Going below 11/12% bf is EXHAUSTING

[CoreyW347]

Hi everyone,

Currently frustrated to no end right now.
Bit of background W: 192 H: 6'3" BF: 11-12% 21 years old
Activity: Very Active (Lifting 4x/week, hiit 3x/week, longer distance runs 1-2x/week, surfing 1-3x/week) My job is running food/ bussing tables 3-4x/week (Average fast paced walking millage between 5-8 miles these days plus all the other activity).

I've been tracking my macros consistently (weigh everything/ read labels also eating the same foods, almost everyday) and varying my cal intake between 1800-2300 (lower side when I don't lift or its an off day). BTW never hungry on these cals if I am Ill eat some chicken or some veggies and ill be good. I'm getting the correct marcos (usually lower carbs and higher fats 100c/60-80f/200p and I'm currently stuck in a rut. I feel like I've tried every diet/ fad out there from cycling carbs, to low carb, low fat, keto, IF, currently giving Ultimate Diet 2 a run for two weeks hoping this will help break past it. In the mean time could I get some suggestions what I may be doing wrong/ should try/ what has worked for you if you have been in this situation.

My last limb I'm leaning on is i dropped my carbs/cals too quickly in pursuit to get lean faster and its made me stall out hard. (Never have been over 15% bf in my life and getting from there too 11-13% was fairly easy. The thing is when I raise cals/ carbs from anywhere from 500kcal defect-maintence I BLOAT LIKE A BALLON my head is spinning.

If anyone with knowledge could give me some pointers that'd be great.

PS for all you under 8-9% I respect you huge, this shiet is dam science.

Thanks

[dmacdonal9]

never hungry on these cals if I am Ill eat some chicken or some veggies and ill be good.
Thanks

So 2300 calories plus some extra chicken and veggies when hungry? That's way different from 1800 calories every single day....?

It's way harder when you're leaner, but harder doesn't mean different. Fat loss is still driven by your calorie deficit.

The other question I'd have is why? Getting leaner than are you are now is not sustainable for any more than a few weeks. So why go there unless you're competing?

[Tommy W.]

I'll tell you a very simple strategy. take in 10 calories for every pound you want to weigh. 185? 1,850 EVERY DAY. No need to carb cycle, etc. The fact that you're rarely hungry tells me that you can handle lower calories. If you don't want to lower cals then you need more activity. Replace the long distance runs with a few weekly HIIT sessions to start with. When you get close to 10% BF things get tough. That's why you don't see many people sub 10 and when they are it's very difficult to carry that % all year long.

[Tucane]

Lower calories (or move more).

Persist and push through!

When you first get to lower levels of BF%, it's a REAL challenge to stay there, but you can do it if you really want to... also it gets easier with time.

If you plan on bulking as a next step, it's likely not worth the trouble:-)

[CoreyW347]

So 2300 calories plus some extra chicken and veggies when hungry? That's way different from 1800 calories every single day....?

It's way harder when you're leaner, but harder doesn't mean different. Fat loss is still driven by your calorie deficit.

The other question I'd have is why? Getting leaner than are you are now is not sustainable for any more than a few weeks. So why go there unless you're competing?

no total being 2300. And for personal goals/ gratification as well as work. The leaner the better but it's more a personal thing

[CoreyW347]

I'll tell you a very simple strategy. take in 10 calories for every pound you want to weigh. 185? 1,850 EVERY DAY. No need to carb cycle, etc. The fact that you're rarely hungry tells me that you can handle lower calories. If you don't want to lower cals then you need more activity. Replace the long distance runs with a few weekly HIIT sessions to start with. When you get close to 10% BF things get tough. That's why you don't see many people sub 10 and when they are it's very difficult to carry that % all year long.

I already do a min. of 3 hiit sessions as it is plus my daily activity/ lifting/ surfing etc. I have heard that though before to multiple your desired weightx10 I'll give that a shot. I just don't want to cut cals too much and stall progress(which is what I believe is happening)

[CoreyW347]

Lower calories (or move more).

Persist and push through!

When you first get to lower levels of BF%, it's a REAL challenge to stay there, but you can do it if you really want to... also it gets easier with time.

If you plan on bulking as a next step, it's likely not worth the trouble:-)

I can't imagine more activity would help although not afraid to try last time I checked my maintance was between 3000-3350 (multiple sources) I don't plan on bulking but thanks for the insight

[Tommy W.]

I can't imagine more activity would help although not afraid to try last time I checked my maintance was between 3000-3350 (multiple sources) I don't plan on bulking but thanks for the insight

If you aren't losing on your current cals then you're at your actual maintenance. Lowering cals won't make you stall. NOT lowering cals will make you stall. The more aggressive you can get the faster you'll lose. You'd have to drop a lot of calories to be "aggressive" as you're at maintenance now.

