PDA

View Full Version : Theories of Fat Loss



Ev0lutionn
03-05-2017, 09:39 PM
Hey guys,

I'm 6'0", 91kg with around 22% fat. I've been body building on and off for 6-7 years now (and been on this forum under different accounts), but one thing I've failed at miserably is fat loss. I've never been able to consciously lose fat, ever. I've been reading up like crazy on the topic, and I've come across two contrasting theories of how the body works when it comes to fat loss:

A - The traditional perspective is to look at your body like a machine. Calories in vs calories out. As long as you maintain a deficit, you'll lose fat.
I've tried this and failed 2-3 times. In the latest attempt I was even eating a super clean diet, with 4-5 meals a day. Maintained a 500 Calorie deficit for 2 weeks, but no change in weight / fat.

B - There seems to be a new perspective that says deficits don't work. Your body goes into starvation mode and hangs on even more dearly to all the fat
Essentially, this perspective says that by being in a caloric deficit you are signalling to your body that food is scarce, so it will focus even more on storing fat and not result in fat loss. I'm wondering if this is what happens every time I try to get on a deficit. This perspective is not very clear on what exactly to do but some solutions seem to be - eat very often so as to signal to your body that food is always available, eat clean and balanced food so you're not depriving yourself of any nutrient, which results in sending hunger signals, etc.

Some references for this theory:
Sandra Aamodt TED Talk
The Gabriel Method
(sorry can't post links yet)

From most of what I've read, people over here subscribe to A not B. Is there anyone there for whom A has not really worked? Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong or giving up too early? Have you lost weight without following the principles implied by B - eating 5-6 meals, eating very clean?

Need some serious insights - hoping that I'm going to finally conquer my own body after years of struggle!

Znik
03-05-2017, 10:23 PM
It's A. Always A.
The people who cannot lose weight following A, are people who underestimate their calorie intake and overestimate their calorie output.

B. is a vastly over exaggerated myth, twisted from the aspect of Metabolic Adaption. Metabolic adaptions do happen during a long term deficit, but it is severely limited and can only account for a small amount of calories and easily negated by increasing activity or decreasing intake.

DanLincoln
03-06-2017, 03:10 AM
I've tried this and failed 2-3 times. In the latest attempt I was even eating a super clean diet, with 4-5 meals a day. Maintained a 500 Calorie deficit for 2 weeks, but no change in weight / fat.


No you didn't, if you ate at a deficit you would have lost weight

philgriffiths
03-06-2017, 03:53 AM
In the words of McNulty - F-ckin' A

It's A all day dude.

You say you were "eating a super clean diet, with 4-5 meals a day" well what were the total calories consumed each day? Because guess what? That wasn't a 500 calorie deficit, that was your maintenance level (assuming yoiur weight stayed the same).

You need to subtract 500 from THAT amount to lose weight at a rate of 1lb per week.

The thing that everybody on here will be able to guarantee is you were a) not tracking calories accurately, b) eating more than you thought/claimed you were, c) overestimating your energy expenditure.

These aren't the end of the world however. Just learn from it, start from fresh and the weight will start coming off.

ironwill2008
03-06-2017, 05:02 AM
Hey guys,

I'm 6'0", 91kg with around 22% fat. I've been body building on and off for 6-7 years now (and been on this forum under different accounts), but one thing I've failed at miserably is fat loss. I've never been able to consciously lose fat, ever. I've been reading up like crazy on the topic, and I've come across two contrasting theories of how the body works when it comes to fat loss:

A - The traditional perspective is to look at your body like a machine. Calories in vs calories out. As long as you maintain a deficit, you'll lose fat.
I've tried this and failed 2-3 times. In the latest attempt I was even eating a super clean diet, with 4-5 meals a day. Maintained a 500 Calorie deficit for 2 weeks, but no change in weight / fat.

B - There seems to be a new perspective that says deficits don't work. Your body goes into starvation mode and hangs on even more dearly to all the fat
Essentially, this perspective says that by being in a caloric deficit you are signalling to your body that food is scarce, so it will focus even more on storing fat and not result in fat loss. I'm wondering if this is what happens every time I try to get on a deficit. This perspective is not very clear on what exactly to do but some solutions seem to be - eat very often so as to signal to your body that food is always available, eat clean and balanced food so you're not depriving yourself of any nutrient, which results in sending hunger signals, etc.

Some references for this theory:
Sandra Aamodt TED Talk
The Gabriel Method
(sorry can't post links yet)

From most of what I've read, people over here subscribe to A not B. Is there anyone there for whom A has not really worked? Or maybe I'm just doing it wrong or giving up too early? Have you lost weight without following the principles implied by B - eating 5-6 meals, eating very clean?

Need some serious insights - hoping that I'm going to finally conquer my own body after years of struggle!

There is no physiological mechanism in the human body that will allow it to gain weight or store fat if there is no surplus of calories available with which to store. IOW, the body can't create fat cells (or muscles cells either, for that matter) out of thin air; there has to be a consistent source of surplus calories available---over and above however many calories burned in a day---before anything can be stored.


You were unsuccessful because you were not eating at an actual calorie deficit, and two weeks isn't a long enough length of time with which to evaluate one's progress or lack of progress in regards to losing fat.

CommitmentRulz
03-06-2017, 06:50 AM
B - There seems to be a new perspective that says deficits don't work. Your body goes into starvation mode and hangs on even more dearly to all the fat
Essentially, this perspective says that by being in a caloric deficit you are signalling to your body that food is scarce, so it will focus even more on storing fat and not result in fat loss.
So, have you ever seen pictures of guys who have been in concentration camps? Surely their bodies would have sensed that they were in a starvation situation and kicked in to hold on to their fat stores. if that was possible...

achillesbruh
03-06-2017, 06:54 AM
sorry man but you just didnt do it right, A is the answer. if your eating at a 500 cal deficit because your scared of muscle loss that fact is really over exaggerated so dont worry too much about losing too much weight too
fast, just keep lifting and try to keep the same weight on the bar.

crupiea
03-06-2017, 10:50 AM
I call it my frito theory.

You could technically lose weight by eating nothing but fritos all day if you ate the proper amount to be in a deficit.

Does that sound like a responsible thing to do though? no way will you get the nutrients your body needs.

So take it one step more, eat in the deficit but have a wide enough selection to provide you with the proper nutrients. If you have tried it 4-5 times, then you have done it wrong 4-5 times. not the end of the world. now its time to tweak it and do something a bit different, otherwise expect the same lack luster results.

Weight loss should be done with diet alone. people in wheelchairs and bedridden can lose weight. Its just a matter of math after that. so try to get the diet right and measure everything for a week. if the scale doesnt move, adjust it accordingly. Obviously, its better to eat more then less so if the scale doesnt move at all, its basically maintenance. now its a simple tweak to get into loss.

Ev0lutionn
03-06-2017, 09:14 PM
Haha okay, guess I just need to try it again properly. Thanks guys!