Help with nailing down macros for some off the wagon for 5 years

[bly3]

35 yr Old, 5'10" 195 lbs 23.4% BF

I do weight training 5-6 days a week. 3 of those days is done at a F45 gym. Circuit training with lighter weights. 35 seconds on, 25 seconds off. 12 Exercises, 3 sets each with one break between exercise 6-7. The other 2-3 days a week are done in a normal gym, about 45-50 minutes of lifting with longer rest periods.

Cardio is also 6-7 days a week. Cardio is either done with a body weight F45 class (not 100% cardio) where you work 45 seconds, rest 15 (air squats, lungers, push ups, planks, mounatin climbers, etc). Otherwise cardio is 20-30 mins HIIT or 30-45 mins normal pace with some intervals (peleoton bike for all).

After mid-october I will probably drop the F45 classes and just use normal weight training and the peloton bike as my two exercise sources.

Ive tracked my macros pretty tight in the past and had them calculator for me by a few very reputable folks(trainers/body builder, supp shop owner whom I've known for a while, trusted and vetted). When I have followed them to a T, ive instead put on some nice lean muscle mass instead of losing weight. I can put on muscle mass very quickly and somewhat easier compared to most but struggle peeling off weight. Unfortunately, when my diet has yoyo-d and even when I am eating bad a lot of my days probably follow under maintenance and now I feel my body has gotten used to somewhat lower cal counts. Where I put on most of my weight in the last few years was beer, easily 300-500 cals a night of it. And yes, that has been completely cut out aside from one beer on a friday night to celebrate the end of the week.

Right now at a 30% deficit I'd be looking at 1919 Cals then I'd want a minimum of 1g P and 0.4g fat per lb body weight.
Would this then make sense/ be a good starting point? Unfortunately I have been going low on carbs the last 2 months so that might be a slight bump in the road.

1919 Cals
197 G protein
106 G Carb
79 g fat

[AdamWW]

35 yr Old, 5'10" 195 lbs 23.4% BF

I do weight training 5-6 days a week. 3 of those days is done at a F45 gym. Circuit training with lighter weights. 35 seconds on, 25 seconds off. 12 Exercises, 3 sets each with one break between exercise 6-7. The other 2-3 days a week are done in a normal gym, about 45-50 minutes of lifting with longer rest periods.

Cardio is also 6-7 days a week. Cardio is either done with a body weight F45 class (not 100% cardio) where you work 45 seconds, rest 15 (air squats, lungers, push ups, planks, mounatin climbers, etc). Otherwise cardio is 20-30 mins HIIT or 30-45 mins normal pace with some intervals (peleoton bike for all).

After mid-october I will probably drop the F45 classes and just use normal weight training and the peloton bike as my two exercise sources.

Ive tracked my macros pretty tight in the past and had them calculator for me by a few very reputable folks(trainers/body builder, supp shop owner whom I've known for a while, trusted and vetted). When I have followed them to a T, ive instead put on some nice lean muscle mass instead of losing weight. I can put on muscle mass very quickly and somewhat easier compared to most but struggle peeling off weight. Unfortunately, when my diet has yoyo-d and even when I am eating bad a lot of my days probably follow under maintenance and now I feel my body has gotten used to somewhat lower cal counts. Where I put on most of my weight in the last few years was beer, easily 300-500 cals a night of it. And yes, that has been completely cut out aside from one beer on a friday night to celebrate the end of the week.

Right now at a 30% deficit I'd be looking at 1919 Cals then I'd want a minimum of 1g P and 0.4g fat per lb body weight.
Would this then make sense/ be a good starting point? Unfortunately I have been going low on carbs the last 2 months so that might be a slight bump in the road.

1919 Cals
197 G protein
106 G Carb
79 g fat

While I commend you for being precise as it shows dedication... I think you may be overthinking this.

Estimated your bodyfat to a tenth of a %, targeting calories down a single unit (like 1919), and aiming for a % deficit vs a solid number (like 500 per day), is way, way more complex than would ever be helpful.

All you need to do is hit your minimums for fat and protein, train on a solid program, and hit your calorie deficit goal (which usually is recommended to be about 500 below maintenance per day on average).

Rinse and repeat.

Now personally, I shudder to think of STARTING a diet as a grown man at your stats under 2000 calories... that is way, way too low IMO, but it all depends on your TDEE.

[WolfRose7]

Now personally, I shudder to think of STARTING a diet as a grown man at your stats under 2000 calories... that is way, way too low IMO, but it all depends on your TDEE.

I agree particularly with 6x lifting/circuits AND daily cardio I think I'd lose on 3000 with all that

also you probably don't need 1g protein min, 0.7-0.8 seems solid based on most current data

[bly3]

I get where both of you are coming from and perhaps I am taking a too aggressive approach when it comes to the calorie count but just going off personal history, stuff in the 22-2300 range ended up being a clean bulk. I was more lean at the time I did it last but I was also 5-6 years younger so my metabolism was a bit better. I know with people who have really dialed in their fitness, the idea of losing more than 1.5 lbs -2 lbs per week is too much but where I am at and where I'd like to end up I am completely fine shedding some a little lean muscle if I go a tad too low. I know thats very counter intuitive but I have never gotten to a point even when losing weight where I lost any sort of visible muscle mass or strength and almost all of the time its quite the opposite so I just dont know that its going to happen with the 1920 cal count. I also know if I do lose muscle mass, I'll be able to throw it back on pretty quickly.

What would then be the max per week weight loss, even for someone who really doesn't care about muscle loss as of right now that you would be comfortable with. I just need to get to a "refreshed point" then I can dial it back a little or look at a clean bulk depending on where I go from there.

[AdamWW]

I get where both of you are coming from and perhaps I am taking a too aggressive approach when it comes to the calorie count but just going off personal history, stuff in the 22-2300 range ended up being a clean bulk. I was more lean at the time I did it last but I was also 5-6 years younger so my metabolism was a bit better. I know with people who have really dialed in their fitness, the idea of losing more than 1.5 lbs -2 lbs per week is too much but where I am at and where I'd like to end up I am completely fine shedding some a little lean muscle if I go a tad too low. I know thats very counter intuitive but I have never gotten to a point even when losing weight where I lost any sort of visible muscle mass or strength and almost all of the time its quite the opposite so I just dont know that its going to happen with the 1920 cal count. I also know if I do lose muscle mass, I'll be able to throw it back on pretty quickly.

What would then be the max per week weight loss, even for someone who really doesn't care about muscle loss as of right now that you would be comfortable with. I just need to get to a "refreshed point" then I can dial it back a little or look at a clean bulk depending on where I go from there.

Dude I’m 35 and not even as active as you, I weigh 144lb and I barely gain on 3000-3200

Your metabolism doesn’t drop catastrophically from age... it’s about energy needs based on activity

This idea of a ‘refreshed point’ is a silly and nebulous concept... why would you ever be OK with losing muscle mass when it’s so easy to avoid.

[1stCoachJoe]

I get where both of you are coming from and perhaps I am taking a too aggressive approach when it comes to the calorie count but just going off personal history, stuff in the 22-2300 range ended up being a clean bulk. I was more lean at the time I did it last but I was also 5-6 years younger so my metabolism was a bit better. I know with people who have really dialed in their fitness, the idea of losing more than 1.5 lbs -2 lbs per week is too much but where I am at and where I'd like to end up I am completely fine shedding some a little lean muscle if I go a tad too low. I know thats very counter intuitive but I have never gotten to a point even when losing weight where I lost any sort of visible muscle mass or strength and almost all of the time its quite the opposite so I just dont know that its going to happen with the 1920 cal count. I also know if I do lose muscle mass, I'll be able to throw it back on pretty quickly.

