Body fat loss

Wailin

Had my body fat percentage calculated recently and it's 22%. So my plan is to get it down to 16-18% which is ideal for my age (mid 40's).

I started a 6 week plan whereby I've reduced my calorie intake to 2000 per day, clean food with 40% protein, 30% fat and 30% carbs all worked out on MFP. Training 3-4 times a week, mostly strength and conditioning.

In the first week I went from 86.5kg to 84.2kg but I'm not too happy in how much muscle I've lost too.

My question is what's the best solution to lose bodyfat but retain or even gain muscle simultaneously? Is it even possible? Higher protein percentage? Or will it matter if I'm on a calorie deficit anyway?

Alf Veedersane

How much muscle do you think you lost in a week?

Wailin

No idea. But over 2kg of weight loss is certainly not all body fat. Most of that body fat is around the waist but I've gotten slimmer across the chest and shoulders quiet clearly.

Alf Veedersane

Wailin wrote: »

No idea. But over 2kg of weight loss is certainly not all body fat. Most of that body fat is around the waist but I've gotten slimmer across the chest and shoulders quiet clearly.

In a week, it's mostly water and some fat. Highly unlikely to lose muscle in a week.

Take photos. That way you can see changes objectively.

Keep training and you'll mitigate against muscle loss.

Mellor

Wailin wrote: »

No idea. But over 2kg of weight loss is certainly not all body fat.

Correct. At most it's probably 500g-1kg of fat.
The rest is water, not muscle tissue though

Wailin

So, going by tdee calculator, my maintenance calorie intake is 2800 and cutting is 2300. Do you think that my current intake of 2000 is too much of a deficit?

Mjolnir

Realistically week one you don't actually lose more than 2lbs (0.9kg)of fat if any at all.
Its water and muscle glycogen, I can wake up depleted of water and glycogen 7lbs (3.17kg) lighter than I went to sleep.
You don't have as much muscle as you think you do that I can guarantee.
In regards to fat loss measured in weight that you can lose in a week without losing muscle we're talking about 2lbs per week being the max without risking losing muscle.
Simply put you're muscles aren't holding glycogen so have deflated, you're holding less water you look smaller. Easy test of muscle loss are you drastically weaker? If not just keep going.
Also if it was done with a calipers the measurement is wrong they aren't accurate at all and often put you under what you actually are. I used to point blank refuse to do bf measurement just weight and measurement with a tape.

Mjolnir

Wailin wrote: »

So, going by tdee calculator, my maintenance calorie intake is 2800 and cutting is 2300. Do you think that my current intake of 2000 is too much of a deficit?

Assuming your 5'11" your bmr is 1874kcal
To get a tdee of 2800 you'd need to be in a physically demanding job (not sitting all day) and training 3-5x a week.
So you're probably not in much of a deficit at all
Just an adaptation to eating less carbs and a cleaner diet

Mellor

Wailin wrote: »

So, going by tdee calculator, my maintenance calorie intake is 2800 and cutting is 2300. Do you think that my current intake of 2000 is too much of a deficit?

I wouldn't think it's too high.
2800 is quite a high TDEE. Could be lower some days, which reduces the deficit.
In either case, you should physically be able to manage a deficit of 800 at 22%BF.

Max fat that can be metabolised is maybe around 1200 cals a day, so nowhere near going over that.

Wailin

Mjolnir wrote: »

Also if it was done with a calipers the measurement is wrong they aren't accurate at all and often put you under what you actually are. I used to point blank refuse to do bf measurement just weight and measurement with a tape.

I used the tape and measurements myself and got the same as the calipers which was done by a PT. I'm happy enough with just a ball park figure anyway, it doesn't need to be 100% accurate.

Thanks guys, I'll keep to my plan for now and get the bodyfat down to a more respectable level.

I'm 5' 9" btw!

Mjolnir

Wailin wrote: »

I used the tape and measurements myself and got the same as the calipers which was done by a PT. I'm happy enough with just a ball park figure anyway, it doesn't need to be 100% accurate.

Thanks guys, I'll keep to my plan for now and get the bodyfat down to a more respectable level.

I'm 5' 9" btw!

Unless you're doing fairly hard training and a physical job
You multiply by 1 - 1.375 at most
At 5 weight sessions, 3 steady state and 3 hiit cardio a week I'd still only multiply by 1.375 and be fairly on the money
That'd put you at 2551kcal tdee, take 500kcal a day is 2001 you'd be on track for roughly 1lb a week given 1 kcal is 3500
Not including kcal from cardio

DanielStone

I have lost fat just with weights, no cardio.

