Maintaining metabolic rate when cutting

[Mac11wildcat]

I really don’t want to hear about the “stress” of dieting down. The body is BUILT for adaptation to stress in this sense. Its why we survive.

The body is absolutely more than capable of handling single digit bodyfat for extended periods. People are just weak.

Two issues:
1. People are bitch-made and can’t handle discomfort
2. Despite me drilling for years here on slow and methodical caloric increases for growth and decreases for dieting coupled with appropriate activity/cardio changes, people still seem to not understand that setting one drastic deficit or surplus number for an entirety of a cut or bulk IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUSTAINED GROWTH OR FAT LOSS

 

[MR_Midas]

I really don’t want to hear about the “stress” of dieting down. The body is BUILT for adaptation to stress in this sense. Its why we survive.

The body is absolutely more than capable of handling single digit bodyfat for extended periods. People are just weak.

Two issues:
1. People are bitch-made and can’t handle discomfort
2. Despite me drilling for years here on slow and methodical caloric increases for growth and decreases for dieting coupled with appropriate activity/cardio changes, people still seem to not understand that setting one drastic deficit or surplus number for an entirety of a cut or bulk IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO SUSTAINED GROWTH OR FAT LOSS

In other words, lowering the caloric content of the diet should be done smoothly or slowly? So that the body can adapt to the new diet as efficiently as possible? or I misunderstood?

 

[Canknucklehead]

I vary the protein sources but my protein sources are generally:

lean turkey, lean beef, chicken breast, liquid egg whites, sometimes whole eggs, lean beef meatball, chicken thighs, reduced fat bacon, fat free greek yoghurt, cottage cheese, whey protein.

Protein intake daily varies from a low of 180g to 250g.

I have 1 or 2 portions of fruit and 1 or 2 portions of mixed vegetables a day.

Carbs sources are rice most days but sometimes oats, beans (red kidney beans, black beans, pinto beans, it varies), potatoes (white or sweet). Most days I will only have 1 carb meal a day, which is usually night time post workout, but if I don't feel much energy to workout I will add some carbs to the pre workout (usually oats).

Training/Cardio

4/5days weights, full body. I pick between 1/2 compounds (from bench, overhead press, squat, deadlift, barbell row) go as heavy as I can on at least 2 working sets for at least 6 reps. Then I add other exercises to complement. Volume is between 10 to 15 working sets.

Cardio, after weights at least 10 minutes on the treadmill, high pace walking (6.5kmh) on 6.5% incline, if I have the energy I will go up to 30mins.
I pick one day a week (a day I'm not lifting) and do 30mins-1hr on the treadmill.

So I have between 1/2 rest days I don't do weights or cardio.

My initial thoughts. Seems like you are on the right track, but as @Type-IIx said your aren’t in a big enough deficit.

Some things I would change straight away.

Drink green tea... great natural fat burner.

Starting today you will do 30min cardio on weight training days. Add 5 minutes per week.

Starting today on your cardio day you will do 60min.
Add 5 minutes per week.

Drop the 2 servings of fruit a day and eat 2 servings of mixed veggies. If you crave fruit so bad have a bit of grapefruit with Splenda post workout.

Keep the protein high... aim to reduce your calories from fats and carbohydrates... preferably in that order.

Are you eyeballing your portions? You might want to invest in a food scale and get your portions exactly.

Cut the carbs preworkout... if you are low on energy take ephedrine and caffeine pre workout.

No more optional half a day off... if you have an off day get your butt to the gym and do at least an hour of cardio.

How long does your lifting take you... an hour?

Are you on cycle?

 

[Mac11wildcat]

In other words, lowering the caloric content of the diet should be done smoothly or slowly? So that the body can adapt to the new diet as efficiently as possible? or I misunderstood?

No, has nothing to do with “smoothly.” Has everything to do with “minimum effective dose” where the dose here is deficit or surplus.

4 periods of 2 weeks at a 500 cal continuous deficit will be more effective than 8 weeks ar a 2000 cal deficit for body fat, muscle retention, and performance.

Let’s say the end of your “bulk” was 4k cals.

