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
  #21  
Unread 07-08-2010, 03:27 PM
tayjeremy tayjeremy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 542
Default

And there I was thinking my fat was magically falling off. *sigh*
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 02-06-2013, 11:32 AM
BillSpeer BillSpeer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Default

So, if I keep strength at the gym, could a large deficit be ''faster'' for fat loss than an medium deficit, even if it will probably represent a bigger lost of LBM, which I will need to regain later?

An other point is if I could lose muscle in my lower body because is not being trained, or because i have never train it even for walk or run then i won't lose muscle there
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 02-07-2013, 06:51 AM
Miknal's Avatar
Miknal Miknal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSpeer View Post
So, if I keep strength at the gym, could a large deficit be ''faster'' for fat loss than an medium deficit, even if it will probably represent a bigger lost of LBM, which I will need to regain later?

An other point is if I could lose muscle in my lower body because is not being trained, or because i have never train it even for walk or run then i won't lose muscle there
1. If you are not losing strength, you are probably not losing muscle.
2. Probably a bit. But if you are untrained, you won't have much muscle to lose. Just like 99% of dieters who do it with no sensible weight training.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 02-07-2013, 10:02 AM
BillSpeer BillSpeer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miknal View Post
1. If you are not losing strength, you are probably not losing muscle.
2. Probably a bit. But if you are untrained, you won't have much muscle to lose. Just like 99% of dieters who do it with no sensible weight training.
I didn't train it because I can't. I'm in a wheelchair.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 02-08-2013, 05:56 AM
Miknal's Avatar
Miknal Miknal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSpeer View Post
I didn't train it because I can't. I'm in a wheelchair.
Sorry to hear that.

I that case, you won't have much muscle there anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 10-14-2014, 09:45 AM
roberto roberto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
In fact, that’s exactly what I recommended in The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook: 2-3 short heavy weight workouts per week (to maintain muscle mass) while allowing the big caloric deficit of the diet generate fat loss. And it works.
Alternately, you could combine 2-3 short heavy weight workouts with cardio and use a smaller dietary deficit. And that works too. What won’t work (for anyone not using drugs) is to remove the heavy tension stimulus completely and move to nothing but higher reps and lighter weights.
Lyle i understand the context of the term "dietary deficit" used here. However, in all other articles when you use the term dietary deficit does that refer to just food intake alone? Or total deficit within the context of the disconnect between energy in vs out?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 10-14-2014, 10:22 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Dietary deficit = food intake reduction
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 03-05-2017, 09:18 AM
ifrit ifrit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3
Default

Hello there. I have been using this article as a basis to set my deficit and those of my clients and referred to it in discussions for years, so first off thank for that.

Now, at the start of this year, Greg Nuckols published the following article:

http://www.strongerbyscience.com/rea...raining-goals/

In it, he brings up the question "How fast can I lose fat?" and gives the following answer/formula based on this study:

Quote:
With this information, we can use a nifty little formula that can tell you how fast you can shoot to lose fat without unnecessarily increasing your risk of losing much (or any) lean mass in the process. I’m using 25kcal/day per pound of fat because those 3kcal/day aren’t going to make a meaningful difference, and they’ll simplify the calculation a lot, as you’ll see in a second:

Body weight x bodyfat percentage = total body fat x 25kcal/day per pound of fat = daily caloric deficit x 7 = weekly caloric deficit ÷ 3500 (since there are roughly 3500kcal per pound of fat tissue) = pounds of fat you can lose per week

Simple, right?

It may look messy, but here’s what it all simplifies to:

Body fat percentage ÷ 20 = percentage of your current bodyweight you should aim to lose per week.

So, for example, if you’re currently at 20% body fat, you should aim to lose about 1% of your bodyweight per week. If you’re 10%, you should only aim to lose about 0.5% of your body weight per week.

Now, you can certainly aim to lose weight faster than that, but you’ll almost certainly lose muscle in the process. If that doesn’t matter to you (since it’s much faster to gain back muscle you’d previously lost much faster than to build new muscle), then be my guest and crash diet, but your rate of fat loss probably won’t be much faster.

Saying this, especially the bolded parts, he implies that muscle loss at higher deficits than prescribed per his formular here are basically inevitable and fat loss won't be much improved. Of course, building that much decisionmaking on a single study is already problematic, but still, this made me unsure about how large (or not) to set my deficits and those of my clients.


Thank you for any insight you can give.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 03-06-2017, 09:14 AM
lylemcdonald lylemcdonald is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 884
Default

I wrote about the 31 cal/lb value over a decade ago and it doesn't matter. He doesn't understand taht because he doesn't know where it comes from or why the data set isn't applicable.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 03-06-2017, 10:01 AM
ifrit ifrit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3
Default

Thank you for the prompt response.

If possible, could you perhaps point me towards the articles/books of yours that closer deal with this study?
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 02:25 PM.


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