Mjolnir

DanielStone wrote: »

I have lost fat just with weights, no cardio.

Of course you did you moved more creating a kcal deficit and a metabolic boost
Cardio speeds the process along, better results quicker for the sake of 2-3, 20-30 min sessions. Jump on a machine throw on Netflix or YouTube and reap the reward

Mellor

Mjolnir wrote: »

In regards to fat loss measured in weight that you can lose in a week without losing muscle we're talking about 2lbs per week being the max without risking losing muscle.

That really depends on how much fat you are holding

Mjolnir

Mellor wrote: »

That really depends on how much fat you are holding

Not really the body will always go for the easiest source of energy. Fat is the hardest to metabolise, muscle is much easier to break down.
Most knowledgable fitness professionals agree after 2lbs per week you run the risk of canabolising muscle.
In regards to super morbidly obese individuals that's a different story and no one cares about them dropping muscle mass as the main concern is their fat mass dropping to a healthy level. However those on extreme ends are outliers not the standard.
Also important to note we're talking about natural individuals which I'm assuming op is, if you'd like to talk enhanced I can go in depth into that.

Mellor

Mjolnir wrote: »

Not really...

Yes really tbh.
Max daily fat metabolism is directly related to fat mass.

the body will always go for the easiest source of energy. Fat is the hardest to metabolise, muscle is much easier to break down.

It that we’re true and the body always preferred muscle catabolism. Small deforms would eat away at muscle. But that obviously isn’t the case. So those statements are not true.

Most knowledgable fitness professionals agree after 2lbs per week you run the risk of canabolising muscle.

They are picking a handy round number that’s ball park right for the average fit guy. I don’t think they are saying everyone has the same limits.
And if they are, it doesn’t say much about the standard of education in the industry.

In regards to super morbidly obese individuals that's a different story and no one cares about them dropping muscle mass as the main concern is their fat mass dropping to a healthy level.

A super morbidly obese person on a 2000 calorie deficit is not going to drop the same muscle mass as a lean person on the same deficit.
They can metabolise much more fat daily for the reasons mention above.

Same applies to an athlete at 6% body fat. They simply can’t burn 2lbs a week. They’re capacity is lower, so they’ll catabolise muscle more readily

Mjolnir

Mellor wrote: »

Yes really tbh.
Max daily fat metabolism is directly related to fat mass.

And fat metabolism occurs through an accumulated deficit you won't notice it in a single day or day to day.
I'm guessing you don't actually understand the mechanics of fat loss and nuances that exist in it.

It that we’re true and the body always preferred muscle catabolism. Small deforms would eat away at muscle. But that obviously isn’t the case. So those statements are not true.

Eh no that's why we keep protein at 1g-1.5g per lb of body weight and train with progressive over load to stimulate the muscle so it's not used instead of fat.


They are picking a handy round number that’s ball park right for the average fit guy. I don’t think they are saying everyone has the same limits.
And if they are, it doesn’t say much about the standard of education in the industry.

Not even remotely. This is the point after which you're more likely to start to waste muscle. Are you saying people that are world renowned in their field and agree are all wrong?

A super morbidly obese person on a 2000 calorie deficit is not going to drop the same muscle mass as a lean person on the same deficit.
They can metabolise much more fat daily for the reasons mention above.

And op could be morbidly obese at just under 90kg
That's not even remotely close to how it works.
They can lose fat at a quicker rate because fat is literally stored excess energy. Someone with a 5k+ kcal need on 2k kcal will go into starvation mode where their body will use every and any form of energy to survive because it doesn't know any better.

Same applies to an athlete at 6% body fat. They simply can’t burn 2lbs a week. They’re capacity is lower, so they’ll catabolise muscle more readily

You do realise that's because the body loves homeostasis and doesn't actually ever want to change it has to adapt.
Also that's to do with kcal needs and how much work you do in regards burning those 2lbs at 6%. People at 6% year round are also enhanced so yes they can burn 2lbs a week and sustain muscle, still not easily as some would think but its possible.

Having done this myself and with multiple people I can assure you I'm right. There are outliers and those enhanced aren't subject to the same principals all the time.
2lbs p/w is a healthy weight loss advising otherwise to someone like the op is asinine and not sustainable.

Mellor

Mjolnir wrote: »

You do realise that's because the body loves homeostasis and doesn't actually ever want to change it has to adapt.

