan01010101 said:


> http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...bolism-qa.html
> 
> This whole notion that you should only have a small deficit to loose fat is flawed
> 
> ...


 There is a steady somewhere that showed individuals actually gaining muscle tissue on diet with 300g protein and a deficit of 1400 of their maintenance.

However I think your comment about your body not adjusting is wrong. The body gets used to everything!


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> There is a steady somewhere that showed individuals actually gaining muscle tissue on diet with 300g protein and a deficit of 1400 of their maintenance.
> 
> However I think your comment about your body not adjusting is wrong. The body gets used to everything!


 the body will adjust, it just takes time, a severely restricted number of calories will effect the body but you would need to be on it for a while and i believe you would have to get to severely low BF levels for it to start having an effect.


----------



## UlsterRugby (Nov 16, 2014)

banzi said:


> the body will adjust, it just takes time, a severely restricted number of calories will effect the body but you would need to be on it for a while and i believe you would have to get to severely low BF levels for it to start having an effect.


 When you say a while would 6-8 weeks be ok to cut on say 1000-1500 belwo maint or is this too long for such a big cut? Ive always cut for longer and slower but would prefer to do an aggerisve cut if i thought i wouldnt lose muscle. Would be on 300g protein, 300mg test, 400mg mast and 400mg tren at 205lbs


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

I always thought keep calories around maintenance levels but exerting more energy through training and cardio would give you a better body composition overall rather than being in such a strict deficit.


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

banzi said:


> Lyle must have been reading my posts, I have been saying that s**t for years.


 So if you had 8 weeks before a holiday what would you do in terms of diet......... if you wanted to get lean starting from around 15% bodyfat


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> I always thought keep calories around maintenance levels but exerting more energy through training and cardio would give you a better body composition overall rather than being in such a strict deficit.


 Its the same either way.


----------



## DORIAN (Feb 8, 2011)

Is this natural or while on AAS or both?


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> Its the same either way.


 Scenario 1

a large calorie deficit no cardio

Scenario 2

Eat maintenance calories but do cardio or more intense training

which one would give better body composition


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> Scenario 1
> 
> a large calorie deficit no cardio
> 
> ...


 If that cardio or intense exercise puts you into calorie deficit then you're not eating maintenance.


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> Scenario 1
> 
> a large calorie deficit no cardio
> 
> ...


 At a guess, the 2nd one (but only because of the benefits cardio gives to muscle building) but I was not considering no cardio at all in the first part of this conversation and would never do no cardio.

The point I was making is that removing calories by food or extra cardio is the same.


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

2004mark said:


> If that cardio or intense exercise puts you into calorie deficit then you're not eating maintenance.


 yes but what i am saying is the cardio will only take you to a slight deficit up against the huge deficit without cardio

which one will reap better results

you get where i am coming from?


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> At a guess, the 2nd one (but only because of the benefits cardio gives to muscle building) but I was not considering no cardio at all in the first part of this conversation and would never do no cardio.
> 
> The point I was making is that removing calories by food or extra cardio is the same.


 Ok so

exactly the same calories at the end of the day one is achieved by a huge calorie deficit one is achieving through cardio

what reaps better results.


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> Ok so
> 
> exactly the same calories at the end of the day one is achieved by a huge calorie deficit one is achieving through cardio
> 
> what reaps better results.


 The difference would be negligible IMO.

I do however like to do more cardio than eat less food. Keeps me looking fuller and mentally its nice to have more food than less on a cut.


----------



## Dan01010101 (Mar 16, 2016)

Thnaks guys!

Well im eating a huge deficit, so I will let you guys know how it goes,

Im 208lbs 20% bodyfat and im eating 1000 caleries a day and lifting weights a little.

So far my face fat, has reduced, my gut has gone down fast Ive started to see my abs and side abs under certain lighting, and ive lost only a little muscle and I made the mistake of not eating enough protein which ive rectified so maybe I wouldn't have lost it yet had I done it right, anyway will carry on and let you guys know how it goes and how fast


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

Dan01010101 said:


> Thnaks guys!
> 
> Well im eating a huge deficit, so I will let you guys know how it goes,
> 
> ...


 You are eating 1000 calories a day or in a defeict of 1000 a day?

1000 Calories a day is not enough to not loose muscle if you are 208lbs, unless you are much higher than 20%

300g of protein is 1200 calories alone!


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> yes but what i am saying is the cardio will only take you to a slight deficit up against the huge deficit without cardio
> 
> which one will reap better results
> 
> you get where i am coming from?


 I do barely any cardio, I think banzi does zero.

I've seen what excessive cardio can do to a physique.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

this is one of those threads u see and think "fukc this" gonna be 100 different opinions then gonna be some old boy start a thread after getting bullied saying "guys im leaving this forum" then appear back a month later


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

I think my overall criticism of the short, sharp diet is that its what yo-yo dieters have been doing for years.. and we all know how that works for them.

The guys who have been in this game for years and know what they are doing are a different matter, but for us mere mortals it should be a learning curve at the same time and you don't learn anything from starving yourself for a few weeks and then going back to your old ways.... except how to get lean and then fat again.


----------



## lukeyybrown1 (Jun 4, 2014)

Dark sim said:


> I do barely any cardio, I think banzi does zero.
> 
> I've seen what excessive cardio can do to a physique.


