Ideal Deficit?

Frankiestylee

Just wondering what the ideal % calorie deficit is if I want to lose fat but keep energy levels up?
At the moment I've cut out all sweets etc and have started doing an extra half hour of cardio (at least) a day, yet I'm still floating around the 18 stone mark, a weight I seem to have been for years and years, regardless whether I was playing rugby and active or spending too much time in front a computer etc. I just need a military like strategy to get me down to 17 stone where'd I'd be happier.

So, before I start planning out my diet, what % deficit do you think is ideal? I think the stickies say 15% but in your opinion is this too much or too little etc?

Hanley

Maintenance kcals minus 500-700 is what I usually go with. About 15-20%.

Frankiestylee

Thanks. Now to draw up a battleplan

Hanley

Just keep it simple. There's no need to re-invent the wheel. More complicated doesn't mean better. (seems everyone wants to be an individual and put their own spin on classic proven systems these days, they lie outside the middle of the bell curve it would seem!)

nesf

Someone might be able to correct me about this but Anita Bean mentioned it in her book "Food for Fitness".


With the whole body set point idea, could someone's body actually get "stuck" at around a certain weight and it might take a lot of convincing before getting meaningful movement in one direction or another?

tribulus

nesf wrote:

Someone might be able to correct me about this but Anita Bean mentioned it in her book "Food for Fitness".


With the whole body set point idea, could someone's body actually get "stuck" at around a certain weight and it might take a lot of convincing before getting meaningful movement in one direction or another?

Could you elaborate on your (or her) point?
I'm not sure what you mean.

As in, some one was losing weight but has now reached a plateau?

nesf

tribulus wrote:

Could you elaborate on your (or her) point?
I'm not sure what you mean.

As in, some one was losing weight but has now reached a plateau?

She mentioned (but didn't really defend or attack the point) that (at least in some people) someone's body seems to have a weight that it is "happy with" and tends to gravitate to over time. A bit like the idea of an equilibrium point.

She mentioned there was a debate over whether a body could move to a new set point but didn't elaborate any further.


Edit: It was mentioned within the context of aiming at a weight that you can reasonably expect to be able to maintain healthily iirc which might shed some more light on it. She gave a rough idea of aiming for a weight you previously were as an adult as being a target to aim at.

tribulus

Sounds like a nice excuse for a lazy git to use!

"Sorry but my set point just won't budge"

It seems like way too big a generalisation. If the "set point" is a stable weight then I disagree. That's like saying someone could lose fat but never be able to maintain that new weight or body composition because of their bodies set point.

While in practise it is often the case that people don't maintain they're lower weight/less fat it's because of bad habits returning not due to this idea imo.

The same could be said for someone gaining muscle. Obviously if they don't keep up their training or eating this holds true but again I don't agree with the idea.

Even if you were to look at plateaus, it can usually be attributed to diet, training or recovery (broad I know).

Unless she's talking about the way our bodies/muscles whatever adapt to different stimuli over time and possibly reach a plateau then I could see her point to some extent but she's clearly talking about weight. Arse talking I think.

nesf

I think it was in terms of athletes and not obese or overweight people. I read it as (and I could be wrong) talking about roughly the same idea of people's resistance to losing fat at very low bodyfat levels. Different people, afaik, hit this point at different levels. I've only a basic understanding of it though, so I could be very wrong.

tribulus

nesf wrote:

I think it was in terms of athletes and not obese or overweight people. I read it as (and I could be wrong) talking about roughly the same idea of people's resistance to losing fat at very low bodyfat levels. Different people, afaik, hit this point at different levels. I've only a basic understanding of it though, so I could be very wrong.

Ah ok that does change things I suppose. Like the difference between getting from 20 to 15% bf might be eating less carbs and a slight caloric deficit. Getting from 10 to 5% is a different ball game. In this case it's more understandable.

nesf

tribulus wrote:

Ah ok that does change things I suppose. Like the difference between getting from 20 to 15% bf might be eating less carbs and a slight caloric deficit. Getting from 10 to 5% is a different ball game. In this case it's more understandable.

Yeah, I've a thread in my head about this kind of thing. Diminishing margins of returns versus the path of least resistance, basically. You can get from 25% to 20% without much pain or effort. Going from 15% to 10% is much tougher. You need to be stricter and try much harder to achieve it. Is it better to do it in stages and remove bad habits as necessary or go for the tougher route of going "extremely clean" from day one considering the amount of willpower it needs and the likelihood of quitting being increased.

Reverse it and think about weightlifting and ask how tough and exacting should a beginner be when starting out (and more importantly when being aided in starting out by others giving them advice).



Anyway, sorry for derailing your thread again Frankiestylee.

Frankiestylee

Ah derail away, I found that quite interesting.

This might sound stupid... but is there anywhere that might give a broad visual view as to what the differant body fat % look like? I remember trying to figure it out from the stickies but I think I was minus calipers or something (actually I must give it another look). I know there's no average body type, personally I don't look 18 stone but I blame that on a lot of upper ab/chest muscle, whether it's from singing or rugby or what, I dunno, but it seems to make me weigh alot more then I look, possibly... anyhows, that's going off the point a bit.
I just think of 25% body fat and think "wow... that's got to be pretty fat" but then if you see some of the guys&gals on here doing cuts that are still 14 or 10%... it's impossible to imagine where they're hiding that % of body fat

nesf

Estimating body fat% from pictures would be very difficult imho, outside of getting calipers and checking you could just look in the mirror and ask yourself honestly if you could do to lose some more fat or whether you're happy with the way you look. Someone else can probably give you a better way of doing it.

*shrugs*

Frankiestylee

Ah, well I know I need to lose weight, just curious at all the numbers that get thrown around

tribulus

Using an old shoe in your picture can help you gauge your bodyfat well....