What’s because if homeostasis? That statement has no bearing on what I said tbh.

Also that's to do with kcal needs and how much work you do in regards burning those 2lbs at 6%. People at 6% year round are also enhanced so yes they can burn 2lbs a week and sustain muscle, still not easily as some would think but its possible.

You clearly said you were talking about natural people. Why try to move the goal posts and switch to enhanced. Not relevant.
6% was an example. 8%, 10%, 20% it still applies.

Having done this myself and with multiple people I can assure you I'm right. There are outliers and those enhanced aren't subject to the same principals all the time.

You tested those people for max fat capacity? Obviously not. However, i’ve Having read and understood the studies. I can assure you that you are wrong.
Most people who need help with weight loss will have enough fat to burning 1000cals of fat a day.
That’s not the same as being the universal limit.

2lbs p/w is a healthy weight loss advising otherwise to someone like the op is asinine and not sustainable.

Who advise otherwise to the OP. Read what I actually wrote.

Transform

Mjolnir wrote: »

You do realise that's because the body loves homeostasis and doesn't actually ever want to change it has to adapt.
Also that's to do with kcal needs and how much work you do in regards burning those 2lbs at 6%. People at 6% year round are also enhanced so yes they can burn 2lbs a week and sustain muscle, still not easily as some would think but its possible.

Having done this myself and with multiple people I can assure you I'm right. There are outliers and those enhanced aren't subject to the same principals all the time.
2lbs p/w is a healthy weight loss advising otherwise to someone like the op is asinine and not sustainable.

Dude opening statements like "you do realise" are not helpful and a bit more diplomacy should be used.

Overall, the OP will not experience the same fat loss at 8 weeks as he has seen in the first 2 as it will tend to slow down.

2lbs per week is grand and we can all agree on that but if its more in the initial weeks its nothing to be alarmed about and I would consider strength loss on the main lifts a stronger indicator of dropping too much muscle.

Transform

Mjolnir wrote: »

You do realise that's because the body loves homeostasis and doesn't actually ever want to change it has to adapt.
Also that's to do with kcal needs and how much work you do in regards burning those 2lbs at 6%. People at 6% year round are also enhanced so yes they can burn 2lbs a week and sustain muscle, still not easily as some would think but its possible.

Having done this myself and with multiple people I can assure you I'm right. There are outliers and those enhanced aren't subject to the same principals all the time.
2lbs p/w is a healthy weight loss advising otherwise to someone like the op is asinine and not sustainable.

BTW im 7% year round (dexa scan so no messing around), 43yrs young, 87kg, 6ft 2in, and im not taking any PED's, just need pretty decent genetics to begin with.

Johnnydoe89

Water only before 10am.fruit for breakfast after 10am
Big meal maybe 3/4pm
Light snack before bed, nuts seeds etc

You will be hungry but we are designed to get hungry we didn't always have food on tap like today, it helps to burn the unwanted fats and such,that was my understanding anyway.
I stuck to this for 8months and lost 4stone
Never felt so good in my life my energy was through the roof and 6hours sleep was all I ended up having in the end, waking up like I was never tired 💪

Alf Veedersane

Johnnydoe89 wrote: »

Water only before 10am.fruit for breakfast after 10am
Big meal maybe 3/4pm
Light snack before bed, nuts seeds etc

You will be hungry but we are designed to get hungry we didn't always have food on tap like today, it helps to burn the unwanted fats and such,that was my understanding anyway.
I stuck to this for 8months and lost 4stone
Never felt so good in my life my energy was through the roof and 6hours sleep was all I ended up having in the end, waking up like I was never tired 💪

You lost weight by being in what was probably a big deficit. You'll likely have lost muscle as well which is what the OP is trying to mitigate against.

Wailin

Johnnydoe89 wrote: »

Water only before 10am.fruit for breakfast after 10am
Big meal maybe 3/4pm
Light snack before bed, nuts seeds etc

You will be hungry but we are designed to get hungry we didn't always have food on tap like today, it helps to burn the unwanted fats and such,that was my understanding anyway.
I stuck to this for 8months and lost 4stone
Never felt so good in my life my energy was through the roof and 6hours sleep was all I ended up having in the end, waking up like I was never tired 💪

Fair play to you. But that's a bit different to my goals. I want to get my weight down to 82kg which would give me a bodyfat percentage of roughly 15%. Today I stood on the scales and was 84.0 so getting there.

