VERY IMPORTANT medical research determining your maximum calorie deficit

[Vel]

Basically what was determined in this study is how much of a calorie deficit your fat mass can sustain on a daily basis. In other words, there is a limit to how much fat can be mobilized off your stores daily and burned. Any more of a decrease will result in lean mass loss

Mods please read and consider stickying. I realize it's posted on a competitor's site but information is information regardless of where it's coming from and I believe everyone should be privy to it.

The article is written by a well respected member of the scene (Lyle McDonald) and the name of the study is listed at the bottom of the article.

http://www.mindandmuscle.net/article...tloss?page=all

[DE_58]

This confirmed exactly what I believed. I'm at pretty much the max cal deficit for my BF, if not exact. At ~20% BF, I hold ~ 35lbs +-5 of fat, and I'm dieting at ~ a 950 cal deficit.

[fitopia]

Assuming "normal/moderate" activity, I can afford an 1198 deficit. Interesting. I'm currently at between 500 and 800 on workout days. In the past when I've gone lower I've ended up looking scrawny at 5'7" & 138lbs, so I don't know.

[Baboun]

slow website is slow

[Baboun]

edit: looks like it has been wrote in 06

[Vel]

Originally Posted by fitopia

Assuming "normal/moderate" activity, I can afford an 1198 deficit. Interesting. I'm currently at between 500 and 800 on workout days. In the past when I've gone lower I've ended up looking scrawny at 5'7" & 138lbs, so I don't know.

What do you mean you can have a total deficit of 1198?

I hope you mean that's your CALORIE INTAKE and not the actual deficit, or is your avatar not of yourself and you're some very obese person?

Remember the DEFICIT is what you get when you multiple estimated fat mass x 31.

Myself for example, right now I'm about 7.5% at 173 so I have 13 lbs of fat on me total. If I wanted to diet properly within the guidelines of the article I'd be doing bodyweight times 12 = 2040 calories. Add in the 13 lbs of fat x 31 i get a 403 calorie DEFICIT giving me a grand total of 1637 calories in food intake daily.

I can then do activity to create a larger deficit but the food intake has to stay around 1637 ish.

More clear now?

And please never say "so I dunno" in face of honest medical research and second guess. They are scientists doing controlled experiments coming up with actual data, you are not.

[Baboun]

To summarize:

Simply determine how many pounds of fat you?re carrying. Then multiply that value by 31 calories. That?s how much you can potentially decrease your daily food intake. If you want to try to increase fat loss, any further increase in the deficit should either come from increased activity or compounds that either increase the mobilization or burning of fatty acids for fuel. As well, as you get leaner/lighter, you will need to periodically recalculate your daily calories to take into account your diminishing fat mass and decreased maintenance requirements due to both decreased bodymass and the adaptive component of metabolic rate.

[codelifter007]

Vel, doesn't that formula somewhat fail for people who are carrying a lot of extra weight?

A 280lb guy could easily have 80lbs of bodyfat, but that would imply by that formula that they can sustain a 2480 calorie deficit??

That just seems off to me.

[fitopia]

Originally Posted by Vel

What do you mean you can have a total deficit of 1198?

I hope you mean that's your CALORIE INTAKE and not the actual deficit, or is your avatar not of yourself and you're some very obese person?

Remember the DEFICIT is what you get when you multiple estimated fat mass x 31.

Myself for example, right now I'm about 7.5% at 173 so I have 13 lbs of fat on me total. If I wanted to diet properly within the guidelines of the article I'd be doing bodyweight times 12 = 2040 calories. Add in the 13 lbs of fat x 31 i get a 403 calorie DEFICIT giving me a grand total of 1637 calories in food intake daily.

I can then do activity to create a larger deficit but the food intake has to stay around 1637 ish.

More clear now?

And please never say "so I dunno" in face of honest medical research and second guess. They are scientists doing controlled experiments coming up with actual data, you are not.

Actually, no controlled experiment trumps self-knowledge and personal experience. A sample of the general population attempts to generalize to the whole, but such a generalization does not necessarily represent every individual. Chances are there will be outliers, or worse a bad fit.

Yes, I know my bicep is impressive, and your first thought is probably that it belongs to a guy... wrong.

At 24.4% BF, and weighing 159lbs, I have 38.8lbs of fat. Multiply that by 31 and you arrive at 1198. I hope that was easy enough for you to follow

[Baboun]

Originally Posted by codelifter007

Vel, doesn't that formula somewhat fail for people who are carrying a lot of extra weight?

A 280lb guy could easily have 80lbs of bodyfat, but that would imply by that formula that they can sustain a 2480 calorie deficit??

That just seems off to me.

let's say maintenance is 4000


then yes.

[Baboun]

Originally Posted by fitopia

At 24.4% BF, and weighing 159lbs, I have 38.8lbs of fat. Multiply that by 31 and you arrive at 1198. I hope that was easy enough for you to follow

you have a 120lbs LBM ? holy **** brah, I would skip the fat loss at this point and just eat clean

the maths are meant for maximum fat loss / minimum LBM loss ratio

[fitopia]

Originally Posted by Vutcher

you have a 120lbs LBM ? holy **** brah, I would skip the fat loss at this point and just eat clean

the maths are meant for maximum fat loss / minimum LBM loss ratio

What are you on about? lol.

[codelifter007]

Originally Posted by Vutcher

let's say maintenance is 4000


then yes.

but a very large individual with that high of a BF% (implying very out of shape) would never have anywhere near that high a maintenance though.

I'm not against the author's concept, but a "constant multiplier" against weight seems wrong

[fitopia]

Originally Posted by codelifter007

but a very large individual with that high of a BF% (implying very out of shape) would never have anywhere near that high a maintenance though.

I'm not against the author's concept, but a "constant multiplier" against weight seems wrong

Agreed.

[N.K.]

Originally Posted by Vel

And please never say "so I dunno" in face of honest medical research and second guess. They are scientists doing controlled experiments coming up with actual data, you are not.

AMEN

[Vel]

Originally Posted by fitopia

Actually, no controlled experiment trumps self-knowledge and personal experience. A sample of the general population attempts to generalize to the whole, but such a generalization does not necessarily represent every individual. Chances are there will be outliers, or worse a bad fit.

Yes, I know my bicep is impressive, and your first thought is probably that it belongs to a guy... wrong.

At 24.4% BF, and weighing 159lbs, I have 38.8lbs of fat. Multiply that by 31 and you arrive at 1198. I hope that was easy enough for you to follow

I understand that "everyone is different" . But what you're trying to argue is a logical fallacy called a "Relativist Fallacy" in which case x is presented and person a asserts x is true for other but doesn't apply to them so therefore you are completely justified in rejecting case x.

If this study was done by a few 17 year old high school kids in their garage as a science experiment and not perused and critiqued by someone like Lyle McDonald, I would probably doubt the claims as well, however that's not the case. The complete opposite is true. You can believe what you wish but until you can put up better evidence that the study doesn't apply to you and who knows how many other human beings other than just the argument of "Well because that's just how I feel" then you shouldn't expect for anyone with decent logical reasoning power to hop on your bandwagon.

No offense I hope, I'm just telling it like it is.

[Vel]

Originally Posted by codelifter007

Vel, doesn't that formula somewhat fail for people who are carrying a lot of extra weight?

A 280lb guy could easily have 80lbs of bodyfat, but that would imply by that formula that they can sustain a 2480 calorie deficit??

That just seems off to me.

280 lbs with maintenance at x 15 = 4200 calories

80x31 = 2480

4200-2480= 1720 calories.

I don't see the issue?

[phoenixr2]

Well if someone with a few letters by their name said it, then it must be true right?

I appreciate the link. I am going to read, and study it right now. But just because a scientist, or doctor, or group did this does not make it truth. If it was I believe it would be called a law.

I like to read as much info as possible from as many sources as I can get. Blindly believing any info just because a "professional" says it, is just as bad as someone dismissing an opinion just because its not the majorities opinion.

[outlaw105w]

very interesting article

[Baboun]

Originally Posted by fitopia

What are you on about? lol.

are you a male or female ? that would answer so much

Originally Posted by codelifter007

but a very large individual with that high of a BF% (implying very out of shape) would never have anywhere near that high a maintenance though.

I'm not against the author's concept, but a "constant multiplier" against weight seems wrong

See Vel post for high maintenance, also the "constant multiplier" is a way to skip the big maths, like he says in the article. The multipliers are actually very accurate.

[finaecon]

Originally Posted by phoenixr2

Well if someone with a few letters by their name said it, then it must be true right?

I appreciate the link. I am going to read, and study it right now. But just because a scientist, or doctor, or group did this does not make it truth. If it was I believe it would be called a law.

I like to read as much info as possible from as many sources as I can get. Blindly believing any info just because a "professional" says it, is just as bad as someone dismissing an opinion just because its not the majorities opinion.

I'm with this guy ^^,

Not saying it's wrong by any means, but conflicting results are achieved all the time depending on what variables are controlled and not controlled. You can't take one studies results as truth.