[CoreyW347]

If you aren't losing on your current cals then you're at your actual maintenance. Lowering cals won't make you stall. NOT lowering cals will make you stall. The more aggressive you can get the faster you'll lose. You'd have to drop a lot of calories to be "aggressive" as you're at maintenance now.

so anywhere between 1800-2300 intake w maintence at 3000 isn't aggressive? I know for a fact this is my intake I measure and read everything I thought I either may have fu*ked my metabolism a little by dropping cals and carbs too fast. I shall try to lower for a few weeks and see.
Gracias

[Znik]

I can't imagine more activity would help although not afraid to try last time I checked my maintance was between 3000-3350 (multiple sources) I don't plan on bulking but thanks for the insight

When going to single digits it does, metabolic adaptions tend to go pretty crashes when going single digits and you need to consciously do a lot of activity/cardio to avoid stalling.

Drop the calorie intake to ~1800, no shift up n down , steady 1800, and become consciously aware of how lazy you are getting, as the chances are you are getting lazy as fuk beyond any forced activity.

UD 2.0 is pretty good for going single digits (I run that myself), but it's absolutely horrible to do, glycogen depletion freaking sucks.

eta: You didn't fuk your metabolism by cutting cals/carbs too far/fast, you fuked it up by getting lean

[Tommy W.]

so anywhere between 1800-2300 intake w maintence at 3000 isn't aggressive? I know for a fact this is my intake I measure and read everything I thought I either may have fu*ked my metabolism a little by dropping cals and carbs too fast. I shall try to lower for a few weeks and see.
Gracias

you aren't understanding that your current calories ARE maintenance. You can not go by calculators. Between that and improper counting (very common as nobody hits it perfectly) you're deceiving yourself. And no you won't f up your metabolism. If you want to get to the next level you're gonna have to suck it up and be a bit uncomfortable

[CoreyW347]

When going to single digits it does, metabolic adaptions tend to go pretty crashes when going single digits and you need to consciously do a lot of activity/cardio to avoid stalling.

Drop the calorie intake to ~1800, no shift up n down , steady 1800, and become consciously aware of how lazy you are getting, as the chances are you are getting lazy as fuk beyond any forced activity.

UD 2.0 is pretty good for going single digits (I run that myself), but it's absolutely horrible to do, glycogen depletion freaking sucks.

eta: You didn't fuk your metabolism by cutting cals/carbs too far/fast, you fuked it up by getting lean

sounds good thanks

yea 2nd week ud2 first week was pretty balls started it semi-glycogen depleted. looking forward to some results

[CoreyW347]

you aren't understanding that your current calories ARE maintenance. You can not go by calculators. Between that and improper counting (very common as nobody hits it perfectly) you're deceiving yourself. And no you won't f up your metabolism. If you want to get to the next level you're gonna have to suck it up and be a bit uncomfortable

I guess I am confused I assumed 3000~ was my maintenance after added activity. I'll take yours words into consideration I needed some real world insight, so much chite floating around its hard to keep your head on straight when you don't know if your doing it wrong/ theres more you could be doing.

[unplugged]

Yea man for sure it can be exhausting and down right miserable at times getting into those final stages of leanness but hey if it was easy everyone would be walking around at 8% and under with lots of muscle mass. If you want it bad enough you will find a way to push through though but I feel you it is def draining both physically and mentally getting that lean

[Znik]

I guess I am confused I assumed 3000~ was my maintenance after added activity. I'll take yours words into consideration I needed some real world insight, so much chite floating around its hard to keep your head on straight when you don't know if your doing it wrong/ theres more you could be doing.

Never assume you know or can calculate your maintenance as you dip towards or into single digits. It's the closest you can come to the "starvation myth" as the metabolic adaptions can go pretty crazy.

Fake scenario to show how brutal it can be:

Let's say someone has 3000kcal "normal" maintenance.

1600kcal BMR
900kcal NEAT/TEF
500kcal from exercise/cardio

BMR can have an adaptive function of around 100-150kcal (more if a bigger person)
NEAT/TEF can drop to virtually non-existent beyond forced activity, also affected by skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions (up to 60-70% efficiency increase in extreme scenarios)
Exercise/cardio also prone to skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions and reductions in intensity/duration.

So single digits numbers could drop to:
1600 - 150 = 1450 BMR
900 - 500 x 0.5 efficiency= 200
500 - 100 (intensity drop) x 0.7 = 280
==
1450 BMR
200 NEAT/TEF
280 Exercise

= 1930 maintenance kcals, instead of 3000kcal

Somewhat over exaggerated, but it's just to show how you cannot rely on normal maintenance when you are at or close to single digits bodyfat, adaptions depend slightly on genetics and psychological behavior as well so it's somewhat individually different.