Here's a question guys. If I get my BF down to where I want it, then start to increase my calories to build muscle, will I just put back on the fat I lost again? I would be keeping my diet clean of course and increase protein intake. So hoping to get back up to 84kg but no increase in bodyfat.

TimeToShine

Transform wrote: »

BTW im 7% year round (dexa scan so no messing around), 43yrs young, 87kg, 6ft 2in, and im not taking any PED's, just need pretty decent genetics to begin with.

Are you sure you're 7%? I know you're a trainer but bodybuilders step on stage at 6-7%, I'm struggling to see how you can maintain that year round. 9% maybe.

I find dexa scans underestimate slightly but that may just be my experience.

Alf Veedersane

Wailin wrote: »

Here's a question guys. If I get my BF down to where I want it, then start to increase my calories to build muscle, will I just put back on the fat I lost again? I would be keeping my diet clean of course and increase protein intake. So hoping to get back up to 84kg but no increase in bodyfat.

If you're in a surplus you're probably going to gain some fat. But that doesn't necessarily mean you increase your BF %. Which you don't really need to get too hung up on if you're getting leaner and maintaining or increasing strength

Mellor

Wailin wrote: »

Here's a question guys. If I get my BF down to where I want it, then start to increase my calories to build muscle, will I just put back on the fat I lost again? I would be keeping my diet clean of course and increase protein intake. So hoping to get back up to 84kg but no increase in bodyfat.

You put on some fat bulking up. But as long as training and diet is in check. It can be minimised. The slower you bulk the less fat you are likely to add.
As long as it’s c.15% of the weight you put on, it won’t affect your bf% (if you start at 15%). I think you’ll need to get to 79kg for 15%

Transform

TimeToShine wrote: »

Are you sure you're 7%? I know you're a trainer but bodybuilders step on stage at 6-7%, I'm struggling to see how you can maintain that year round. 9% maybe.

I find dexa scans underestimate slightly but that may just be my experience.

what would make me more sure beyond a DEXA?

from doing body fat scores for years with callipers id have said that most will show a HIGHER score on dexa v's a 5-7 site Harpenden callipers test

Overall, I couldn't give a fiddlers what mine is and I care more about how I feel, its more just to make a point re scores

the baby bull elephant

Dexa scans have an error rate of +/- 5% and depend massively on a number of factors. Ultimately there is no completely accurate way to measure body fat percentage on a living person.

But yeah as long as you're in a healthy range and happy with how you look, what difference does it make?

Transform

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

Dexa scans have an error rate of +/- 5% and depend massively on a number of factors. Ultimately there is no completely accurate way to measure body fat percentage on a living person.

But yeah as long as you're in a healthy range and happy with how you look, what difference does it make?

I haven't looked at the research but there is no way its 5% + or - as they're use in clinical setting so more likely a 1% error rate.

You have any papers on that?

Weak unathletic people obsess over body fat, true athletes only care about performance (unless they're a body builder which I wouldn't consider them an "athlete")

the baby bull elephant

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9107641/

Now it was a study on older populations so YMMV based on how different it is for younger people. But in general measuring body fat without an autopsy is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. DEXA is probably the most accurate method we have but a lot depends on who the technician is and how many tests are done. It is obviously also usually pretty expensive.

Anecdotally one example that springs to mind would be with Brian Shaw's YouTube videos. Competitors at the Arnold get DEXA scans by technicians who are used to dealing with them. After losing 40 pounds I believe and looking noticeably leaner he went locally to have it done and the technician was new. The result was a measurement that was 2% higher I believe. Which is a pretty unlikely occurrence for a competitive strongman with all the gear and training being done.

Mellor

the baby bull elephant wrote: »

[
Anecdotally one example that springs to mind would be with Brian Shaw's YouTube videos. Competitors at the Arnold get DEXA scans by technicians who are used to dealing with them. After losing 40 pounds I believe and looking noticeably leaner he went locally to have it done and the technician was new. The result was a measurement that was 2% higher I believe. Which is a pretty unlikely occurrence for a competitive strongman with all the gear and training being done.

The technician palys very littel role afaik. It more to do with machine calibration.
However, Brian Shaw was 200kg at the Arnolds. That is him in peak competition stages. He also mentioned that he was dehydrated and had to drink a **** load of water. That will screw with the %s too. As it's read as lean mass.
If he took time off and dropped 40lbs, I'd expect that to be a fair bit of muscle. It wouldn't surprise me if his BF% went up, (which isn't the same as fat mass going to).

