If I hit my protein requirements and have a moderate deficit will I lose fat regardless of the other macros? (Also hitting fat requirements)
Printable View
If I hit my protein requirements and have a moderate deficit will I lose fat regardless of the other macros? (Also hitting fat requirements)
Yes. But aim to have fat intake at 0.3 to 0.4 g/lb for hormonal reasons.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561658971]If I hit my protein requirements and have a moderate deficit will I lose fat regardless of the other macros? (Also hitting fat requirements)[/QUOTE]
Eating at a deficit will always cause weight loss regardless of macros. We hit macro(protein) minimums AND lift hard to ensure as little as possible of the weight lost is muscle.
It’s weird because I tend to keep carbs on cut but a lot of people say not to. Is the reason carbs get such a bad rep because the average person just eats way to many? (Enough to put them in a surplus)
I don't think carbs get a bad rep, at least not by people who know what they're doing. Carbs will naturally be limited though so that you can reach protein and fat requirements.
If you restrict your calories to the point of a deficit, it doesn't matter what you eat, your body will begin utilizing it's fat deposits. The greater the deficit, the more erosion you will have within your muscle fiber as well.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561658971]If I hit my protein requirements and have a moderate deficit will I lose fat regardless of the other macros? (Also hitting fat requirements)[/QUOTE]
A calorie deficit will cause a loss of [I]weight,[/I] but not necessarily a loss of fat.
[QUOTE=LuckyAH;1561661811]I don't think carbs get a bad rep, at least not by people who know what they're doing. Carbs will naturally be limited though so that you can reach protein and fat requirements.[/QUOTE]
There is a lot of nonsense talked about carbs, insulin and fat loss. It's a case of a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Those who actually understand how it works are happy in the knowledge that it simply comes back to calories in vs calories out.
What do you think would happen in that case? Would you just lose muscle slowly or is there something else?
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1561664231]A calorie deficit will cause a loss of [I]weight,[/I] but not necessarily a loss of fat.[/QUOTE]
To this
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561666861]What do you think would happen in that case? Would you just lose muscle slowly or is there something else?[/QUOTE]
Muscle loss would be caused by too little protein, excessive calorie deficit - those would be the main ones. Especially when combined with no or ineffective training.
Chronic micronutrient deficiency wouldn't help either.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561661551]It’s weird because I tend to keep carbs on cut but a lot of people say not to. Is the reason carbs get such a bad rep because the average person just eats way to many? (Enough to put them in a surplus)[/QUOTE]
Carbs and Fat are utilized by your body in a ratio. And excessive amounts of Carbs are converted to Fat. As to what your body utilizes as a ratio of carb/fat while sleeping or working out, some of it is genetics and some of it by adaptation. With a caloric deficit, your body will eventually have a lower fat %.
[QUOTE=pondman;1561668881]Carbs and Fat are utilized by your body in a ratio. And excessive amounts of Carbs are converted to Fat. As to what your body utilizes as a ratio of carb/fat while sleeping or working out, some of it is genetics and some of it by adaptation. With a caloric deficit, your body will eventually have a lower fat %.[/QUOTE]
Would the type of carb make a difference or not since your body will eventually break it all down the same anyway?
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561669691]Would the type of carb make a difference or not since your body will eventually break it all down the same anyway?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Sugars and starches are easier for your body to break down than more complex carbohydrates like broc**** , whole grains, Etc. thus the simpler the carb, the faster it is digested and the stronger the impact it can have on blood glucose and insulin levels.
Example: 200 calories of pure sugar vs. 200 calories of lightly steamed brocc***.
The sugar will be digested almost immediately and will hit your system faster and ultimately leave you less satiated overall than the broc**** which will take literally hours for your digestive system to process.
Edit: No idea why the forum is censoring the word Broc****
[QUOTE=pondman;1561668881] excessive amounts of Carbs are converted to Fat..[/QUOTE]
denovo lipogenesis rarely happens outside of extreme diets.
But, for OP's benefit, this is not some key to getting around calories in vs. calories out...
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1561673761]Yes.
Sugars and starches are easier for your body to break down than more complex carbohydrates like broc**** , whole grains, Etc. thus the simpler the carb, the faster it is digested and the stronger the impact it can have on blood glucose and insulin levels.
