Is a 1500 calorie diet healthy for men?

[King_Madness]

Hey I'm big, and I'm trying to lose weight. Been gaining some good muscle along the way, but not as much as I should by how much work I put into it(even though I do cardio as well). I was looking at diets, gonna try to do this the right way. I calculated my calories, and it says to lose 4 pounds a week, I need to reduce my calories from 4000 to 2000, and that's like no problem for me at all. For 5 pounds a week, its 1546, and I looked up 1500 calorie diets and it says that men need more nutrition for that, especially if they want to build muscle.

Do you think this is true? Would it be healthier to do a 2000 calorie diet instead of 1500? I do infact want to continue gaining muscle.

[cheeseandrice]

you build muscle in a calorie surplus and burn fat in a calorie deficit. you cant do both in either. so pick what you want to do, and do it

yes 1500 cals a day is more than enough for a man. just make sure you eat your lbm in g's of protein and muscle loss will be minimal

[King_Madness]

<i>eat your lbm in g's of protein and muscle loss will be minimal </i>

What does this mean, like chicken cutlet and stuff? Oh and thanks for your help.

[BallAb0veAll]

Hey I'm big, and I'm trying to lose weight. Been gaining some good muscle along the way, but not as much as I should by how much work I put into it(even though I do cardio as well). I was looking at diets, gonna try to do this the right way. I calculated my calories, and it says to lose 4 pounds a week, I need to reduce my calories from 4000 to 2000, and that's like no problem for me at all. For 5 pounds a week, its 1546, and I looked up 1500 calorie diets and it says that men need more nutrition for that, especially if they want to build muscle.

Do you think this is true? Would it be healthier to do a 2000 calorie diet instead of 1500? I do infact want to continue gaining muscle.

In my experience,

The smaller the cut of cals at a time, the less muscle you lose.
i.e. 500 cal deficit a week will lose you more muscle than 250 in two weeks.(Just an example from my experience)

Pick and choose, test your body

[King_Madness]

I may just stick to 2000 then, losing 4 pounds a week still sounds good to me(at least 4 pounds of fat)

[cheeseandrice]

<i>eat your lbm in g's of protein and muscle loss will be minimal </i>

What does this mean, like chicken cutlet and stuff? Oh and thanks for your help.

lbm is your lean body mass. if you weigh 280 now and you are 10% bodyfat that means you have 28 pounds of fat

280 - 28 = 252 (lean body mass) so you would eat 252g of protein a day

keep in mind these numbers are just placeholders, i dont know YOUR lbm, thats up to you to find out.

[BallAb0veAll]

lbm is your lean body mass. if you weigh 280 now and you are 10% bodyfat that means you have 28 pounds of fat

280 - 28 = 252 (lean body mass) so you would eat 252g of protein a day

keep in mind these numbers are just placeholders, i dont know YOUR lbm, thats up to you to find out.

yes good point

[Nutshell20]

Hey I'm big, and I'm trying to lose weight. Been gaining some good muscle along the way, but not as much as I should by how much work I put into it(even though I do cardio as well). I was looking at diets, gonna try to do this the right way. I calculated my calories, and it says to lose 4 pounds a week, I need to reduce my calories from 4000 to 2000, and that's like no problem for me at all. For 5 pounds a week, its 1546, and I looked up 1500 calorie diets and it says that men need more nutrition for that, especially if they want to build muscle.

Do you think this is true? Would it be healthier to do a 2000 calorie diet instead of 1500? I do infact want to continue gaining muscle.

What I have found effective for fat loss is body weight x 10 (280lbs x 10=2800 calories/day), as you lose fat you lower your calories. While 1500 for me (170 lbs) is ok, you being 280 it's not ideal, but can be done. How low will you go when you get to say 210 and your weight loss stalls? Lower your calories in a conjunction with your weight. As your body sheds the fat, lower your calories to match. Waiting sucks, we all want the fat gone like yesterday but I think your end result would be better taking your time. Much less chances of looking skinny fat when your done. Hope this helps, good luck man.

[KQguy]

I would set up your calorie intake so that you don't lose anymore than 2 lbs. per week.

[bobcat11]

Yes, its way too low.

Yes, you can get stronger while on a cut.

Get enough protein and fat and fill in the rest with carbs.

[Jeclavad]

Would it be healthier to do a 2000 calorie diet instead of 1500?

Definitely yes. 1500 cals is far too low even on a cut. Don't drop the cals too much. Do it gradually. If you drop your cals to 1500 from 4000, you'll shut down your metabolism (and you'll plateau soon).
Try 2500-3000 cals during 1-2 weeks and see the results and then adjust.

And 4 pounds a weeks is too much IMO. If you want long term results (I mean not regaining the weight you drop), think long term: it's not a sprint but more a marathon.

Good luck.