Step 1 of your diet should be, for instance, a 250 cal/day diet deficit plus a 250 cal/day cardio deficit repeated when progress stops totaling 750 cal deficit from diet and cardio in say 6 weeks and NOT a 750 cal/day diet deficit and a 750 cal/day cardio deficit straight away from day 1.

You take awa cals/add activity only as much as needed to maximize the number of adjustments that can be made before cals get comically low or activity comically high.

@Type-IIx is speaking to my other point; people are weak and what isn’t measured can’t be improved. Eating intuitively isn’t a diet strategy for losing fat.

 

[TheCant]

No, has nothing to do with “smoothly.” Has everything to do with “minimum effective dose” where the dose here is deficit or surplus.

4 periods of 2 weeks at a 500 cal continuous deficit will be more effective than 8 weeks ar a 2000 cal deficit for body fat, muscle retention, and performance.

Let’s say the end of your “bulk” was 4k cals.

Step 1 of your diet should be, for instance, a 250 cal/day diet deficit plus a 250 cal/day cardio deficit repeated when progress stops totaling 750 cal deficit from diet and cardio in say 6 weeks and NOT a 750 cal/day diet deficit and a 750 cal/day cardio deficit straight away from day 1.

You take awa cals/add activity only as much as needed to maximize the number of adjustments that can be made before cals get comically low or activity comically high.

@Type-IIx is speaking to my other point; people are weak and what isn’t measured can’t be improved. Eating intuitively isn’t a diet strategy for losing fat.

Ok so I will concede that what I thought is wrong. I assumed having a large deficit from the start would induce higher fat loss quicker and even if metabolic rate fell it wouldn't be significant enough to stop fat loss.

Should I reset? Upping my calories to what you advised, 250 calories deficit + 250 cardio deficit daily. I don't know my real maintenance but TDEE puts it at just above 3000 calories so I start at 2750 calories daily + 250 calories burn from cardio.
What's your measure for when progress stop? Weight stops changing on the scale in the morning? Caliper measurements?

 

[Mac11wildcat]

Ok so I will concede that what I thought is wrong. I assumed having a large deficit from the start would induce higher fat loss quicker and even if metabolic rate fell it wouldn't be significant enough to stop fat loss.

Should I reset? Upping my calories to what you advised, 250 calories deficit + 250 cardio deficit daily. I don't know my real maintenance but TDEE puts it at just above 3000 calories so I start at 2750 calories daily + 250 calories burn from cardio.
What's your measure for when progress stop? Weight stops changing on the scale in the morning? Caliper measurements?

Having a larger deficit will CLEARLY make you lose body fat quicker upfront.

But is that your goal? What happens when you induce a 2000cals deficit up front with food and cardio, lose X lbs, but are now at like 1500 cals net but have Y more lbs to lose?

Either I’m not communicating this effectively or the understanding of simple math is just not there.

If you take smaller chunks and iterate with food deficit and cardio deficit you will have more success.

And intuitive “I’m more hungry/less hungry so I ate more/less” is off the table for effective weight management.

 

[Type-IIx]

No, has nothing to do with “smoothly.” Has everything to do with “minimum effective dose” where the dose here is deficit or surplus.

4 periods of 2 weeks at a 500 cal continuous deficit will be more effective than 8 weeks ar a 2000 cal deficit for body fat, muscle retention, and performance.

Let’s say the end of your “bulk” was 4k cals.

Step 1 of your diet should be, for instance, a 250 cal/day diet deficit plus a 250 cal/day cardio deficit repeated when progress stops totaling 750 cal deficit from diet and cardio in say 6 weeks and NOT a 750 cal/day diet deficit and a 750 cal/day cardio deficit straight away from day 1.

You take awa cals/add activity only as much as needed to maximize the number of adjustments that can be made before cals get comically low or activity comically high.

@Type-IIx is speaking to my other point; people are weak and what isn’t measured can’t be improved. Eating intuitively isn’t a diet strategy for losing fat.