[Tommy W.]

Never assume you know or can calculate your maintenance as you dip towards or into single digits. It's the closest you can come to the "starvation myth" as the metabolic adaptions can go pretty crazy.

Fake scenario to show how brutal it can be:

Let's say someone has 3000kcal "normal" maintenance.

1600kcal BMR
900kcal NEAT/TEF
500kcal from exercise/cardio

BMR can have an adaptive function of around 100-150kcal (more if a bigger person)
NEAT/TEF can drop to virtually non-existent beyond forced activity, also affected by skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions (up to 60-70% efficiency increase in extreme scenarios)
Exercise/cardio also prone to skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions and reductions in intensity/duration.

So single digits numbers could drop to:
1600 - 150 = 1450 BMR
900 - 500 x 0.5 efficiency= 200
500 - 100 (intensity drop) x 0.7 = 280
==
1450 BMR
200 NEAT/TEF
280 Exercise

= 1930 maintenance kcals, instead of 3000kcal

Somewhat over exaggerated, but it's just to show how you cannot rely on normal maintenance when you are at or close to single digits bodyfat, adaptions depend slightly on genetics and psychological behavior as well so it's somewhat individually different.

Excellent

[CoreyW347]

Never assume you know or can calculate your maintenance as you dip towards or into single digits. It's the closest you can come to the "starvation myth" as the metabolic adaptions can go pretty crazy.

Fake scenario to show how brutal it can be:

Let's say someone has 3000kcal "normal" maintenance.

1600kcal BMR
900kcal NEAT/TEF
500kcal from exercise/cardio

BMR can have an adaptive function of around 100-150kcal (more if a bigger person)
NEAT/TEF can drop to virtually non-existent beyond forced activity, also affected by skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions (up to 60-70% efficiency increase in extreme scenarios)
Exercise/cardio also prone to skeletal muscle efficiency adaptions and reductions in intensity/duration.

So single digits numbers could drop to:
1600 - 150 = 1450 BMR
900 - 500 x 0.5 efficiency= 200
500 - 100 (intensity drop) x 0.7 = 280
==
1450 BMR
200 NEAT/TEF
280 Exercise

= 1930 maintenance kcals, instead of 3000kcal

Somewhat over exaggerated, but it's just to show how you cannot rely on normal maintenance when you are at or close to single digits bodyfat, adaptions depend slightly on genetics and psychological behavior as well so it's somewhat individually different.

dammit dammit dammit. Your a wealth of info thank you. Is there any ways of sidestepping the mechanics of the efficiency of skeletal tissue to keep it guessing w/o it fully adapting. Example: when I do hiit i usually do it for the same 20 minutes (although brutal and cant do it longer than 20 and I do keep increasing the intensity) probably possible my body is becoming more effcient and burning less calories?

Thanks for your replies this is what I was looking for

[Znik]

Is there any ways of sidestepping the mechanics of the efficiency of skeletal tissue to keep it guessing w/o it fully adapting. Example: when I do hiit i usually do it for the same 20 minutes (although brutal and cant do it longer than 20 and I do keep increasing the intensity) probably possible my body is becoming more effcient and burning less calories?

Changing the type of cardio would be more beneficial in those terms, doesn't really do much for the muscle efficiency but it does produce a slightly higher energy demand as it's not a form of cardio the body is used to.
You could probably bypass some of it by doing circuit training with free weights to force glucose/glycogen being used as a fuel, but it's going to cause havoc with recovery and the normal weight lifting (thus increase the chance of LBM loss, which can go bad at single digits).

Glycogen depletion is bad enough once a week like on UD 2.0, Bodyopus etc. , imagine having to experience that every single day to burn a few extra calories.
^ Just my theory, not much studies out there on muscle efficiency and how to negate it.

The brute force of the muscle efficiency is how our muscles utilize the fuel and it's source, in easy terms it becomes slightly slower/weaker but utilizes the energy far far more efficient by using more fat.

The only way to truly sidestep it would be to never get shredded and never be in a calorie deficit

[Tommy W.]

To alter a very famous saying


Everybody wants to be shredded but nobody wants to eat in no damn deficit

[CoreyW347]

Changing the type of cardio would be more beneficial in those terms, doesn't really do much for the muscle efficiency but it does produce a slightly higher energy demand as it's not a form of cardio the body is used to.
You could probably bypass some of it by doing circuit training with free weights to force glucose/glycogen being used as a fuel, but it's going to cause havoc with recovery and the normal weight lifting (thus increase the chance of LBM loss, which can go bad at single digits).

