The truth about your F***ing "STARVATION MODE"

[Vel]

Posting this up here cause i'm sick of people passing off "facts" about "OMG STARVATION MODEZ!!" and telling people you can gain weight in a ****ing caloric defacit.



http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/...e/1/28742.html

"Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
"


And read this too while you're at it.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/lyle.htm

[-Aaron-]

Originally Posted by Vel

Posting this up here cause i'm sick of people passing off "facts" about "OMG STARVATION MODEZ!!" and telling people you can gain weight in a ****ing caloric defacit.



http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/...e/1/28742.html

"Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
"


And read this too while you're at it.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/lyle.htm

You're a moron.

Seriously, there was no need to be that abrupt as you just were and I just demonstrated. Not to mention, there are a lot of posts in the nutrition section about it, including the IF experiment thread that has 1k posts.

Good God.

[Olympian Dreams]

Originally Posted by Vel

Posting this up here cause i'm sick of people passing off "facts" about "OMG STARVATION MODEZ!!" and telling people you can gain weight in a ****ing caloric defacit.



http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/...e/1/28742.html

"Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
"


And read this too while you're at it.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/lyle.htm

I've always believed it was a crock too, but if you say anything about low cal on this webby, you catch **** from the "experts". I must be different from these people. I work construction, I do 2 1/2 hours weight training combined with 45 mins of HIT cardio. I took the advice of everyone on these forums and stayed at 3000 cals, then all the way to the absolute if you go below it your an idiot 2000 cals. Didnt drop a flippin pound. Then I saw on John Stones webby his food logs, and he was eating around 1200 cals and he dropped a crapload of weight. Adjusted my diet down to about 1500-1700 cals a day, carbs to around 100 (mostly complex) and 250 Grams of protein, and have been dropping a steady and healthy 2lbs a week. People are fooling themselves if they think they are going to drop weight on 3000 cals, unless they have a hell of a metabolism, which I dont.

[oh_noes]

I think you guys are forgetting, that going into 50% calorie deficit, you force your body to burn muscle as a source of energy. So correctly, 50% cal down, 10% metabolism reduction, but it's also eating away your muscle.

So if you aim to be a 140lb rake without any shoulders or pecs, but 7% bodyfat, go for it. Personally, I'll do it longer and keep the muscles I worked hard for.

[-Aaron-]

Originally Posted by oh_noes

I think you guys are forgetting, that going into 50% calorie deficit, you force your body to burn muscle as a source of energy. So correctly, 50% cal down, 10% metabolism reduction, but it's also eating away your muscle.

That's actually not true.

[Vel]

Originally Posted by -Aaron-

You're a moron.

Seriously, there was no need to be that abrupt as you just were and I just demonstrated. Not to mention, there are a lot of posts in the nutrition section about it, including the IF experiment thread that has 1k posts.

Good God.

Wait so which is it, I'm a moron for posting links to knowledge out of a guy's head that hs been in this field for 15 years, and also links done to valid scientific studies, or I'm a moron because I don;t subscribe to your opinions?

And frankly, I can care less if a thread on this or any fitness site has 1000 posts or 10000, does that mean what's said in it is valid? I at least can direct you to 100% valid info backing up my beliefs, where's yours? Cause you lost 100 lbs makes you a scholar in the field?

[RaferAlston26]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

I've always believed it was a crock too, but if you say anything about low cal on this webby, you catch **** from the "experts". I must be different from these people. I work construction, I do 2 1/2 hours weight training combined with 45 mins of HIT cardio. I took the advice of everyone on these forums and stayed at 3000 cals, then all the way to the absolute if you go below it your an idiot 2000 cals. Didnt drop a flippin pound. Then I saw on John Stones webby his food logs, and he was eating around 1200 cals and he dropped a crapload of weight. Adjusted my diet down to about 1500-1700 cals a day, carbs to around 100 (mostly complex) and 250 Grams of protein, and have been dropping a steady and healthy 2lbs a week. People are fooling themselves if they think they are going to drop weight on 3000 cals, unless they have a hell of a metabolism, which I dont.