Example: 200 calories of pure sugar vs. 200 calories of lightly steamed brocc***.
The sugar will be digested almost immediately and will hit your system faster and ultimately leave you less satiated overall than the broc**** which will take literally hours for your digestive system to process.
Edit: No idea why the forum is censoring the word Broc****[/QUOTE]
Haha not sure why either.
Broc**** would be better for satiety and health purposes, but would there be a body composition difference?
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561675991]Haha not sure why either.
Broc**** would be better for satiety and health purposes, but would there be a body composition difference?[/QUOTE]
Probably a bit of one due to the lower impact that the complex carbs would have on insulin response over just eating a "sugar bomb".
So basically if I plan on a 3-4 month cut with protein and fat requirements, filling the rest with carbs would work? Simply or complex carbs (will be a mix of both) won’t affect my body composition too much? (Caloric deficit included)
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561678231]So basically if I plan on a 3-4 month cut with protein and fat requirements, filling the rest with carbs would work? Simply or complex carbs (will be a mix of both) won’t affect my body composition too much? (Caloric deficit included)[/QUOTE]
So long as your Protein and fat macros are dialed in, the rest can be literally anything up to the total amount of calories you plan to eat (while remaining in a deficit).
While I tend to load my carbs up with salad, spinach, broc****, Etc. I also have to occasional toaster pastry, serving of ice cream, or whatever other treat I feel like if I have the "open" calories for it towards the end of the day.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561678231]So basically if I plan on a 3-4 month cut with protein and fat requirements, filling the rest with carbs would work? Simply or complex carbs (will be a mix of both) won’t affect my body composition too much? (Caloric deficit included)[/QUOTE]
Correct. But try to choose foods that will keep you full the longest
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1561676841]Probably a bit of one due to the lower impact that the complex carbs would have on insulin response over just eating a "sugar bomb".[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying you're wrong but we don't have any evidence of this. Intuitively it feels better to eat more filling foods and I would speculate that we shall discover some mechanism which says that:
- if calories and macros are equated in diet A and diet B
- but diet A leads you to feel a lot more hungry than diet B
- then diet B is better for body recomposition
(assuming 100% compliance - which is clearly not realistic if you feel hungry a lot of the time)
It probably won't come down to insulin as the mechanism of action however - since that actually makes you feel fuller...
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561661551]It’s weird because I tend to keep carbs on cut but a lot of people say not to. Is the reason carbs get such a bad rep because the average person just eats way to many? (Enough to put them in a surplus)[/QUOTE]
Yes man, Indeed that is the problem, average people like me can't manage eating just a descent ammount of carbs, carbs are addictive and sometimes you can't resist their temptation
[QUOTE=SuffolkPunch;1561709121]I'm not saying you're wrong but we don't have any evidence of this. Intuitively it feels better to eat more filling foods and I would speculate that we shall discover some mechanism which says that:
- if calories and macros are equated in diet A and diet B
- but diet A leads you to feel a lot more hungry than diet B
- then diet B is better for body recomposition
(assuming 100% compliance - which is clearly not realistic if you feel hungry a lot of the time)
It probably won't come down to insulin as the mechanism of action however - since that actually makes you feel fuller...[/QUOTE]
Studies have shown that a generally lower insulin response is conductive to greater fat loss overall.
[quote]In a subcohort of obese adults, suppression of insulin secretion was associated with loss of body weight and fat mass and with concomitant modulation of caloric intake and macronutrient preference.[/quote]
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490021/[/url]
This would indicate that the increased insulin production/response in the body of higher glycemic foods does have an additional impact on fat loss beyond just the calorie value of the food consumed. Thus carbs of the same caloric value with a lower glycemic response should be to some degree more beneficial to overall fat loss than the same amount of higher glycemic carbs.
Again, not saying to avoid all starchy/sugary carbs altogether while dieting but in general it's probably better overall to grab a salad vs. a cookie.
But eating high GI carbs along with protein and fat slows the break down of the carbohydrate, thus lowering the insulin response, no?