That's the best approach indeed. I won't just vomit out my approach in detail, but I set a reasonable deficit with planned training & non-training intakes to start based on a maintenance estimate (usually something like -1 lb/wk, perhaps more in a fat powerlifter that wants rapid fat loss; as you know, context-dependent), track EVERYTHING (from sum of skinfolds that are most relevant by sex, to girth measures), adjust foods and/or training based on the changes (I don't look at energy expenditure estimating devices; I use a spreadsheet) in objective and subjective measures (e.g., hunger/appetite, visual assessment, energy levels for training, etc.).

 

[TheCant]

Having a larger deficit will CLEARLY make you lose body fat quicker upfront.

But is that your goal? What happens when you induce a 2000cals deficit up front with food and cardio, lose X lbs, but are now at like 1500 cals net but have Y more lbs to lose?

Either I’m not communicating this effectively or the understanding of simple math is just not there.

If you take smaller chunks and iterate with food deficit and cardio deficit you will have more success.

And intuitive “I’m more hungry/less hungry so I ate more/less” is off the table for effective weight management.

To be honest I am a little confused understanding what you are saying. I read some of your posts and it is clear you have a lot of experience so I'm genuinely trying to put together what you and Type-IIx are saying

I'm quoting @Type-IIx

"RMR sees a slight decrement due to metabolic adaptations that include decreased T3/fT3 and thyroid output. Replacement exogenous T3 (i.e., 25 µg daily Cytomel) makes up some of this decrement, but not all. Further, this is regarded as adaptive (a beneficial adaptation), because it spares muscle catabolism. There is also a dip in SNS output, that clen can (at least very short term) make up for somewhat as a sympathomimetic. EC works, etc.

But these adaptations are not significant to overcome an energy deficit, fat loss will still proceed"

You said "What happens when you induce a 2000cals deficit up front with food and cardio, lose X lbs, but are now at like 1500 cals net but have Y more lbs to lose?"

If I'm on 1500 calories a day I should still be well within a caloric deficit, so I can just carry on with the 1500 calories a day and fat loss should proceed? Am I missing something here?

Are you suggesting at some point even at 1500 calories fat loss will stop because my metabolic rate will reduce by that much that even at such low calories I won't be able to lose?

 

[Mac11wildcat]

To be honest I am a little confused understanding what you are saying. I read some of your posts and it is clear you have a lot of experience so I'm genuinely trying to put together what you and Type-IIx are saying

I'm quoting @Type-IIx

"RMR sees a slight decrement due to metabolic adaptations that include decreased T3/fT3 and thyroid output. Replacement exogenous T3 (i.e., 25 µg daily Cytomel) makes up some of this decrement, but not all. Further, this is regarded as adaptive (a beneficial adaptation), because it spares muscle catabolism. There is also a dip in SNS output, that clen can (at least very short term) make up for somewhat as a sympathomimetic. EC works, etc.

But these adaptations are not significant to overcome an energy deficit, fat loss will still proceed"

You said "What happens when you induce a 2000cals deficit up front with food and cardio, lose X lbs, but are now at like 1500 cals net but have Y more lbs to lose?"

If I'm on 1500 calories a day I should still be well within a caloric deficit, so I can just carry on with the 1500 calories a day and fat loss should proceed? Am I missing something here?

Are you suggesting at some point even at 1500 calories fat loss will stop because my metabolic rate will reduce by that much that even at such low calories I won't be able to lose?

At some point between the adaptation in body weight and the adaptation to net caloric balance, yes. If you remove 500 cals and wait 4 weeks, you likely stop losing weight. The idea is to remove a reasonable chunk with some combination of food and activity to keep progress moving but without unnecessarily chewing up deficit (in either food or reasonable level of daily activity).

If you consider your calorie intake and expenditure via activity as a cup of water, and consider your fat loss needs as thirst, do you chug the glass or do you take sips over time to avoid being thirsty? Same idea.

 

[Type-IIx]

@TheCant in case you are unclear on how Mac11 and I are seemingly saying different things but agree fundmentally, the reason is this:

A diet designed for a 500 kcal deficit/day at the outset results in weight loss, and therefore the energy requirements for the dieter are reduced as they lose weight. So, the same diet must be adjusted to maintain that 500 kcal deficit/day.