 So best to just eat in a deficit do you use any particular ratio in term of diet 40/40/20?


----------



## Dan01010101 (Mar 16, 2016)

BoomTime said:


> BoomTime said:
> 
> 
> > You are eating 1000 calories a day or in a defeict of 1000 a day?
> ...


 only eating 1000 a day, so a 1500 calorie deficit, 2500 is my maintenance

I dont need THAT much protein im not a body builder im just working out to increase my chances with women, they dont tend to like overly developed guys more a ripped swimmer like body

Also whey protein isnt that high in calories, 23 grams of protein is 100 calories

But yes ill be having a bit less protein than usual, but not by that much, since I dont have loads and loads in the first place (just eat meat with every meal and a whey shake after a workout normally)


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

Dan01010101 said:


> only eating 1000 a day, so a 1500 calorie deficit, 2500 is my maintenance
> 
> I dont need THAT much protein im not a body builder im just working out to increase my chances with women, they dont tend to like overly developed guys more a ripped swimmer like body
> 
> ...


 So you are working out to improve your chances with women but telling me what they do and do not like?. Nice one. Thanks for the advise. 

Each gram of Protein is 4 calories, 300 x 4 = 1200. It seems you have it all figured out though so I will wish you luck.


----------



## A1243R (Nov 2, 2014)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> So best to just eat in a deficit do you use any particular ratio in term of diet 40/40/20?


 Banzi would recoemnd about 300/350g P 0-20 C and about 50 F


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

lukeyybrown1 said:


> So best to just eat in a deficit do you use any particular ratio in term of diet 40/40/20?


 Protein would be higher. Aim for 1.2-1.5g/lb protein, 0.3-0.5g/lb fats, balance carbs. Reduce from carbs first, then fats, as you drop weight.

I would say do what what suits you. I prefer less food and hate cardio, so reducing calories in exchange for less cardio suits me. Some need more food to keep hunger at bay, so would need more cardio. I am a believer than pounding the treadmill for more than an hour a day would be detrimental to your body composition.


----------



## Dan01010101 (Mar 16, 2016)

BoomTime said:


> So you are working out to improve your chances with women but telling me what they do and do not like?. Nice one. Thanks for the advise.
> 
> Each gram of Protein is 4 calories, 300 x 4 = 1200. It seems you have it all figured out though so I will wish you luck.


 Yea trolls arnt so good with the ladies, maybe if you go out more youll find someone


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

Dan01010101 said:


> Yea trolls arnt so good with the ladies, maybe if you go out more youll find someone


 Maybe I will find some muscle also....


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

UlsterRugby said:


> When you say a while would 6-8 weeks be ok to cut on say 1000-1500 belwo maint or is this too long for such a big cut? Ive always cut for longer and slower but would prefer to do an aggerisve cut if i thought i wouldnt lose muscle. Would be on 300g protein, 300mg test, 400mg mast and 400mg tren at 205lbs


 6-8 weeks is fine, you can add in the odd higher cal day every 7-10 days if you are worried.

Thing is you will be flat and smooth due to the lack of carbs, dont worry about that, it comes back after a couple days carbs.


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

I like a good deficit when I cut 1000-2000


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

A1243R said:


> Banzi would recoemnd about 300/350g P 0-20 C and about 50 F


 no i wouldnt, no one needs that much protein, you can manage on 120-150


----------



## A1243R (Nov 2, 2014)

banzi said:


> no i wouldnt, no one needs that much protein, you can manage on 120-150


 Thought the diet was 4/5 meals so circa 800g/1k of chciken and a steak a day... thats circa 250/300g pro


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

A1243R said:


> Thought the diet was 4/5 meals so circa 800g/1k of chciken and a steak a day... thats circa 250/300g pro


 I dont eat that much, its actually hard to eat that much protein when you dont have a carb source with it.

Try steak , and then try steak and chips, I bet you can eat more steak.


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

After reading this I think i'm going to lower my calories an extra 200-300 and do it more aggressively for less time. Just I do like my food!


----------



## Etoboss (Dec 1, 2015)

Dark sim said:


> Protein would be higher. Aim for 1.2-1.5g/lb protein, 0.3-0.5g/lb fats, balance carbs. Reduce from carbs first, then fats, as you drop weight.
> 
> I would say do what what suits you. I prefer less food and hate cardio, so reducing calories in exchange for less cardio suits me. Some need more food to keep hunger at bay, so would need more cardio. I am a believer than pounding the treadmill for more than an hour a day would be detrimental to your body composition.


 What I have recently tried is reducing cals by 1000cals. Doing no cardio. Was loosing around 2lbs per week. But felt like it was coming off just to slow looking in the mirror. So I added in 30mins cardio witch burnt 250cals... But kept food cals the same And weight started to drop even more like double the amount! 4lbs per week.

I then stopped cardio but reduced cals by another 250 witch I was burning off via cardio. And weight loss slowed back down! Back to around 2lbs per week

so i think cardio is defo needed??


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Etoboss said:


> What I have recently tried is reducing cals by 1000cals. Doing no cardio. Was loosing around 2lbs per week. But felt like it was coming off just to slow looking in the mirror. So I added in 30mins cardio witch burnt 250cals... But kept food cals the same And weight started to drop even more like double the amount! 4lbs per week.
> 
> I then stopped cardio but reduced cals by another 250 witch I was burning off via cardio. And weight loss slowed back down! Back to around 2lbs per week
> 
> so i think cardio is defo needed??