[QUOTE=LuckyAH;1561735121]But eating high GI carbs along with protein and fat slows the break down of the carbohydrate, thus lowering the insulin response, no?[/QUOTE]
Not really, no.
The higher glycemic carbs are still absorbed faster through the small intestine regardless of the other foods ingested. The simpler the carbohydrate, the faster it is processed and the higher the corresponding insulin response.
So unless you are planning on hiding a sugar cube inside of a meatball and swallowing it whole, combining sugary carbs with protein and fat isn't really going to slow down the sugar's impact to a significant enough degree to be useful.
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1561733491]Studies have shown that a generally lower insulin response is conductive to greater fat loss overall.
[url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490021/[/url]
This would indicate that the increased insulin production/response in the body of higher glycemic foods does have an additional impact on fat loss beyond just the calorie value of the food consumed. Thus carbs of the same caloric value with a lower glycemic response should be to some degree more beneficial to overall fat loss than the same amount of higher glycemic carbs.
Again, not saying to avoid all starchy/sugary carbs altogether while dieting but in general it's probably better overall to grab a salad vs. a cookie.[/QUOTE]
"Subjects were allowed to eat ad libitum, and neither dietary nor exercise interventions were recommended."
So calories were not equated. There is a table showing the average calorie intakes between different groups.
There was a drug intervention which looks like it was designed to counter the effects of over production of insulin in (presumably) people with insulin resistance. It looks like the drug successfully encouraged the HR group to eat less than the other groups.
For people with normal glucose metabolism - and who are in control of their calorie intake, I would expect this to have no effect (it might even cause them problems).
[QUOTE=SuffolkPunch;1561739711]It looks like the drug successfully encouraged the HR group to eat less than the other groups.
[/QUOTE]
Which makes sense.
Higher insulin levels are known to trigger increased hunger in most people, thus a lower insulin response = less desire to eat = easier dieting = greater fat loss.
Also, since the presence of insulin in your system essentially shuts down the energy transfer mechanism of calories from stored fat, the less insulin your body produces in a given day, the larger the metabolic window is for calories to be drawn from fat stores.
[QUOTE=Luclin999;1561752191]Which makes sense.
Higher insulin levels are known to trigger increased hunger in most people, thus a lower insulin response = less desire to eat = easier dieting = greater fat loss.
Also, since the presence of insulin in your system essentially shuts down the energy transfer mechanism of calories from stored fat, the less insulin your body produces in a given day, the larger the metabolic window is for calories to be drawn from fat stores.[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, insulin actually causes you to feel full (one of Layne Nortons videos). What's going on here is more subtle - because the individual has insulin resistance, they over produce insulin in order to make the receptors respond. This means that a few hours after eating, blood sugar levels are pushed too low as a delayed response to the insulin. So it's the lowered blood sugar that causes the excess hunger.
This is why I said that people with normal glucose metabolism would not be affected in this way - and why people with insulin resistance tend to be fatter.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561678231]Simply or complex carbs (will be a mix of both) won’t affect my body composition too much?[/QUOTE]
Looking for acute variations of muscle mass for normal minor changes to a broad mixed diet is pointless. If a healthy person eats some candy on a diet the candy is simply not powerful enough to make them explode in muscle, or cause their gainz to fall off.
[QUOTE=BoBSMVW;1561661551]Is the reason carbs get such a bad rep because the average person just eats way to many? (Enough to put them in a surplus)[/QUOTE]
If you spend enough time reading about foods with a bad rep you find that somewhere somebody has bad-mouthed just about everything. There are long presentations which are often poorly supported that villify many protein rich foods, as well as carbs, and fats...
Perhaps review this presentation:
[youtube]TYeZVfPxwKM[/youtube]
[url]https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/comment-page-5/[/url]
[quote]MYTH: Insulin Makes You Hungry
FACT: Insulin Suppresses Appetite
It is a well known fact that insulin acutely suppresses appetite. This has been demonstrated in dozens and dozens of experiments. This will be important when we talk about the next misconception...
[/quote]
[youtube]XNquMyUCCYI[/youtube]
@ 3:50 - basically CICO
@ 6:45 - fat storage with or without insulin
@ 7:30 - high GI vs low GI - area under the curve
@ 10:00 - calories drive insulin, not the other way around