1200 calories is considered the bare minimum to meet nutritional needs. Personally, I exercised and was extremely active and also consume 1200 calories but for some reason I went from 174lbs to 148 but my body fat should have been around 9% when in actuality it was at 14%. I'll take the much slower approach as gaining muscle is a **** load harder then losing fat. It also depends on your weight. I must also point out that basing fat loss on the number from the scale is a bad idea also. Consuming 3000 calories, how do you know that you weren't losing fat? Maybe you were gaining some mass which in turn increased water weight and glycogen stores. How would you really know? I don't aim for weight to be honest but more pant size.

[Vel]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

I've always believed it was a crock too, but if you say anything about low cal on this webby, you catch **** from the "experts". I must be different from these people. I work construction, I do 2 1/2 hours weight training combined with 45 mins of HIT cardio. I took the advice of everyone on these forums and stayed at 3000 cals, then all the way to the absolute if you go below it your an idiot 2000 cals. Didnt drop a flippin pound. Then I saw on John Stones webby his food logs, and he was eating around 1200 cals and he dropped a crapload of weight. Adjusted my diet down to about 1500-1700 cals a day, carbs to around 100 (mostly complex) and 250 Grams of protein, and have been dropping a steady and healthy 2lbs a week. People are fooling themselves if they think they are going to drop weight on 3000 cals, unless they have a hell of a metabolism, which I dont.

Exactly, there's very few REAL experts here that chime in on anything. On the site I used to hang out at before my layoff for over a year, they had quite a few people there regularly posting that "actually" knew their ****. Through the help of people's advice on that site and reading things writtin from these people in various posts, through the years I went from 220-165 lbs, back up to 250 lbs and now down to 195 again. They never told you to figure out your BMR from some freaking online calculator and eat 3000 calories a day trying to cut like is popular on this site.

That's why i barely even come here anymore, this forum is annoying. There's barely anyone posting here who has any medical background on anything handing out advice. it's way too much heresay. All the fat loss section of this site is, is post upon post of newbies asking questions cause they have no clue how to use the damn search function to answer their newb questions that have been answered time and time again. You tell them to use it and they then come back 2 hours later posting with another fracking question that could be answered in the same manner.

The diet I'm now has me eating around 1400 calories a day for a few days of the week, it's Lyle Mcdonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0, and by all means I should be dead by now following this diet if I took people's advice here for gospel. "Oh man dat diet r no gud u will kil ur metabolizm bro." Check my bodyspace logs over the past 3 weeks to see my progress in just that short of a time, and this is even jumping into the diet after having been dieting for a while on other programs, seeing what works best for me this time around, so it's not like I'm coming into the program "fresh". And check my recent pic in my progress pic section. Nothing god like but you can't tell me I don;t know **** about dieting or the advice I've been following is crap.

[BMEgrad]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

I've always believed it was a crock too, but if you say anything about low cal on this webby, you catch **** from the "experts". I must be different from these people. I work construction, I do 2 1/2 hours weight training combined with 45 mins of HIT cardio. I took the advice of everyone on these forums and stayed at 3000 cals, then all the way to the absolute if you go below it your an idiot 2000 cals. Didnt drop a flippin pound. Then I saw on John Stones webby his food logs, and he was eating around 1200 cals and he dropped a crapload of weight. Adjusted my diet down to about 1500-1700 cals a day, carbs to around 100 (mostly complex) and 250 Grams of protein, and have been dropping a steady and healthy 2lbs a week. People are fooling themselves if they think they are going to drop weight on 3000 cals, unless they have a hell of a metabolism, which I dont.

John Stone, eh? Let me paste you something that he has posted on his website for EVERYONE to read.

Q: I was looking at your earlier food logs and you were only eating around 1200 calories per day, sometimes even less! That was not enough food for your weight at the time, was it?

[ Updated November 06, 2005 ]

Absolutely correct. I did not eat enough when I started my program, and it probably hurt my progress somewhat. I have since learned better and have adjusted my daily caloric intake accordingly. The temptation to under-eat just so you can see the scale move down faster is pure folly. Remember, you want to lose fat, NOT muscle! Under-eating is a sure-fire way to catabolize muscle. Be patient, eat right, lift weights and do cardio. The fat will come off.