Glycogen depletion is bad enough once a week like on UD 2.0, Bodyopus etc. , imagine having to experience that every single day to burn a few extra calories.
^ Just my theory, not much studies out there on muscle efficiency and how to negate it.

The brute force of the muscle efficiency is how our muscles utilize the fuel and it's source, in easy terms it becomes slightly slower/weaker but utilizes the energy far far more efficient by using more fat.

The only way to truly sidestep it would be to never get shredded and never be in a calorie deficit

ahh I see now. Do you have any food logs of when you cut to give me a better idea? I think my main problem is sticking to one solid foundation and not darting off in different directions cuz my results aren't here now (human nature i guess)

[Tommy W.]

ahh I see now. Do you have any food logs of when you cut to give me a better idea? I think my main problem is sticking to one solid foundation and not darting off in different directions cuz my results aren't here now (human nature i guess)

someone else's log won't do much good. It sounds like your issue is just lack of adherence

[CoreyW347]

someone else's log won't do much good. It sounds like your issue is just lack of adherence

probably so, its the stalling getting to my head making me seek answers/ alternative options. thanks for the help man

[Tommy W.]

probably so, its the stalling getting to my head making me seek answers/ alternative options. thanks for the help man

No fatloss=no
deficit.

I can tell you one very important approach and that is to not stress over it. That alone will cause cortisol to elevate and just ruin a fatloss program. Just get in the habit of eating a certain way with a certain amount of cals (1,800 ish) and just go on auto pilot. If you just can't lose any more then call it a day and live with what you have. Another couple of BF %'s is not worth the agony if in fact it's agony to you.

[hhhshovel]

at the 11-12% range, is a 1000 cal deficit too much? isnt there a higher risk of burning muscle instead of fat? is a 750 deficit feasable(losing 1.5lb fat) a week

[Tommy W.]

at the 11-12% range, is a 1000 cal deficit too much? isnt there a higher risk of burning muscle instead of fat? is a 750 deficit feasable(losing 1.5lb fat) a week

A good rule of thumb is 30 calorie deficit for every pound of fat you're carrying for a maximum

[Znik]

ahh I see now. Do you have any food logs of when you cut to give me a better idea? I think my main problem is sticking to one solid foundation and not darting off in different directions cuz my results aren't here now (human nature i guess)

Don't have any logs as I don't track my calorie intake beyond mental calculations, I know exactly how much and what I need to eat so tracking is not necessary for me.

Constant changes when you are lean is going to wreck havoc with your psyche, you are already highly prone to water retention at that point and any sudden changes in activity or diet is likely to cause big spikes in water retention which can last for up to 3 weeks. Never make any changes unless its been 4+ weeks.

If there is no change after that time, then you make changes.

at the 11-12% range, is a 1000 cal deficit too much? isnt there a higher risk of burning muscle instead of fat? is a 750 deficit feasable(losing 1.5lb fat) a week

The leaner you are, the greater the risk of muscle loss, as to how much ? No one can tell you as there is no exact science on that for natties with adequate protein/training.

Tbh it's not really an issues for most as TDEE crashes when at/near single digits if you are still in a deficit thus it's really hard to create a big deficit if you want to get adequate macros.

Beyond that it's just a matter of choice if you want to gamble with muscle loss vs time spent cutting, some are willing to lose a bit more muscle to get leaner faster, others are not. Mostly a personal choice but a rapid cut when 11% or less is not recommended if you care about your LBM, 300-500 is a more feasible number if you want to preserve LBM.

[Tucane]

A good rule of thumb is 30 calorie deficit for every pound of fat you're carrying for a maximum

Thanks for this info! Makes perfect sense for my current diet situation.

[Tommy W.]

Thanks for this info! Makes perfect sense for my current diet situation.

It illustrates the point of smaller deficit for less bodyfat. One thing about muscle loss in a deficit is that if you had muscle (the longer the better) it goes back on fast once you're back in a surplus provided the training is there. I tend to go with a big deficit just to "git er done" then train hard in a slight surplus and the muscle is back very quickly.

[AceBoogieBRO]

fat loss is driven by caloric deificit, nothing more

[Tucane]

It illustrates the point of smaller deficit for less bodyfat. One thing about muscle loss in a deficit is that if you had muscle (the longer the better) it goes back on fast once you're back in a surplus provided the training is there. I tend to go with a big deficit just to "git er done" then train hard in a slight surplus and the muscle is back very quickly.

Yeah, muscle loss isn't a concern as such... I just like to optimize conditioning:-)

Having tried different sized deficits, I prefer dieting down at a really slow pace... much easier on the mind and safely being able to get enough of all macros, almost doesn't feel like cutting...