Fat loss proceeds quite linearly at > 12% b.f., but at lower b.f. %s, as seen in competitive bodybuilders for example, weight loss can be less forthcoming - it tends to occur in so-called "whooshes."

By week 4 of a 500 kcal/d diet, there will be metabolic adaptations like reduced T3/fT3 (adaptive; protein sparing, but slightly decreases RMR/BMR). NEAT like fidgeting, expending energy spontaneously is reduced as well.

The big factor as I see it is that you're smaller (even adipose tissue has a metabolic cost).

Now different guys may have a different framework for conceptualizing these things that STILL WORK. For example, Mac11 might very well view the construct (the underlying theory to explain these processes) diferently, but we're doing the important things the same things practically.

 

[MR_Midas]

No, has nothing to do with “smoothly.” Has everything to do with “minimum effective dose” where the dose here is deficit or surplus.

4 periods of 2 weeks at a 500 cal continuous deficit will be more effective than 8 weeks ar a 2000 cal deficit for body fat, muscle retention, and performance.

Let’s say the end of your “bulk” was 4k cals.

Step 1 of your diet should be, for instance, a 250 cal/day diet deficit plus a 250 cal/day cardio deficit repeated when progress stops totaling 750 cal deficit from diet and cardio in say 6 weeks and NOT a 750 cal/day diet deficit and a 750 cal/day cardio deficit straight away from day 1.

You take awa cals/add activity only as much as needed to maximize the number of adjustments that can be made before cals get comically low or activity comically high.

@Type-IIx is speaking to my other point; people are weak and what isn’t measured can’t be improved. Eating intuitively isn’t a diet strategy for losing fat.

Thank you very much, everything is clear and on the shelves and everything was explained clearly and accessible.

 

[MR_Midas]

@Mac11wildcat
Somehow I came across an article that it’s not worth orienting yourself to indications of kcal consumption, for example, on an apple watch or other devices for monitoring activity and energy consumption. What they say they have an error of 20-60%. How do you personally take into account and calculate how much you spent per day, per training session and training in the gym. Exactly what you use.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

@Mac11wildcat
Somehow I came across an article that it’s not worth orienting yourself to indications of kcal consumption, for example, on an apple watch or other devices for monitoring activity and energy consumption. What they say they have an error of 20-60%. How do you personally take into account and calculate how much you spent per day, per training session and training in the gym. Exactly what you use.

Its really easy.

Eat the same amount every day and move the same amount every day for several weeks.

Congrats; that’s your baseline. Now adjust calories (that you eat every day) and adjust cardio (that you do every day) appropriately for the goal.

This game is a law of averages, not isolated factors. Guys got stage shredded before biometric watches were a thing.

 

[TheCant]

@TheCant in case you are unclear on how Mac11 and I are seemingly saying different things but agree fundmentally, the reason is this:

A diet designed for a 500 kcal deficit/day at the outset results in weight loss, and therefore the energy requirements for the dieter are reduced as they lose weight. So, the same diet must be adjusted to maintain that 500 kcal deficit/day.

Fat loss proceeds quite linearly at > 12% b.f., but at lower b.f. %s, as seen in competitive bodybuilders for example, weight loss can be less forthcoming - it tends to occur in so-called "whooshes."

By week 4 of a 500 kcal/d diet, there will be metabolic adaptations like reduced T3/fT3 (adaptive; protein sparing, but slightly decreases RMR/BMR). NEAT like fidgeting, expending energy spontaneously is reduced as well.

The big factor as I see it is that you're smaller (even adipose tissue has a metabolic cost).

Now different guys may have a different framework for conceptualizing these things that STILL WORK. For example, Mac11 might very well view the construct (the underlying theory to explain these processes) diferently, but we're doing the important things the same things practically.

Yeah I understand you now.

But I still don't see how a bigger deficit from the start is necessarily a bad thing, even if it's not ideal. I find it hard to believe that a consistent 1600 calories from the start, for example, would eventually mean I would stop losing fat. Even accounting for the lower energy requirements and the metabolic adaptations.