I have completed a bachelors in Economics for example, and there are many empirical studies that come up with drastically different results. Some of these studies use a ridiculous amount of data, but still come up with different answers. The same in biology, physiology, and almost every science out there.

But very interesting none the less! Definitely a good starting point!

[kowabungakyle]

numbers seem a bit low for those who exercise.

[Vel]

Originally Posted by finaecon

I'm with this guy ^^,

Not saying it's wrong by any means, but conflicting results are achieved all the time depending on what variables are controlled and not controlled. You can't take one studies results as truth.

I have completed a bachelors in Economics for example, and there are many empirical studies that come up with drastically different results. Some of these studies use a ridiculous amount of data, but still come up with different answers. The same in biology, physiology, and almost every science out there.

But very interesting none the less! Definitely a good starting point!

I understand completely.

All I'm saying is that it's ridiculous for one to completely snub something for whatever reason that is presented to them by a team of well educated people in a field that one has no experience in and then to top it off continue to snub it when that data was looked upon favorably by someone like Lyle McDonald.

As thorough, stubborn, and anal as that man is, if there was something about the data that he had issues with (and if you read the article there WAS something he was iffy about) that he thought made the ENTIRE thing not worth even wiping his ass with, he would not have wasted his time on it.

And if anyone knows anything about McDonald, they'd agree with me in saying that if he currently accepts is as good to go, then so do I.

[fitopia]

Originally Posted by Vel

I understand that "everyone is different" . But what you're trying to argue is a logical fallacy called a "Relativist Fallacy" in which case x is presented and person a asserts x is true for other but doesn't apply to them so therefore you are completely justified in rejecting case x.

If this study was done by a few 17 year old high school kids in their garage as a science experiment and not perused and critiqued by someone like Lyle McDonald, I would probably doubt the claims as well, however that's not the case. The complete opposite is true. You can believe what you wish but until you can put up better evidence that the study doesn't apply to you and who knows how many other human beings other than just the argument of "Well because that's just how I feel" then you shouldn't expect for anyone with decent logical reasoning power to hop on your bandwagon.

No offense I hope, I'm just telling it like it is.

I'm not in the medical field, but I work with data, typically millions of observations but I've also worked with surveys of a few hundred people. I fit models that are typically far more sophisticated that those used in these types of medical experiments. I know much more about designing experiments than the average joe/jane.

If I'm not mistaken, the formula we're using is Lyle McDonald's simplified version of the original. I was expressing doubts about his simplified formula when you and your sheep decided to jump me. I'm amused, not offended.

Carry on.

[theyoungblood]

Interesting article. The talking points posted in this thread are even more interesting because of the wide range (differences) of peoples experience with weight loss and how their bodies respond to exercise.

[ZidaneValor]

(340 lbs. * 15 cal/lb.) - (340 lbs. * 0.4 BF% * 31 cal/lb.) = 884 cal/day

I don't like this article, lol.

[bdun]

I don't think the equation works outside of a certain normal range of weights/bf. We can easily take this to an extreme. Basically anyone over 50% BF would have to eat negative amounts of food which obviously doesn't work too well.

[fireshower]

I'm 5'7, 154 pounds, 28% BF

Maint: 1800 Calories

I can run a deficit of 154 * .28 * 31 = 1337 calories

Eating 463 calories per day sounds totally wrong. That covers my protein for the entire day.

Am I doing something wrong here? O.o

[ZidaneValor]

Originally Posted by fireshower

I'm 5'7, 154 pounds, 28% BF

Maint: 1800 Calories

I can run a deficit of 154 * .28 * 31 = 1337 calories

Eating 463 calories per day sounds totally wrong. That covers my protein for the entire day.

Am I doing something wrong here? O.o

In this equation, your maintainance is actually 2,310 (154 * 15), so your total calories would be 973. Still too low though.

[CorruptSilence]

Originally Posted by fireshower

I'm 5'7, 154 pounds, 28% BF

Maint: 1800 Calories

I can run a deficit of 154 * .28 * 31 = 1337 calories

Eating 463 calories per day sounds totally wrong. That covers my protein for the entire day.

Am I doing something wrong here? O.o

154 Lbs. x 15 = 2310 (Maint. Cals.)
154 Lbs. @ 28% BF = 43.12 Lbs. of Fat
43.12 Lbs. x 31 = 1336.72
2310 - 1337 = 973 min. calories before muscle degradation. By my understanding of the numbers. (Not recommended intake. Absolute minimum.)