BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 04-21-2009, 10:04 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default Not Losing Fat at 20% Deficit, What to Do?

Q&A on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 04-21-2009, 10:18 AM
Morgan's Avatar
Morgan Morgan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Whitman, MA
Posts: 216
Default

all my nutbutters are 16gms per serving, just sayin!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 04-21-2009, 10:22 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default

Which is why I shouldn't go from memory. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 04-23-2009, 06:53 AM
BWTrainer BWTrainer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Could it be possible that eating a little more actually results in a bigger deficit? I'm not talking Berardi numbers here. What I mean is, could a sharp reduction in cals cause an even greater metabolic slowdown through leptin, thyroid, subconsciously moving less, etc?

Say maintenance is 2500, but dieting at 1800 cals slows maintenance to 2400, a 600 cal deficit.

Now say that person drops cals to 1500, but 'maintenance' slows down to 2000 because of it. You're eating less, but the deficit is only 500 now.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 04-23-2009, 08:22 AM
Weib Weib is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 815
Default

Wouldn't weight then be a factor?

start of diet - X lbs x 12 vs 5 weeks at X-20lbs X 12 for a constant deficit.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 04-23-2009, 09:21 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWTrainer View Post
Could it be possible that eating a little more actually results in a bigger deficit? I'm not talking Berardi numbers here. What I mean is, could a sharp reduction in cals cause an even greater metabolic slowdown through leptin, thyroid, subconsciously moving less, etc?

Say maintenance is 2500, but dieting at 1800 cals slows maintenance to 2400, a 600 cal deficit.

Now say that person drops cals to 1500, but 'maintenance' slows down to 2000 because of it. You're eating less, but the deficit is only 500 now.
Possibly except that I've never seen anything approximating that level of drop in a diet study. There is individual variacne and that can offset some of the deficit but I doubt the overall magnitude would be that much.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 04-23-2009, 09:22 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weib View Post
Wouldn't weight then be a factor?

start of diet - X lbs x 12 vs 5 weeks at X-20lbs X 12 for a constant deficit.
Don't understand what you're saying.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 04-23-2009, 09:40 AM
Espi Espi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,491
Default

Weib, you mean say 220x12 versus 200x12.
But this article is about when you don't lose anything on a deficit, so you'd stay at 220, no?

It's not as ridiculously high as the G-flux (see sig) but to some extent it really works that way. Friend of mine even devoted an entire website to it.
Women not losing weight at around 1200kcal/day are advised to up calories by 100 kcal/week and preferably start lifting weights.
A whole LOT of them start losing weight at around the 1500-1600kcal mark.. that's still below their normal maintenance, but more than they used to eat.

So , yes it's true. There's others for whom G-Flux really is true.. 1 such person lost wt on a diet of 2700 kcal. She's 73kg now so that's 2700/(73/0.454)= almost 17kcal per lbs for a diet Her maintenance was calculated to be almost 22kcal per lbs.
__________________
Ergo-log: news & KB on legal and illegal ergogenic aids
Poliquin: "There's no overtraining , only undereating ---> to undereat, don't overtrain!"
Burgener: "There's no overtraining, only underrecovery" --> sleep, rest & recover
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 04-23-2009, 10:02 AM
bamfette bamfette is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 342
Default

The bottom line is...

1. Measure and weigh food every time and PRECISELY. No eyeballing
2. Don't cheat.
3. MOVE.
4. Know what REALLY is your maintenance level which takes more than a few days to figure...at least a month.
5. COUNT the calories. Every morsel. KNOW how much you expended in a day. Estimating either DOES NOT work. A 5-10% error can make a difference in the amount of deficit.
6. Did I mention weighing, measuring, counting and moving???

It never ceases to amaze me that people THINK they are expending 2500-3000+ calories a day. It's not that easy with work etc. Many of us have desk jobs.

It never ceases to amaze me that people THINK such and such item of food can't possibly be over 300 calories...YES...it can and OFTEN IS.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 04-23-2009, 10:18 AM
Weib Weib is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Espi View Post
Weib, you mean say 220x12 versus 200x12.
But this article is about when you don't lose anything on a deficit, so you'd stay at 220, no?

It's not as ridiculously high as the G-flux (see sig) but to some extent it really works that way. Friend of mine even devoted an entire website to it.
Women not losing weight at around 1200kcal/day are advised to up calories by 100 kcal/week and preferably start lifting weights.
A whole LOT of them start losing weight at around the 1500-1600kcal mark.. that's still below their normal maintenance, but more than they used to eat.

So , yes it's true. There's others for whom G-Flux really is true.. 1 such person lost wt on a diet of 2700 kcal. She's 73kg now so that's 2700/(73/0.454)= almost 17kcal per lbs for a diet Her maintenance was calculated to be almost 22kcal per lbs.
Yeah thats what i was trying to say.

Interesting to note, your gflux sig doesn't link to anywhere btw.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.