Anyone who wants to lose fat should start by eating at a minimum about 10 times their body weight in calories each day. For most people losing 1-2 pounds of fat per week is about right. Keep in mind that those calories can't come from just any foods--they must come from wholesome foods, and you must get a good balance of macronutrients. All your hard work in the gym won't amount to much without a good diet to fuel your body.

I used to aim for a 40/40/20 diet, which simply means I tried to get 40% of my calories from protein, 40% from carbs, and 20% from fats, with a focus on unsaturated fats, which are fats rich in Essential Fatty Acids (EFAs). There are two kinds of EFAs: omega-3 (linolenic acid) and omega-6 (linoleic acid). These EFAs are found in foods such as salmon and olive oil.

Over time I've changed those macronutrient percentages around quite a bit. "40/40/20" is not a hard and fast rule, but it's not a bad place to start.

Please be aware that the above diet contains too much protein unless you are following a good weight training program. You also should not eat that much protein if you have any history of kidney problems. IF IN DOUBT ALWAYS CHECK WITH YOUR DOCTOR.

Anyway, the idea is to divide these calories up and eat 5-6 meals a day. This is very important. Eating every two to three hours will help keep you feeling full, provide your body with a steady stream of nutrients, and will keep your metabolism elevated.

Source: http://www.johnstonefitness.com/php/faq.php#0010

To the OP, I don't think Lyle McDonald would like it for you to be taking his words out of context. Of course people will lose weight in a caloric deficit, especially a large one, and of course the metabolism won't keep going down. But majority of the weight you lose will be muscle. Studies have shown this over and over again. Muscle is harder for the body to keep in a caloric deficit than fat. Fat is energy, muscle consumes energy. Starvation mode is essentially your body trying it's best to help you through what it thinks is a tough time (food shortage). The world does crash dieting and heavy caloric restrictions, and 95% of them gain back the weight they lost, plus more. People on here have taken the weight off and KEPT it off. Even experts such as Tom Venuto and Bill Phillips go by the approach outlined in this forum. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere, but if you seriously believe your ramblings, I pity you.

[Vel]

Originally Posted by BMEgrad

John Stone, eh? Let me paste you something that he has posted on his website for EVERYONE to read.



Source: http://www.johnstonefitness.com/php/faq.php#0010

To the OP, I don't think Lyle McDonald would like it for you to be taking his words out of context. Of course people will lose weight in a caloric deficit, especially a large one, and of course the metabolism won't keep going down. But majority of the weight you lose will be muscle. Studies have shown this over and over again. Muscle is harder for the body to keep in a caloric deficit than fat. Fat is energy, muscle consumes energy. Starvation mode is essentially your body trying it's best to help you through what it thinks is a tough time (food shortage). The world does crash dieting and heavy caloric restrictions, and 95% of them gain back the weight they lost, plus more. People on here have taken the weight off and KEPT it off. Even experts such as Tom Venuto and Bill Phillips go by the approach outlined in this forum. If you want to troll, do it elsewhere, but if you seriously believe your ramblings, I pity you.

Ramblings eh? You're right I'm pulling thsi **** out of my ass. AAre you ****ing blind to read anything I posted? Did you bother to read anything from someone that's been in the field for 15 years? I guess not, who wants to read his ramblings right?

Whatever point you're trying to make it SEEM like I'm TRYING to make, let me make it clear to your ignorant ass what point i am indeed trying to make.

You cannot stop losing fat in a starvation state.

I'm not saying you won't lose muscle. I'm not syaing its healthy over the long term. I am saying people on this site are passing off too much bull**** info like it's gospel. Don;t pass me off like the info i present is fake because it goes against the common BB.com rhetoric. You a Republican by chance?

You think I'm wrong, show me your medical studies done proving it.

So troll on that pal.

[tuan92129]

I've been reading all the info here for the past month, but its kind of sad that i actually REGISTERED for a forum account to to reply to this thread.
After reading the forum rules while signing up..
"
3) Be respectful of the other members. Racism, bigotry & sexism will not be tolerated. We do allow frank discussion with the other members, and like to have a laugh, but some things are not appropriate. In the losing fat forum, we are here to discuss how to successfully lose weight. This is not the place to discuss politics, sex or religion. Repeatedly flaming, insulting and attempting to cause fights with other members will not be allowed and can result in a ban. Please be respectful to the board, the members and moderators. We are all here to learn and teach others what we know. There is a misc and a sex forum for off topic posts and topics unrelated to losing fat. If you have a problem with another board member, please PM a moderator about it."
But yeah, I'm just kinda disappointed in the bashing going on here..All I'm tryin gto do is read/learn about losing weight. X_X

[Bronkko]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

I've always believed it was a crock too, but if you say anything about low cal on this webby, you catch **** from the "experts". I must be different from these people. I work construction, I do 2 1/2 hours weight training combined with 45 mins of HIT cardio. I took the advice of everyone on these forums and stayed at 3000 cals, then all the way to the absolute if you go below it your an idiot 2000 cals. Didnt drop a flippin pound. Then I saw on John Stones webby his food logs, and he was eating around 1200 cals and he dropped a crapload of weight. Adjusted my diet down to about 1500-1700 cals a day, carbs to around 100 (mostly complex) and 250 Grams of protein, and have been dropping a steady and healthy 2lbs a week. People are fooling themselves if they think they are going to drop weight on 3000 cals, unless they have a hell of a metabolism, which I dont.

the answer lies somewhere between your 3000 cals and john stones 1200. both are extremes.

[KingOfChaos]

Originally Posted by Vel

Posting this up here cause i'm sick of people passing off "facts" about "OMG STARVATION MODEZ!!" and telling people you can gain weight in a ****ing caloric defacit.



http://www.calorie-count.com/forums/...e/1/28742.html

"Lyle McDonald explains it this way:

In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.

But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
"


And read this too while you're at it.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/lyle.htm

That's good and all, but the entire point of this forum is really to lose fat, not weight. We aren't here to become skin bags and you cannot retain muscle on a calorie deficit that drastic.

[Roxie]

You don't belong in this section if you can't speak in a proper mature language...continuing this type of behavior will result in a much longer ban.

[KingOfChaos]

lol...damn, someone just got b-slapped by a mod. :P Good work, Roxie.

[Tommy W.]

I've always had the best luck with 30 calorie defecit below mantenence for every lb of fat.

20 lbs. of fat would be a 600 cal defecit.

as you lose you up your cals.

tw

[GoBlue34]

Check my bodyspace logs over the past 3 weeks to see my progress in just that short of a time, and this is even jumping into the diet after having been dieting for a while on other programs, seeing what works best for me this time around, so it's not like I'm coming into the program "fresh". And check my recent pic in my progress pic section. Nothing god like but you can't tell me I don;t know **** about dieting or the advice I've been following is crap.

3 whole weeks? Wow, I'm going to quit what I'm doing and jump on board. You lost weight in starvation mode for 3 weeks, good for you.

Keep that same diet and get back to us in 6 months, that is if you are still alive.

[Olympian Dreams]

Why does everyone assume your MUST be losing muscle. I already said im still only losing the recommended 2lbs a week. And its not muscle, maybe because I lift hard too, which counteracts it, because im actually growing. Another thing said not possible on such low calories. And yes, I know John Stone "Admits" that he wasnt eating enough. He has to, otherwise when he came posting on this site the mob would have ate him alive for going so low cal because its not accepted here. So he had to admit he was wrong. Its politics. But i'd bet my last dollar if John Stone had it to do over again, he'd do the same damn thing, why? Because it works. If anyone has any serious weight to lose, they'd better be prepared to drop down to 1500 cal range, thats what it takes, period. Everytime I've seen the obese weight loss clinics they go down to that range, and when my weight first became a problem, my doctor told me to go to 1500 cal a day. But what do those doctors know, next to the people on this site? For those in this thread saying I am wrong, how much weight have you lost? Personally i've dropped 70lbs so far. And I look nothing like a stick man, even at my height of 6'6''. Im not doubting your method on "Theory", im doubting your method because I tried it, and it didnt do crap.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

If anyone has any serious weight to lose, they'd better be prepared to drop down to 1500 cal range, thats what it takes, period.

Congrats on your success. I believe that whatever works for you is the best plan to choose. If you like your results and believe everyone else is wrong....continue to do what you are doing. It's your body.

However................

Telling people to drop down to 1500 calories on here is both irresponsible and ignorant, because you don't know anyone's stats and haven't even posted your own, other than your height of 6'6" (unless I missed them, as you don't have them in your avatar). Am I to assume that you are doing no cardio and no lifting with this diet? If you are, you are going to have to subtract even more calories available to your body. If you are lifting for 30-45 minutes, you are probably burning 500 or so calories. If you are doing cardio, subtract another 300 or so (depending on what you do). So, your 1500 calories is being widdled down to 700 calories that your body can use for daily function. If you are doing no cardio and no lifting, why are you on bb.com? I CHALLENGE you to monitor your lean body mass and body fat percentage while doing this diet. You will lose fat and you will lose lean body mass. If you are doing no cardio and no lifting, you may be able to pull it off if you are extremely sedentary.........but you will find few people here that want to do nothing, eat few calories and lose fat. I guarantee you will lose fat, but when you get down to your "goal", you will be weaker and left with little cardiovascular ability. Put your money where your mouth is and log your results on this 1500 calorie diet. Until then, quit preaching insanity to people that are looking for solutions. You are not building your body, you are withering away.

Oh, and I went from 6'3" @ 295lbs, 35%bf and 187lbs LBM to 250lbs, 18%bf and 204lbs LBM in 10 months, doing 40\40\20 macro on maintenance - 500 calories. I am in the best shape of my life and working to 10%bf. Pretty much blows your quote, above, out of the water.

Have a good one.

[BMEgrad]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

Congrats on your success. I believe that whatever works for you is the best plan to choose. If you like your results and believe everyone else is wrong....continue to do what you are doing. It's your body.

However................

Telling people to drop down to 1500 calories on here is both irresponsible and ignorant, because you don't know anyone's stats and haven't even posted your own, other than your height of 6'6" (unless I missed them, as you don't have them in your avatar). Am I to assume that you are doing no cardio and no lifting with this diet? If you are, you are going to have to subtract even more calories available to your body. If you are lifting for 30-45 minutes, you are probably burning 500 or so calories. If you are doing cardio, subtract another 300 or so (depending on what you do). So, your 1500 calories is being widdled down to 700 calories that your body can use for daily function. If you are doing no cardio and no lifting, why are you on bb.com? I CHALLENGE you to monitor your lean body mass and body fat percentage while doing this diet. You will lose fat and you will lose lean body mass. If you are doing no cardio and no lifting, you may be able to pull it off if you are extremely sedentary.........but you will find few people here that want to do nothing, eat few calories and lose fat. I guarantee you will lose fat, but when you get down to your "goal", you will be weaker and left with little cardiovascular ability. Put your money where your mouth is and log your results on this 1500 calorie diet. Until then, quit preaching insanity to people that are looking for solutions. You are not building your body, you are withering away.

Oh, and I went from 6'3" @ 295lbs, 35%bf and 187lbs LBM to 250lbs, 18%bf and 204lbs LBM in 10 months, doing 40\40\20 macro on maintenance - 500 calories. I am in the best shape of my life and working to 10%bf. Pretty much blows your quote, above, out of the water.

Have a good one.

pwned. repped.

[DJohnson]

Originally Posted by Olympian Dreams

If anyone has any serious weight to lose, they'd better be prepared to drop down to 1500 cal range, thats what it takes, period.

Depends... do you want to look like a fat guy who lost weight, or do you want to look like a ripped bodybuilder. I've made my choice.

[jonwilson]

i believe starvation mode is overhyped. if you wanna go on a low calorie diet and you dont wanna lose a lot of muscle, do weight lifting and thats that. i read a lot of articles stating that lifting weights on a low calorie diet preserves muscle mass.

[chasesbryant]

Originally Posted by DJohnson

Depends... do you want to look like a fat guy who lost weight, or do you want to look like a ripped bodybuilder. I've made my choice.

The thing is that a lot of people on this site are fine with being a fat skinny guy. A lot of people here are/were morbidly obese and would relish the idea of being a 15% BF 160 lb guy. Not everyone here is looking to become a bodybuilder.

[Dashel]

Originally Posted by Vel

through the years I went from 220-165 lbs, back up to 250 lbs and now down to 195 again. They never told you to figure out your BMR from some freaking online calculator and eat 3000 calories a day trying to cut like is popular on this site.

This was funny =)

Anyway just to say it yet again, if you want to lose weight, knock yourself out on 1200 cals a day. If you want to be a little more selective on what you lose, make sure your nutrition is in order.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by chasesbryant

Not everyone here is looking to become a bodybuilder.

What you don't understand is that every person on this planet is a body builder. We build our bodies by what we eat and by what activities we do throughout our lives. You can build your body into fat, you can build your body into skinny. You can build your body strong or you can build it weak. If you are given four or five equations, each meant to bring a certain result to your body, why would you choose the equation that would make you a skinny fat person? I guess if your goal is to be skinny fat, then feel free and good luck......but I don't know of anyone that would choose that body. Why would you choose the equation that will equal skinny fat? I think many people do it because they don't have the patience to do it the right way. I have never and will never see a thread on here where someone has said..."Yeah! I'm Skinny Fat!". I have, however, seen MANY posts of people that lost weight the wrong way, found themselves skinny fat and wish they hadn't wrecked their bodies. Many people say "I plan to lose all the fat, even if I lose a lot of muscle in the process. I'll just bulk when I'm done." It doesn't work that way. It is MUCH easier to lose muscle than it is do build it....not to mention the loss of metabolism when you lose lots of muscle. You do what you want, but I choose the equation that will allow me to lose the fat and keep or build a little muscle. We all will make our choice.

Good luck.

[struck]

Depends somewhat on your goals, and current stats.

1) Lose fat and lots of muscle, and your health.. Go for low 1200 calories.
2) Lose fat and less muscle.. Act smart, figure out your calorie requirements where you neither gain, nor lose weight and adjust to 500 coming down to 1000 when you need to be aggressive.

I have been going good on a diet that consists of 35/35/30 (carbs,protein,fats). All the carbs come around the training time while being almost non-existant at night. Calories are high on workout days (2100), while low on non-workout days (1950), going as low as 1750 on totally inactive days. And then there's a refeed every 7th day (2550 cals.. lots of carbs.. though again, not too much at night).

I have been losing 1.5-2lbs / week on this and yes, to be frank I am no more progressing on the strength. When I kept calories to an average of 2200, I was able to progress on strength, though gaining some noticeable muscle mass took an average of 2500.

What I am trying to say is that I will lose more muscle and strength if I go lower than what I am currently consuming.

[Saturnal]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

If you are given four or five equations, each meant to bring a certain result to your body, why would you choose the equation that would make you a skinny fat person?

Because being skinny fat is generally not unhealthy, and being obese is. Some people are more concerned about getting out of the obesity range more than they're concerned about maintaining muscle. It's not all just about how you look for everyone.

[Hotmoltenlava]

Originally Posted by Saturnal

Because being skinny fat is generally not unhealthy, and being obese is. Some people are more concerned about getting out of the obesity range more than they're concerned about maintaining muscle. It's not all just about how you look for everyone.

You missed my point. If you are obese and have the choice between the diet that retains muscle and loses fat or the diet that loses fat and loses muscle, why would you choose the one that loses muscle? I'm not talking about looks. Do you think that the only reason you have muscle is for looks? All I am saying is that, given the choice, who in their right mind would choose skinny fat and losing whatever muscle you do have, over keeping whatever muscle you do have and only losing fat? The choice is yours. Do whatever you want. I am just talking here.

Have a good one.

[Bronkko]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

You missed my point.

and you miss a point. some people on here have lost lots of fat and preserved muscle on "relatively" low cal diets.

to make a blanket statement that low cal will result in skinny fat just isnt true. it isnt "eat 2600 or your skinny fat" vipergq and many others on here are examples of under 2000 cal diets can be muscle sparing - fat losing diets.

**disclaimer** 1200 is too low imo. but i eat 1700 at least twice a week and am not losing muscle.

[Saturnal]

Originally Posted by Hotmoltenlava

If you are obese and have the choice between the diet that retains muscle and loses fat or the diet that loses fat and loses muscle, why would you choose the one that loses muscle?

Because it can get you out of the obesity range faster. If I'm 45% body fat, and I can get to 25% by cutting 1000 below maintenance in 2/3 of the time it would take me if I was cutting only 500 below...I'd choose 1000, even if it meant I lose some muscle. It's much more dangerous to be obese than it is to be skinny fat.