 Cardio will certainly help and I'd always advise it, but it is just creating an energy deficit, the same as you would with less food.

Some bodybuilders actually do zero cardio yet get to stage condition. This is done by manipulating calories.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

Dan TT said:


> After reading this I think i'm going to lower my calories an extra 200-300 and do it more aggressively for less time. Just I do like my food!


 I've been eating 1600-2000 cals a day last month.

Lost 7lbs and strength has been maintained, if not increased - muscle loss is overhyped IMO - people confuse that with depleted glycogen etc


----------



## Dan TT (May 9, 2012)

Drogon said:


> I've been eating 1600-2000 cals a day last month.
> 
> Lost 7lbs and strength has been maintained, if not increased - muscle loss is overhyped IMO - people confuse that with depleted glycogen etc


 Only just noticed this. I agree with the part of about being confused muscle loss with depleted glycogen, which I can say I have been subject to myself. Thought I was loosing a s**t load of muscle and decided to cut short the cut when really I probably was just depleted as heck.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

Dan TT said:


> Only just noticed this. I agree with the part of about being confused muscle loss with depleted glycogen, which I can say I have been subject to myself. Thought I was loosing a s**t load of muscle and decided to cut short the cut when really I probably was just depleted as heck.


 It's defo a mind-fvck mate which makes it much harder.

Just need to power through, it always happens at that stage when you're not bulkier anymore but not cut up yet, so your mind starts playing tricks on you :lol:


----------



## MrBishi (Mar 10, 2016)

I think if you want a short quick shred over a month I'd go with a Keto diet 1000 Cal deficit with the bulk of my carbs coming directly after a workout. Workout wise probably do Stronglifts, HIIT, rest. And keep repeating those three days.

Time it two or three weeks into a testosterone cycle and itd probably go awesome


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

This rapid fat loss method works fantastic if you can handle the mental breakdown (first week is a nightmare). Slow diets are waste of time.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

This is another related article by Lyle:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/muscle-loss-while-dieting-to-single-digit-body-fat-levels-qa.html/

The two main issues with extreme calorie deficits to me are:

1) They can affect gym performance and therefore in turn muscle retention. (They can also affect physical and mental performance in other aspects of someone's life.)

2) They are more unpleasant and consequently harder to stick to.

People who are more experienced are far better equiped to be able to judge and manage these things, and consequently I think a more cautious approach is generally better for beginners. As someone else has said, crash diets generally aren't successful in achieving long term changes.


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> This is another related article by Lyle:
> 
> http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/muscle-loss-while-dieting-to-single-digit-body-fat-levels-qa.html/
> 
> ...


 Yes thats why he states this type of diet suits 5% of the population.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Mogadishu said:


> Yes thats why he states this type of diet suits 5% of the population.


 In case you thought otherwise, I didn't post what I did to highlight any sort of disagreement with Lyle.

Personally I think the whole question of what is the optimal way to cut is still a very open question, due not only to the muscle loss issue but also metabolic adaptations. Specifically how these may be affected by different rates of weight loss and how best to manage them. I'm not sure when Lyle wrote the article in the OP (other than that it's post-2011), but it's possibly worth noting that his opinions on refeeds have changed over time. The following is lengthy but well worth a listen for people particularly interested in this subject:

http://sigmanutrition.com/episode65/


----------



## Mogadishu (Aug 29, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> In case you thought otherwise, I didn't post what I did to highlight any sort of disagreement with Lyle.
> 
> Personally I think the whole question of what is the optimal way to cut is still a very open question, due not only to the muscle loss issue but also metabolic adaptations. Specifically how these may be affected by different rates of weight loss and how best to manage them. I'm not sure when Lyle wrote the article in the OP (other than that it's post-2011), but it's possibly worth noting that his opinions on refeeds have changed over time. The following is lengthy but well worth a listen for people particularly interested in this subject:
> 
> http://sigmanutrition.com/episode65/


 I agree with everything you wrote I just put some sort of conclusion for the last sentence of your post regarding beginners. I'm a big fan of Lyle and his rapid fat loss is amazing.


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

Cutting on low cals simply leads to yo-yo'ing, cant be maintained long term, end up binging. Whereas a slight deficit can be maintained


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> The difference would be negligible IMO.
> 
> I do however like to do more cardio than eat less food. Keeps me looking fuller and mentally its nice to have more food than less on a cut.


 Though, eating less would be more benefetial approach than eating more and then burning it through cardio.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> Though, eating less would be more benefetial approach than eating more and then burning it through cardio.


 Why do you say that?


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Why do you say that?


 Breifly, more exercise, more the stress. More the stress, more the free radicals. Not anything related to affect on body recomposition In terms of detriminal effects but in terms of general health.

After a long time seeing you bud. I hope all is fine.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> Breifly, more exercise, more the stress. More the stress, more the free radicals. Not anything related to affect on body recomposition In terms of detriminal effects but in terms of general health.
> 
> After a long time seeing you bud. I hope all is fine.