I'm happy with the results I got since I started, body fat went down visibly and I'm recovering some muscle/strength but I'm making changes to how I eat based on the advice here. I'm adding more structure to the diet and will start measuring with calipers. I'm putting 2100 calories on the days I lift and 1800 non lifting days, that's lower than the 500 calories deficit you and Mac recommended but I will see how it goes.

Since I started lifting years ago I had always been relatively lean 10-12% so I never really did a consistent cut. I think part of bodybuilding is trying things out and seeing how they work for you.

 

[Type-IIx]

Yeah I understand you now.

But I still don't see how a bigger deficit from the start is necessarily a bad thing, even if it's not ideal. I find it hard to believe that a consistent 1600 calories from the start, for example, would eventually mean I would stop losing fat. Even accounting for the lower energy requirements and the metabolic adaptations.

I'm happy with the results I got since I started, body fat went down visibly and I'm recovering some muscle/strength but I'm making changes to how I eat based on the advice here. I'm adding more structure to the diet and will start measuring with calipers. I'm putting 2100 calories on the days I lift and 1800 non lifting days, that's lower than the 500 calories deficit you and Mac recommended but I will see how it goes.

Since I started lifting years ago I had always been relatively lean 10-12% so I never really did a consistent cut. I think part of bodybuilding is trying things out and seeing how they work for you.

Well, muscle catabolism, hunger/appetite, and the inability to further restrict as energy requirements decrease across time with weight loss, increased appetite/hunger & decreased NEAT (non-exercise activity thermogenesis, e.g., spontaneous fidgeting) all argue against a 1,600 kcal/d (x 7 d/w) deficit (I see you mean 1,600 kcal/d intake, the magnitude of deficit depending on your net TDEE [total daily energy expenditure]) to start a diet.

Anyhow, it's duly noted that you seem to be planning your intake rather than eating based on hunger/appetite & using an objective measure of changes in fat tissue, so that's a very positive outcome.

 

[MR_Midas]

Its really easy.

Eat the same amount every day and move the same amount every day for several weeks.

Congrats; that’s your baseline. Now adjust calories (that you eat every day) and adjust cardio (that you do every day) appropriately for the goal.

This game is a law of averages, not isolated factors. Guys got stage shredded before biometric watches were a thing.

Now I understand everything effective simply and invented long ago. And we are all looking for some new solutions. Thanks.

 

[MR_Midas]

Yeah I understand you now.

But I still don't see how a bigger deficit from the start is necessarily a bad thing, even if it's not ideal. I find it hard to believe that a consistent 1600 calories from the start, for example, would eventually mean I would stop losing fat. Even accounting for the lower energy requirements and the metabolic adaptations.

I'm happy with the results I got since I started, body fat went down visibly and I'm recovering some muscle/strength but I'm making changes to how I eat based on the advice here. I'm adding more structure to the diet and will start measuring with calipers. I'm putting 2100 calories on the days I lift and 1800 non lifting days, that's lower than the 500 calories deficit you and Mac recommended but I will see how it goes.

Since I started lifting years ago I had always been relatively lean 10-12% so I never really did a consistent cut. I think part of bodybuilding is trying things out and seeing how they work for you.

I think that a lot of stress for the body and sooner or later the body will catch a plateau, both physical and psychological. And sooner or later, there will be an absence rather than a smooth and comfortable decrease in adipose tissue.

 

[Inspired]

COCONUT OIL

Small spoons of coconut oil. It's a fat that has the speed of sugar. It's pro thyroid, pro metabolism. It promotes fat loss while boosting metabolic rate.

 

[Mac11wildcat]

source..?

 

[Type-IIx]

source..?

Coconut oil contains 54% MCTs (medium-chain triglycerides), unlike long- chain FAs, MCTs go to the liver and are available as energy substrates more rapidly by other tissues & are preferentially used to produce ketone bodies that can be used instead of glucose, AAs, or FAs by most tissues... they confer a protein sparing effect.

Still, 46% of coconut oil is largely just saturated fat, it's very energy dense.

MCT products are often derived from coconut oil, but they taste horrific and make you shit grease. One of those things that looks good on paper, but in practice, is not well tolerated (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea).