Cutting Nutrional Thought

[Ironchief]

Im aware the amount of calories people use for their deficit is based largely on many factors like weight, metabolism, and desired amount of weight loss per week. It's generally accepted, for the most part, that the higher the caloric deficit the more likely you're to burn off muscle. There's always the limits however.

I remember on my first serious cut I was too cautious. I kept my deficit between 150 minimum to 200 maximum. That meant that fat loss was lengthy and slow but at the end of the day I kept most of my muscle. (I was a beginner at the time so it wasn't all that much.)

Now, I know the number 250/500 likes to be tossed about due to calculations of the energy needed to burn a pound of fat. But are there actual studies showing at which point or rather how steep a caloric deficit does the balance shift to more muscle being burned.

Ideally that would yield the highest deficit you can embark on without succumbing to potential muscle loss. Results will be different for someone on PEDs, a natty, and someone in between so feel free to respond accordingly.

Cheers.

 

[Rockclimber]

On gear I cut 7,000 cal a week (2 pounds a week) and lose no strength usually. Right now I am on a mild recomp/cut with Tren A 3500 cal a week deficit.
I am a believer in a shorter more agressive cut while on gear so I can get back to clean bulking faster.

 

[Docd187123]

I prefer larger deficits for shorter periods. Yes you lose muscle faster in most cases but you also diet for less time so the differences are negligible.

 

[Ironchief]

I see. You both seem to agree on your methodology. Would you agree then that more muscle mass you possess the steeper your deficits can be? After all, save for times when you want to cut for asthetic or simple pleasures, one needs a base to cut down to. It makes sense that the less muscle you have, the stricter your caloric deficit should be in comparison.

The problem arises in consistency. Since in a perfect work, you will progress to some extent in lean muscle gains, but cutting at an extra accelerated rate could hamper it. Looking back, do you think you would have kept more (on and off PEDs) had you cut at more reasonable deficits?

 

[Docd187123]

I see. You both seem to agree on your methodology. Would you agree then that more muscle mass you possess the steeper your deficits can be? After all, save for times when you want to cut for asthetic or simple pleasures, one needs a base to cut down to. It makes sense that the less muscle you have, the stricter your caloric deficit should be in comparison.

The problem arises in consistency. Since in a perfect work, you will progress to some extent in lean muscle gains, but cutting at an extra accelerated rate could hamper it. Looking back, do you think you would have kept more (on and off PEDs) had you cut at more reasonable deficits?

It's the opposite. The fatter you are the easier it is to have a large deficit.

 

[Ironchief]

It's the opposite. The fatter you are the easier it is to have a large deficit.

You're right. At a certain percentage (higher than normal), the body would be more likely to use fat for fuel as its expendable. It's when the body fat gets lower that the balance tips and extra care must be taken. Thanks.