 I'd be interested if you can provide any solid evidence to back up your concerns re. cardio, free radicals and a clear detrimental effect. The body is also 'stressed' by the overall calorie deficit of course. One more obvious potential downside to cardio is if the energy expended doing this negatively impacts on weight training, or if the cardio itself interferes with recovery from training (although some will argue it is positively beneficial in this regard).

On the flip side cardio is obviously good for CV health, and I think there may also be contributions to fat mobilisation that could come into play for leaner individuals (not something I've read up on).

It's not obvious what is best to me either way BTW. I hate cardio and so just do a small amount for general health, and rely on eating less when I want to lose fat. Others however struggle more with lower volumes of food and so doing more cardio works better for them.

(I'm good thanks, just been busy and so took a break from posting.)


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'd be interested if you can provide any solid evidence to back up your concerns re. cardio, free radicals and a clear detrimental effect.


 Exercise does indeed induce the production of free radicals, much like the harmful byproducts produced when a car engine burns fuel, the human body produces free radicals when glucose is utilised. To counter this one only needs to make sure plenty of antioxidant rich foods are consumed.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

But isn't the oxidative stress caused by exercise involved in the stimulation of the adaptations we are trying to achieve by exercising in the first place? That is, is it necessarily a bad thing? As it happens I stopped using a tart cherry supplement post-workout because I wasn't sure about this issue - I don't know either way.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I've only quickly read the abstract and conclusions, but this paper discusses how free radicals (reactive oyygen species, ROS) are involved in both positive and negative processes, making this a far from clear-cut issue:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jst/2012/982794/


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> But isn't the oxidative stress caused by exercise involved in the stimulation of the adaptations we are trying to achieve by exercising in the first place? That is, is it necessarily a bad thing? As it happens I stopped using a tart cherry supplement post-workout because I wasn't sure about this issue - I don't know either way.


 Oxidative stress is not the goal, we want to create metabolic stress during physical activity to induce hypertrophy, Oxidative stress/free radicals are the byproduct of exercise.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> Oxidative stress is not the goal, we want to create metabolic stress during physical activity to induce hypertrophy, Oxidative stress/free radicals are the byproduct of exercise.


 See my last post...

To try to not stray too far from the original point, all I'm saying is that I don't think it is fair to say that a calorie deficit from eating less food is definitely better than the same deficit from exercise, or vice versa. Although my guess would be that from a pure health POV doing some cardio would be better for the CV health benefits. There are however lots of complex issues going on here meaning that I suspect experts in this field would be unsure/disagree, and I am certainly not qualified to pass definitive judgement!

(I would just mention that metabolic stress is only one possible route to hypertrophy, and I think the prevailing view would be not the dominent one. See e.g. this.)


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'd be interested if you can provide any solid evidence to back up your concerns re. cardio, free radicals and a clear detrimental effect. The body is also 'stressed' by the overall calorie deficit of course. One more obvious potential downside to cardio is if the energy expended doing this negatively impacts on weight training, or if the cardio itself interferes with recovery from training (although some will argue it is positively beneficial in this regard).
> 
> On the flip side cardio is obviously good for CV health, and I think there may also be contributions to fat mobilisation that could come into play for leaner individuals (not something I've read up on).
> 
> ...


 I exactly can't link a study to my statement mate. I listened to one of the Q&A with Layne norton where he stated that 80% of the deficit shoud come from diet and rest from cardio and he explained further when you create a larger deficit with cardio can cause damaged cells with in body. Too much of science in that video which went above my head TBH. But, crux was exercise induced cells damage.


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

Jatin Bhatia said:


> Though, eating less would be more benefetial approach than eating more and then burning it through cardio.


 Don't agree with this. They are both exactly the same and it's a personal thing. I would hazard a guess and say most would rather just do 400 calories worth of cardio than drop another 400 calories when you are really low on calories already.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> Don't agree with this. They are both exactly the same and it's a personal thing. I would hazard a guess and say most would rather just do 400 calories worth of cardio than drop another 400 calories when you are really low on calories already.


 As i said in previous comments, nothing detrimental in terms of body composition.


----------



## Brad-Harris (Feb 3, 2013)

Just had a quick scan through this. @banzi what do you think I should do, eat 300g protein then get rest of my cals from carbs? Eat at a 500cal deficit or more, my maintenance is 2600. I'm only light but I do BJJ so it suits my sport. I just wanna drop some bf


----------



## UlsterRugby (Nov 16, 2014)

Brad-Harris said:


> Just had a quick scan through this. @banzi what do you think I should do, eat 300g protein then get rest of my cals from carbs? Eat at a 500cal deficit or more, my maintenance is 2600. I'm only light but I do BJJ so it suits my sport. I just wanna drop some bf


 @banzi would not recommend 300g protein from reading previous posts of his. He is an advocate of lower protein and amounts like 250g+ simply are not needed.


----------



## UlsterRugby (Nov 16, 2014)

Brad-Harris said:


> Just had a quick scan through this. @banzi what do you think I should do, eat 300g protein then get rest of my cals from carbs? Eat at a 500cal deficit or more, my maintenance is 2600. I'm only light but I do BJJ so it suits my sport. I just wanna drop some bf


 Im 6ft 15.8 stone and my maintence is 2700kcals. Im starting since yest. Ive started on 2500 kcals and will drop 200 each week. Im going for a long slow cut as holiday isnt for another 16 weeks. i plan to start to implement clen and sib next month then t3 last 8 weeks I will be on low tren,test throughout and mast last 8-12 weeks


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Brad-Harris said:


> Just had a quick scan through this. @banzi what do you think I should do, eat 300g protein then get rest of my cals from carbs? Eat at a 500cal deficit or more, my maintenance is 2600. I'm only light but I do BJJ so it suits my sport. I just wanna drop some bf


 What is BJJ?