[TheNewestGuy]

If you drop your cals to 1500 from 4000, you'll shut down your metabolism (and you'll plateau soon).

::

[DirtyRobot]

The thing about being really overweight is, on the one hand, you have a lot of mass and you would think this affects your caloric intake--bodyweightX10 for a 170lb dude versus a 280lb dude is a big difference.

That being said, most studies show, and Lyle McDonald I think wrote an article on this or it's in one of his books, that if you have a lot of fat to lose, you can go a bit lower in calories than you would otherwise think. This is why a protein sparing modified fast makes sense if you are obese and (generally) less sense if you are under 20% bodyfat. In other words, your body has enough excess fat (energy) that it doesn't really suffer from a lack of energy via food intake.

So is 1,500 too low for you? Uh, I dunno. If you're losing 4 lbs a week at a higher intake, stick with that. Lower it as fat loss stalls. If you end up at 1,500 cals/day but you feel fine, meh, just go with it.

[dago85]

1500kcal for a man can be very catabolic..sure, depends the general condition, but is very low for avoid to lose muscles

[King_Madness]

Thank you very much guys! Definitely going to go with a 2000-2200 calorie diet.

[Sabouneh]

read some other threads ... a few posts in here are complete bullsh*t so i would do a little more research before you start believing some of these people with the whole man cant eat 1500 cals a day ..... its so catabolic!..... your metab will shut down!!... all crap..

you have alot of fat on you.. so having a large deficit will not be that bad for you as your body has lots of fat to derive energy from.. once you get down to lower bodyfat percent then yea you dont want a huge deficit .. but it still can be done.. just lift heavy and get enough protein in and you will be fine at 1500...

you can either cut at a slow rate and see very little results or you can speed the process along so you can be in shape.

[Dan23NH]

Definitely yes. 1500 cals is far too low even on a cut. Don't drop the cals too much. Do it gradually. If you drop your cals to 1500 from 4000, you'll shut down your metabolism (and you'll plateau soon).
Try 2500-3000 cals during 1-2 weeks and see the results and then adjust.

And 4 pounds a weeks is too much IMO. If you want long term results (I mean not regaining the weight you drop), think long term: it's not a sprint but more a marathon.

Good luck.

I agree with you. If you see this, can you check out the thread in "losing fat" called "im pissed" there is a guy in there who is 339 pounds, and people are telling him he is okay with eating 1500 calories a day and he "burns 4000 calories"

I gently questioned if that was a good idea and they crucified me LOL.....*shrugs shoulders*

[On Fire]

I agree with you. If you see this, can you check out the thread in "losing fat" called "im pissed" there is a guy in there who is 339 pounds, and people are telling him he is okay with eating 1500 calories a day and he "burns 4000 calories"

I gently questioned if that was a good idea and they crucified me LOL.....*shrugs shoulders*

It is definitely OK for a 339 pound man to eat 1500 calories. What do you think is causing them to get thinner? Where do you think the bodyfat is actually GOING? Thing's cannot magically disappear. When you have a LOT of fat to oxidize, it is absolutely appropriate to cut calories quite low. Someone going from 12% bodyfat to 10% bodyfat shouldn't follow the same principles as someone trying to get from 30%+ to somewhere under 20%.

[Dan23NH]

It is definitely OK for a 339 pound man to eat 1500 calories. What do you think is causing them to get thinner? .

Okay, in the thread I am referring to, he is "pissed" because he is not losing weight, so no he is not getting thinner. He also is claiming he is burning 4000 calories a day. Is it a good idea for a 339 pound man to burn 4000 calories a day ( very active) and consume 1500 calories? This is the claim by the guy in the thread. I'm not being a smart @ss, really just curious if that is healthy.

I am cutting at a healthly 2 lbs a week and sometimes I feel my energy is a little low on that low of calories ( I weigh 188). So it just makes me wonder about this guys energy levels. Who knows right.....

[Sabouneh]

Okay, in the thread I am referring to, he is "pissed" because he is not losing weight, so no he is not getting thinner. He also is claiming he is burning 4000 calories a day. Is it a good idea for a 339 pound man to burn 4000 calories a day ( very active) and consume 1500 calories? This is the claim by the guy in the thread. I'm not being a smart @ss, really just curious if that is healthy.

I am cutting at a healthly 2 lbs a week and sometimes I feel my energy is a little low on that low of calories ( I weigh 188). So it just makes me wonder about this guys energy levels. Who knows right.....

doubt the guy is burning 4000... i stand and walk at work all day,, go to the gym... and play a soccer game and i burn around 3000...

hes large for a reason.. if he was active he wouldnt be that big.

[Dan23NH]

doubt the guy is burning 4000... i stand and walk at work all day,, go to the gym... and play a soccer game and i burn around 3000...

hes large for a reason.. if he was active he wouldnt be that big.