What would then be the max per week weight loss, even for someone who really doesn't care about muscle loss as of right now that you would be comfortable with. I just need to get to a "refreshed point" then I can dial it back a little or look at a clean bulk depending on where I go from there.

I am in agreement with all of the comments you've received thus far. To answer this specific question based on your self-knowledge and near-term goals, I wouldn't recommend losing any more than 2 lbs. per week.

One thing to consider that I have found is that the slower you go - the longer it lasts - and the easier it is to pivot from such inflection points.

Yeah, it may take twice as long to get where you want to be losing a pound a week vs. two, but the benefits in doing so may well exceed rushing toward numbers for the mere sake of such.

[bly3]

Dude I’m 35 and not even as active as you, I weigh 144lb and I barely gain on 3000-3200

Your metabolism doesn’t drop catastrophically from age... it’s about energy needs based on activity

This idea of a ‘refreshed point’ is a silly and nebulous concept... why would you ever be OK with losing muscle mass when it’s so easy to avoid.

I am not saying my metabolism dropped from very normal to slow in that time period, I am saying it was low to begin with and obviously due to my age hasnt gotten better. I am not purposely trying to lose muscle, perhaps I worded that wrong. What I am trying to get at, is that I have never gotten to the point where I have been actively counting and monitoring macros where it was set by someone else for me to lose fat and even when I went under I never once loss muscle mass. Never once in my life of cutting weight, have I felt I've loss any significant muscle mass so if somehow, someway I got to that point it would be a shock, so its not the end of the world if it happens as that would mean I would have found my "bottom" line of macros. Per my original post, I would then adjust going forward but I have not yet to test/find that line yet.

Lastly,you not being able to gain much at 3200 at 144 lbs is kind of my point, we all have different body types. I can guarantee you at 3000, no cardio and just strength training I'd be putting on muscle mass in a hurry. I am not saying I have half the metabolism as you but I think its obvious you and I burn differently.

[AdamWW]

I am not saying my metabolism dropped from very normal to slow in that time period, I am saying it was low to begin with and obviously due to my age hasnt gotten better. I am not purposely trying to lose muscle, perhaps I worded that wrong. What I am trying to get at, is that I have never gotten to the point where I have been actively counting and monitoring macros where it was set by someone else for me to lose fat and even when I went under I never once loss muscle mass. Never once in my life of cutting weight, have I felt I've loss any significant muscle mass so if somehow, someway I got to that point it would be a shock, so its not the end of the world if it happens as that would mean I would have found my "bottom" line of macros. Per my original post, I would then adjust going forward but I have not yet to test/find that line yet.

Lastly,you not being able to gain much at 3200 at 144 lbs is kind of my point, we all have different body types. I can guarantee you at 3000, no cardio and just strength training I'd be putting on muscle mass in a hurry. I am not saying I have half the metabolism as you but I think its obvious you and I burn differently.

I don’t have a special metabolism, I just maintain a moderately active lifestyle which does include weights

[bly3]

I am in agreement with all of the comments you've received thus far. To answer this specific question based on your self-knowledge and near-term goals, I wouldn't recommend losing any more than 2 lbs. per week.

One thing to consider that I have found is that the slower you go - the longer it lasts - and the easier it is to pivot from such inflection points.



Yeah, it may take twice as long to get where you want to be losing a pound a week vs. two, but the benefits in doing so may well exceed rushing toward numbers for the mere sake of such.

Appreciate the reply. If 1 lb weight loss = 3500, then to lose 2 lbs, I'd need a 7000 cal deficit for the week or 1000 cal a day deficit. With my TDEE at 2744, 1920 would be within (above actually), that range. Perhaps I am missing something and the 2 lb weight loss cal deficit has to come from mostly workouts at some point but if its ok to lose 2 lbs a week then wouldn't it be ok to be at 1920 cals.