Whatever you do you need fat in your diet.


----------



## Yes (May 4, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> What is BJJ?
> 
> Whatever you do you need fat in your diet.


 Brazilian jiu-jitsu


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Whilst it may be possible to cut without losing muscle on a big deficit, I'll pass thanks.

I'm just coming to the end of a cut running a 600-700 deficit, and it was an absolute doddle. Food down a bit, activity up a bit, didn't suffer at all. Eight weeks not gaining muscle - but I'm on a cruise so I'm not gaining muscle anyway no matter what I do.

Running a deficit of double this would be unpleasant & inconvenient - even if it's just for half the time. Cruises feel like I'm spinning my wheels anyway, so I might as well use productively.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

How do you guys workout how much you've burnt through cardio? Surely its a bit of guesswork, even on a treadmill with the calorie readings they arent going to be specific to you. I imagine i would burn less running 1km than a guy who's never stepped foot in the gym before?

I've usually found people who go down the cardio route tend to over-estimate how much they've burnt, or over-eat after cardio


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Whilst it may be possible to cut without losing muscle on a big deficit, I'll pass thanks.
> 
> I'm just coming to the end of a cut running a 600-700 deficit, and it was an absolute doddle. Food down a bit, activity up a bit, didn't suffer at all. * Eight weeks not gaining muscle - but I'm on a cruise so I'm not gaining muscle anyway no matter what I do.*
> 
> Running a deficit of double this would be unpleasant & inconvenient - even if it's just for half the time. Cruises feel like I'm spinning my wheels anyway, so I might as well use productively.


 you are aware that the majority of the year you are not actually gaining new muscle, at our age we are pretty much maxed out genetic wise, we aint gaining a lot more now .


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TheScam said:


> How do you guys workout how much you've burnt through cardio? Surely its a bit of guesswork, even on a treadmill with the calorie readings they arent going to be specific to you. I imagine i would burn less running 1km than a guy who's never stepped foot in the gym before?
> 
> I've usually found people who go down the cardio route tend to over-estimate how much they've burnt, or over-eat after cardio


 i did 35 minutes on the bike the other day to kill some time while I waited to pick up the other half., it said 195 cals

fu**ing waste of time for fat loss, its less than a fu**ing kitkat.


----------



## superpube (Feb 18, 2015)

banzi said:


> i did 35 minutes on the bike the other day to kill some time while I waited to pick up the other half., it said 195 cals
> 
> fu**ing waste of time for fat loss, its less than a fu**ing kitkat.


 Should have peddled harder.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

banzi said:


> i did 35 minutes on the bike the other day to kill some time while I waited to pick up the other half., it said 195 cals
> 
> fu**ing waste of time for fat loss, its less than a fu**ing kitkat.


 Yet I bet if you asked your average gym goer how much they thought they would burn in that time it may be as much as double that? I know I would think its more than that.


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

TheScam said:


> Yet I bet if you asked your average gym goer how much they thought they would burn in that time it may be as much as double that? I know I would think its more than that.


 I burn around 100 calories every ten minutes fast walking.

For bodybuilding purposes incline fast walk is all you need for fat burning. (well at least for me and combined with a calorie deficit)


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> you are aware that the majority of the year you are not actually gaining new muscle, at our age we are pretty much maxed out genetic wise, we aint gaining a lot more now .


 I've not been on gear long (just over 2 years), so I'm still gaining. Right now I'm 93kg at 9% fat. This time last year I was the same weight but 12%.

I'm aware I'll probably max out in the next year or so, and I may already have done so without ramping up the dosages on my next cycle. When I do hit that inevitable point, I'll probably re-evaluate my training & cycling completely.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

banzi said:


> i did 35 minutes on the bike the other day to kill some time while I waited to pick up the other half., it said 195 cals
> 
> fu**ing waste of time for fat loss, its less than a fu**ing kitkat.


 Personally, I think those readings are crap I see the same thing running on my threadmill for an hour at 12k/per hour. Says maybe 300kcals or something so like a mars bar or something. I am knackered after it.

I know from experience if I ran every day for an hour at that pace and further ate a mars bar for lunch (i.e. should theoretically balance out) with nothing else changed I would definitely lose weight, and in a reasonable space of time, no question

Maybe its due to after you stop your body is still pretty knackered and trying to recuperate for a good while afterwards, really don't know.


----------



## FuqOutDaWhey (Apr 29, 2015)

superpube said:


> Should have peddled harder.


 Clearly didn't want to earn his kitkat


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

JohhnyC said:


> Personally, I think those readings are crap I see the same thing running on my threadmill for an hour at 12k/per hour. Says maybe 300kcals or something so like a mars bar or something. I am knackered after it.
> 
> I know from experience if I ran every day for an hour at that pace and further ate a mars bar for lunch (i.e. should theoretically balance out) with nothing else changed I would definitely lose weight, and in a reasonable space of time, no question
> 
> Maybe its due to after you stop your body is still pretty knackered and trying to recuperate for a good while afterwards, really don't know.