Oh, but he is...the one guy in the thread who was kinda bashing me challenged me to invent something better than the bodybugg ( apparently that is what the guy is using that makes him claim he is burning 4000 calories). But yeah, I'm with you, he isnt burning 4000 calories and I doubt he is eating that low either.

[KowboysUp]

This is all insanity.

Usually I let these debates play out, but nobody from the correct side has really chimed in and the broscientists are ubiquitous.

I'm 6'1, 262 lbs, and I've been eating AT MOST 1800 cals a day for the last seven weeks, save for cheat/refeeds on weekends. On top of that, I do a half hour of cardio three times a week, slowly working my LISS distance up. I've already dropped 18lbs (2.5lbs/week).

In the meantime, I've set a new PR in bench, and, though it's not a PR, got back up to 365 for 5 on the squat. My strength is definitely the highest it's been since I got lazy (and fat) two years ago.

I really think all of this "a man can't live on that much" talk is excuse making, which is completely Ok- nobody NEEDS to run a 1,500 kcal defecit to reach their goals. But some people want to reach their goals faster (and have farther to go!) and are able to do so JUST FINE.

It's happening every day, right in front of your eyes! Stop saying it can't happen!

[Brad155]

its not that 1500 will kill you or anything, but the problem is that when you start to stall there really isnt anywhere to go but even lower, and when you're already at 1500 its hard to go much lower. start at like 2500 for your size and lower the cals as you lose weight. save the 1500 cal/day for the very last stages of the weight loss, not the early stages.

[On Fire]

Okay, in the thread I am referring to, he is "pissed" because he is not losing weight, so no he is not getting thinner. He also is claiming he is burning 4000 calories a day. Is it a good idea for a 339 pound man to burn 4000 calories a day ( very active) and consume 1500 calories? This is the claim by the guy in the thread. I'm not being a smart @ss, really just curious if that is healthy.

I am cutting at a healthly 2 lbs a week and sometimes I feel my energy is a little low on that low of calories ( I weigh 188). So it just makes me wonder about this guys energy levels. Who knows right.....

You're very likely burning muscle dropping weight that fast when you're 5'10 at 188, unless your muscle mass is incredibly miniscule.

doubt the guy is burning 4000... i stand and walk at work all day,, go to the gym... and play a soccer game and i burn around 3000...

hes large for a reason.. if he was active he wouldnt be that big.

As this guy said, the dude you're talking about is NOT consuming 1500 cals or he's NOT burning 4000. That's all there is to it. Either he's measuring things terribly wrong or he's a closet eater and he's lying to all of you. People don't magically retain weight on an energy deficit.

[Sabertooth24pop]

The thing about being really overweight is, on the one hand, you have a lot of mass and you would think this affects your caloric intake--bodyweightX10 for a 170lb dude versus a 280lb dude is a big difference.

That being said, most studies show, and Lyle McDonald I think wrote an article on this or it's in one of his books, that if you have a lot of fat to lose, you can go a bit lower in calories than you would otherwise think. This is why a protein sparing modified fast makes sense if you are obese and (generally) less sense if you are under 20% bodyfat. In other words, your body has enough excess fat (energy) that it doesn't really suffer from a lack of energy via food intake.

So is 1,500 too low for you? Uh, I dunno. If you're losing 4 lbs a week at a higher intake, stick with that. Lower it as fat loss stalls. If you end up at 1,500 cals/day but you feel fine, meh, just go with it.

I like what you said so true, I have been going gym for years but have a pop belly (not beer I dont drink) partly genetics mainly was eating so much bread and 2nds and 3rds of dinner I have reduced to 1200- 1500 calories and feel fine better then ever losing about 1KG a week. Lifting heavy still mornings , 10,000 steps a day strictly and bodyweight excersizes at night. Non gym days swimming etc. Not permanent will increase once I reach a goal.... was so sick of training hard but being let down by my gut

[grouchyjarhead]

Your body has this thing called your basal metabolic rate. It's the minimum amount of calories your body needs to survive. Eating below that number has a number of negative effects. Basically you are putting your body into starvation mode so it's also going to feed off of your muscles and not just your fat. This actually further affects your metabolism down the road.

This is how you may see people lose a bunch of weight on some new fad diet but then suddenly gain it back once they start eating normally again. Those same people then find it's hard to lose the weight since they have lost muscle mass and therefore not burning as much calories as they used to.

Read the nutrition stickies. Figure out your basal metabolic rate. Then figure out your total daily energy expenditure which is how many calories you should actually be consuming. From there you can adjust depending on your goals but typically 10% more or less of your total daily energy expenditure for bulking and cutting is ideally where you want to start.

Most of the posters in here are doing themselves long-term harm through not knowing these concepts.