[brit-iron]

I wouldn't take too much from what other peoples calories are at. You just need to know your numbers and try it out.
If you want an aggressive cut then do that.
Your macro split look fine to me.
Just have a few more carbs if you feel the need.

[AdamWW]

Appreciate the reply. If 1 lb weight loss = 3500, then to lose 2 lbs, I'd need a 7000 cal deficit for the week or 1000 cal a day deficit. With my TDEE at 2744, 1920 would be within (above actually), that range. Perhaps I am missing something and the 2 lb weight loss cal deficit has to come from mostly workouts at some point but if its ok to lose 2 lbs a week then wouldn't it be ok to be at 1920 cals.

This is the first time you ever mentioned your TDEE

[1stCoachJoe]

Appreciate the reply. If 1 lb weight loss = 3500, then to lose 2 lbs, I'd need a 7000 cal deficit for the week or 1000 cal a day deficit. With my TDEE at 2744, 1920 would be within (above actually), that range. Perhaps I am missing something and the 2 lb weight loss cal deficit has to come from mostly workouts at some point but if its ok to lose 2 lbs a week then wouldn't it be ok to be at 1920 cals.

If your true TDEE is indeed 2744, then in order to lose the 2 lbs. per week in question, your average daily caloric intake would need to be 1000 kcal less, or 1744 calories per day. The 1920 calories to which you refer has nothing to do with the straight forward math - again, assuming you've proved out that your TDEE is actually 2744.

If you want to lose 2 lbs. per week on 1920 calories a day, you will need to raise your assumed TDEE to 2920 by burning more calories. It's that simple.

[bly3]

If your true TDEE is indeed 2744, then in order to lose the 2 lbs. per week in question, your average daily caloric intake would need to be 1000 kcal less, or 1744 calories per day. The 1920 calories to which you refer has nothing to do with the straight forward math - again, assuming you've proved out that your TDEE is actually 2744.

If you want to lose 2 lbs. per week on 1920 calories a day, you will need to raise your assumed TDEE to 2920 by burning more calories. It's that simple.

Thank you. Obviously determining my true TDEE is pretty difficult, so I will pick the calorie range and just monitor progress weeks 2-4. Depending on what calculator I use it goes from 2744 to 3050.Thanks again

[1stCoachJoe]

Thank you. Obviously determining my true TDEE is pretty difficult, so I will pick the calorie range and just monitor progress weeks 2-4. Depending on what calculator I use it goes from 2744 to 3050.Thanks again

Sure thing, you are quite welcome.

Yes, the only way to get the best and most accurate estimate of TDEE is via strict adherence, monitoring, and recording of all related activity and consumption over an extended period.

Throughout such a process one would monitor and average changes in weight over a 4 - 16 week period, making adjustments to the TDEE number along the way until such time as the expected math reconciles itself to the best approximation of what one is expecting from a given deficit or surplus.

At the end of the day, you are your best calculator - it just takes time, discipline, and patience to estimate your most accurate numbers. If you do it as many times as I have - for myself and for others, it becomes easier and takes far less time to get very reliable estimates that produce expected results.

[bly3]

Apprecaite all the input.

On a related side note. there are some food items that have their nutritional facts all over the place depending on the website you check. Serving sizes vary liek 30-40 cals on the same weight.

For instance - Eye of Round Steak. Every site I check has a different number for 4 oz raw. Any idea with that one?

[1stCoachJoe]

Apprecaite all the input.

On a related side note. there are some food items that have their nutritional facts all over the place depending on the website you check. Serving sizes vary liek 30-40 cals on the same weight.

For instance - Eye of Round Steak. Every site I check has a different number for 4 oz raw. Any idea with that one?

You bet... It's all part and parcel of the fact that despite what calculators, food producers, and textbooks may proclaim, all data derived therefrom are subject to variance and as such, should simply be considered as best estimates. It is for this very reason that people should not get overly anal about the minutia of numbers and instead pay attention to what actually takes place, in reality, relative to their efforts.