 Its because those readings have no idea who is using the treadmill or bike. Even if you enter your age, height and weight - 2 people with similar stats could have very different levels of fitness.

If me and my house mate went for a run and did the same distance, in the same time, I would expect him to burn more calories (or fat - not totally sure on the science behind it all) as I am fairly fit and he is a couch potato. Surely I would be more efficient than him, and I know from previous experience with our HR monitors that his heart rate would go a lot higher than mine, for longer.

This is why i posed the question, how do people doing cardio know how many calories they are burning and how do they account for it in their eating?


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

TheScam said:


> This is why i posed the question, how do people doing cardio know how many calories they are burning and how do they account for it in their eating?


 What the machine should do is to accurately measure the power (watts) that the user is putting into the machine, then multiply that by a factor of about 4. This factor represents the exercise efficiency, which is typically 25%. Exercise efficiency is how much of the energy you burn is actually translated to useful work (the rest being lost by heat loss, inefficiency in the body, and the energy expended slinging the limbs back & forth)

Different exercises have different efficiency values, and some people will exercise more efficiently than others. Matthew Pincent can exert more than twice as much power on a rowing machine as I can (yes - I've actually done that calculation). His VO2 max will be much higher than mine, but not twice as high. The difference will include a greater exercise efficiency, and a better technique on top of his superior fitness levels. If he rowed on the machine next to me at exactly the same pace & power output, his actual calorie burn would be significantly lower than mine.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

BoomTime said:


> *I burn around 100 calories* every ten minutes fast walking.
> 
> For bodybuilding purposes incline fast walk is all you need for fat burning. (well at least for me and combined with a calorie deficit)


 so you think


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

TheScam said:


> Its because those readings have no idea who is using the treadmill or bike. Even if you enter your age, height and weight - 2 people with similar stats could have very different levels of fitness.
> 
> I*f me and my house mate went for a run and did the same distance, in the same time, I would expect him to burn more calories (or fat - not totally sure on the science behind it all) as I am fairly fit and he is a couch potato*. Surely I would be more efficient than him, and I know from previous experience with our HR monitors that his heart rate would go a lot higher than mine, for longer.
> 
> This is why i posed the question, how do people doing cardio know how many calories they are burning and how do they account for it in their eating?


 it would be the opposite, you have a leaner body mass and higher muscle ratio so would burn more calories than your fat friend.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Probably the most important read on this topic is the paper linked below which looks at both real world and scientific data specifically related to the study of contest prep for natural bodybuilding.

I'd urge thorough and open-minded reading by everyone, but for the real lazy the take home points for basic nutritional structure and energy level are as follows:

*"Caloric intake should be set at a level that results in bodyweight losses of approximately 0.5 to 1%/wk to maximize muscle retention. Within this caloric intake, most but not all bodybuilders will respond best to consuming 2.3-3.1 g/kg of lean body mass per day of protein, 15-30% of calories from fat, and the reminder of calories from carbohydrate. Eating three to six meals per day with a meal containing 0.4-0.5 g/kg bodyweight of protein prior and subsequent to resistance training likely maximizes any theoretical benefits of nutrient timing and frequency. However, alterations in nutrient timing and frequency appear to have little effect on fat loss or lean mass retention. "*

http://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1550-2783-11-20

Note that of course some people will respond best outside of the stated ranges, both for energy intake and for protein, but the figures above will provide the most effective guidelines for the vast majority of people.

Also note the above looks at data in naturals, so can't necessarily be generalized as optimal for PED users. Likewise PED users with good results using assisted protocols should not dismiss the above because they can cut and still maintain LBM using larger energy deficits. Definitely a different enough condition to disqualify generalization.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

banzi said:


> it would be the opposite, you have a leaner body mass and higher muscle ratio so would burn more calories than your fat friend.


 I think TheScam was right actually. As Major Eyeswater posted above I think the fitter person would be more efficient, plus of course if the fatter person was heavier it would take more energy to shift the extra mass around.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I think TheScram was right actually. As Major Eyeswater posted above I think the fitter person would be more efficient, plus of course if the fatter person was heavier it would take more energy to shift the extra mass around.


 muscle needs calories to maintain as it uses energy, fat doesn't its inert.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

banzi said:


> muscle needs calories to maintain as it uses energy, fat doesn't its inert.


 TheScam's point was about the energy expended specifically during a bout of exercise, not the contribution to BMR.

However, depending how fat someone is, the extra calories spent moving the extra weight around can easily be more than the pretty modest contribution from a bit more muscle. Fat is also not totally inert, requiring about 3 kcal per lb per day to maintain, compared to 6 kcal per lb for muscle. I know you won't care but I'm taking these numbers from here:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/metabolic-rate-overview.html/


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

banzi said:


> so you think


 Fitbit says so


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

Major Eyeswater said:


> What the machine should do is to accurately measure the power (watts) that the user is putting into the machine, then multiply that by a factor of about 4. This factor represents the exercise efficiency, which is typically 25%. Exercise efficiency is how much of the energy you burn is actually translated to useful work (the rest being lost by heat loss, inefficiency in the body, and the energy expended slinging the limbs back & forth)
> 
> Different exercises have different efficiency values, and some people will exercise more efficiently than others. Matthew Pincent can exert more than twice as much power on a rowing machine as I can (yes - I've actually done that calculation). His VO2 max will be much higher than mine, but not twice as high. The difference will include a greater exercise efficiency, and a better technique on top of his superior fitness levels. If he rowed on the machine next to me at exactly the same pace & power output, his actual calorie burn would be significantly lower than mine.


 Thanks for the interesting reply, I never really knew how they calculated them but assumed it must be some generic formula.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> it would be the opposite, you have a leaner body mass and higher muscle ratio so would burn more calories than your fat friend.


 Not so.

Two guys - same height & weight, but one is a bodybuilder with good cardiovascular fitness & 10% bodyfat, the other is an untrained slob at 25% bodyfat.

Sitting on their backsides watching telly - the bodybuilder will burn more calories per hour because muscle expends more calories per hour just ticking over.

Get them running at the same speed, and the fat guy will burn more, because his untrained body will be working less efficiently. His running style will be less efficient because of practice, and also because he will be working closer to his physical limits, so his running will be less calm & controlled. Biochemically, because the fit muscular chap is working at a lower percentage of his aerobic capacity, he will be able to utilise the more efficient fat oxidation & krebs-cycle cycle carb burning, whilst the unfit chap is likely to have exceeded his oxygen delivery, and be working on glucose to lactate, which is less efficient.

I've got personal experience of this too. My brother is a similar weight to me, but he's fat & has been drinking heavily for years - but he went on a health kick last year, and last summer when I visited I went into his gym with him. We both went on the treadmills, and I noticed that when we were running at the same pace, his running style was much clumsier & less practiced than mine. His whole body was bobbing up & down and going side-to-side with each step, whilst my torso was pretty much stationary - so he was wasting energy that I wasn't slinging his centre of gravity about. Also his belly (which is quite big) was wobbling, which would also have been an energy loss.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Not so.
> 
> Two guys - same height & weight, but one is a bodybuilder with good cardiovascular fitness & 10% bodyfat, the other is an untrained slob at 25% bodyfat.
> 
> ...


 and yet the running machines said you had burned exactly the same amount of calories if you ran identical speeds for the same amount of time.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Not so.
> 
> Two guys - same height & weight, but one is a bodybuilder with good cardiovascular fitness & 10% bodyfat, the other is an untrained slob at 25% bodyfat.
> 
> ...


 So at rest muscle burns more energy, but when active it doesn't compared to someone who is fat?

Muscle burns more calories period, whether it is at rest or active, compared to someone who is fat.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark sim said:


> So at rest muscle burns more energy, but when active it doesn't compared to someone who is fat?


 If you have two people, one with more muscle than the other, and they both work to full capacity then the person with more muscle will burn more calories as they'll have done more work. (Deadlifting 3x10 at 200 kg would burn more calories than 3x10 at 100 kg.) The example above however was of two people running at the same speed for the same amount of time, which is different.



> Muscle burns more calories period, whether it is at rest or active, compared to someone who is fat.


 Yes, but at rest the difference is surprisingly small (see my post and link above).


----------



## Tomahawk (Dec 24, 2014)

If you cut at this sort of rate, do you not run the risk of excess loose skin?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Moving a fixed load over a fixed distance requires a fixed amount of energy - that is inescapable physics. (Assuming all other factors such as friction are also the same).

So a person weighing 100kgs at 10% b/fat who runs 1km will burn the same amount of energy (for the activity) as someone weighing 100kgs at 25% b/fat running 1km.

Two additional factors are important though when talking about this in the context of muscles and movement activity in a living being:

1) Muscle burns more energy than fat, both at rest and when active.

2) When muscle works hard, both skeletal muscle and especially cardiac muscle, it burns more energy to do the same job.

Point 2 is important because when someone with less muscle mass does the same thing as someone with more muscle mass, their smaller amount of muscle will be working a lot harder.

So, although a lean individual will burn more metabolic energy than a fatter individual at the same body weight, when an individual carries more fat and less muscle than someone of equal total body mass his muscles have to work harder to perform the same activity - for a lean individual running 1km his activity demand is spread over more muscle area so each area of muscle does less work than the muscle of a fatter individual of the same body mass doing the same amount of work.

Chances are also very high that a leaner individual also has greater cardiac fitness, also improving his efficiency and energy demand.

This difference means that the individual with more fat burns more energy, especially as VO2 max or exercise intensity increases.

The main thing though is that the actual difference is relatively small. It's there, but not something that is going to mean a huge difference between groups. The largest determinant of how much energy is burned is the inescapable 'base' calculation of weight moved for distance determining energy used, and that is equal to both individuals in this case.


----------



## Benchbum (Apr 20, 2011)

Dark sim said:


> I do barely any cardio, I think banzi does zero.
> 
> I've seen what excessive cardio can do to a physique.


 I do a little cardio when really pushing bulking to feel less like I'm dieing, while dieting Zero Cardio.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

banzi said:


> Lyle must have been reading my posts, I have been saying that s**t for years.





Dan01010101 said:


> http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...bolism-qa.html
> 
> This whole notion that you should only have a small deficit to loose fat is flawed
> 
> ...


 Totally agree. The best way i've ever lost fat is with super low calorie, high protein days with high calorie re-feeds. I did the low calorie days IF style, but I'm not sure if that helped or just made the low cal days more manageable, but it allowed for a comfortable 1KG a week weight low with no noticable muscle loss


----------



## Oldnewb (Jul 24, 2014)

When dieting at a large deficit, what would a refeed day / meal every 7-10 days look like?


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

simonthepieman said:


> *Totally agree. The best way i've ever lost fat is with super low calorie, high protein days with high calorie re-feeds*. I did the low calorie days IF style, but I'm not sure if that helped or just made the low cal days more manageable, but it allowed for a comfortable 1KG a week weight low with no noticable muscle loss


 Made a couple of interesting discoveries this prep, noticed my body isnt responding to the same diet protocols and stimulus it once did.

Will do a write up after I have competed about my experiences this time around.


----------



## axh819 (Jun 7, 2015)

UlsterRugby said:


> When you say a while would 6-8 weeks be ok to cut on say 1000-1500 belwo maint or is this too long for such a big cut? Ive always cut for longer and slower but would prefer to do an aggerisve cut if i thought i wouldnt lose muscle. Would be on 300g protein, 300mg test, 400mg mast and 400mg tren at 205lbs


 In theory -1500 a day is -10,500 a week which is 1.2kg of fat thereabouts.. 8 weeks of that in theory would be nearly 10kg fat if you carry on adjusting calories to stay 1500 below your ever adjusting maintenance


----------



## UlsterRugby (Nov 16, 2014)

axh819 said:


> In theory -1500 a day is -10,500 a week which is 1.2kg of fat thereabouts.. 8 weeks of that in theory would be nearly 10kg fat if you carry on adjusting calories to stay 1500 below your ever adjusting maintenance


 I decided against going that low. I just couldn't maintain it and I don't need it. I'm not stepping on stage just looking to get to 10% so I'm 600 below losing 1-1.5lb a week. Cardio will be added in soon


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

axh819 said:


> In theory -1500 a day is -10,500 a week which is 1.2kg of fat thereabouts.. 8 weeks of that in theory would be nearly 10kg fat if you carry on adjusting calories to stay 1500 below your ever adjusting maintenance


 it doesnt work like that in reality.


----------



## Flipper (Jan 11, 2011)

banzi said:


> Made a couple of interesting discoveries this prep, noticed my body isnt responding to the same diet protocols and stimulus it once did.
> 
> Will do a write up after I have competed about my experiences this time around.


 I'll be very interested to read this when you get round to writing it up.


----------



## axh819 (Jun 7, 2015)

banzi said:


> it doesnt work like that in reality.


 No I wouldn't have thought so, definitely would slow down after a few weeks, feel ill etc. Can imagine the urge to binge would be crazy on such a restricted diet as well


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

axh819 said:


> In theory -1500 a day is -10,500 a week which is 1.2kg of fat thereabouts.. 8 weeks of that in theory would be nearly 10kg fat if you carry on adjusting calories to stay 1500 below your ever adjusting maintenance


 Is there 10 days in a week?


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

banzi said:


> Made a couple of interesting discoveries this prep, noticed my body isnt responding to the same diet protocols and stimulus it once did.
> 
> Will do a write up after I have competed about my experiences this time around.


 I think prep and shedding the tire the different things and need different approaches. Age is a bitch too, but she can still be slapped 

Ive never prepped so I can't comment on what's best.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

sen said:


> Is there 10 days in a week?


 1500 x 7 = 10,500...

But as Banzi said, things don't work like that simple calcuation.


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> 1500 x 7 = 10,500...
> 
> But as Banzi said, things don't work like that simple calcuation.


 Oh s**t, so it does!

im thinking 15000!


----------



## axh819 (Jun 7, 2015)

sen said:


> Is there 10 days in a week?


 No but 7x1500 is 10,500

10x1500 is 15,000

Must have misread what I wrote?


----------



## 31205 (Jan 16, 2013)

axh819 said:


> No but 7x1500 is 10,500
> 
> 10x1500 is 15,000
> 
> Must have misread what I wrote?


 Yeah. Apologies mate.


----------



## RobPianaLad (Nov 8, 2015)

TheScam said:


> How do you guys workout how much you've burnt through cardio? Surely its a bit of guesswork, even on a treadmill with the calorie readings they arent going to be specific to you. I imagine i would burn less running 1km than a guy who's never stepped foot in the gym before?
> 
> I've usually found people who go down the cardio route tend to over-estimate how much they've burnt, or over-eat after cardio


 agree, 600cals in a short run, yeah right fatty


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

I've cut on 1700 cals.....got lean quicktime


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

I always aim for 3lbs of weight loss per week, don't seem to lose much muscle at all.


----------



## TheScam (Apr 30, 2013)

FelonE said:


> I've cut on 1700 cals.....got lean quicktime


 What do you do for a job / lifestyle etc. Are you fairly active outside of the gym? I cut on 1700 but thats a slow cut for me as my job etc is very sedentary


----------



## FelonE1 (Dec 23, 2013)

TheScam said:


> What do you do for a job / lifestyle etc. Are you fairly active outside of the gym? I cut on 1700 but thats a slow cut for me as my job etc is very sedentary


 Not working atm but am always on the go,very active


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

Sedentary myself (job etc).

I am just eating whatever at the moment, but plan on eating 1900 cals a day for a good 6-8 weeks from this week. Only cruising also, for now.


----------