Transform wrote: »

I haven't looked at the research but there is no way its 5% + or - as they're use in clinical setting so more likely a 1% error rate.

Actual bodyfat % will fluctuationover 1% over a day due to hydration alone. Any variation in calibration will add to that. I'd well believe a 4% range is common.
But +/-5% is a 10% range, that's a lot.

Weak unathletic people obsess over body fat, true athletes only care about performance (unless they're a body builder which I wouldn't consider them an "athlete")

Sure, serious athletes only care about performance as it's their goal. But if the goals are aesthetics (and lets be honest most people's are), then fat mass makes just as much sense as a focus. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's also a lot of hobbyists who obsess about performance under the delusion that are athletes. I'm not picking on cycling, but its a good example. A guy spending $1000's on hardware to lighten his bike by >1kg. Meanwhile he's carrying 10kg of extra body fat.

Ush1

No to mention generally you will perform better with lower body fat in athletic endeavours.

Transform

Ush1 wrote: »

No to mention generally you will perform better with lower body fat in athletic endeavours.

caring obsessively about it is not the same as performing better - I don't think Lebron or Serena care much but Billy down the road that's 68kg and 5ft10in caring to the point of isolation about his body fat just leads to major issues

Transform

Mellor wrote: »

The technician palys very littel role afaik. It more to do with machine calibration.
However, Brian Shaw was 200kg at the Arnolds. That is him in peak competition stages. He also mentioned that he was dehydrated and had to drink a **** load of water. That will screw with the %s too. As it's read as lean mass.
If he took time off and dropped 40lbs, I'd expect that to be a fair bit of muscle. It wouldn't surprise me if his BF% went up, (which isn't the same as fat mass going to).


Actual bodyfat % will fluctuationover 1% over a day due to hydration alone. Any variation in calibration will add to that. I'd well believe a 4% range is common.
But +/-5% is a 10% range, that's a lot.


Sure, serious athletes only care about performance as it's their goal. But if the goals are aesthetics (and lets be honest most people's are), then fat mass makes just as much sense as a focus. There's nothing wrong with that.

There's also a lot of hobbyists who obsess about performance under the delusion that are athletes. I'm not picking on cycling, but its a good example. A guy spending $1000's on hardware to lighten his bike by >1kg. Meanwhile he's carrying 10kg of extra body fat.

we're on the same page really here but I've a big issue with people that care more about or plan fat loss when they haven't got the 3 S's sorted first -
Sleep
Social connection
Stress


The whole "it's ok people just want to look good naked and become the best version of yourself" perpetuates a culture of performance that's based on an individualistic society which has an inability to know how best to spend their attention so companies do that for them. We're seeing ever increasing rates of addiction, suicide and depression and the focus on the self isn't helping.

William James
"Pay primary attention to what we do and express and not care too much for how we feel"

So "lets best honest most peoples are" isn't good enough and this may seem like a stretch but it's exactly what I see in my work daily and if you talk to smart coaches they're seeing the exact same.

Mellor

Transform wrote: »

So "lets best honest most peoples are" isn't good enough and this may seem like a stretch but it's exactly what I see in my work daily and if you talk to smart coaches they're seeing the exact same.

I think we are on the same page. I'm certainly not suggesting that it's healthy to prioritise aesthetics above all else. Or to obsessive degrees.
The first things I think people need to look at is quality of sleep, diet and relationship with food, and stress and other triggers that affect those two factors. Get those 3 right and your most of the way to improving health and fitness.

Smart coaches like yourself and others you refer to are going to work with a higher % of athletes. The member base at a Ben Dunne or FlyFit will mostly (>50%) e concerned with getting "in-shape", looking better, etc. The guys chasing bigger lifts for themselves are the minority, the actually athletes less so again. I don't think there is anything wrong with performance being secondary, as long as you do it the right way.

Wailin

More than a slight hint of arrogance from the last few posts lads. All this talk of "athletes" and those that worry about body fat are "weak unathletic" etc etc. Most average folk don't have the time to become "athletes" with demanding jobs, family commitments blah blah blah. Those fitness instructors (some here on this thread) who get well paid to train weak unathletic people to pay for their time to work on becoming athletes should have a bit more of a humble view on the whole fitness industry. Just saying...

Mellor

Wailin wrote: »

Most average folk don't have the time to become "athletes" with demanding jobs, family commitments blah blah blah.

That’s exactly my point I made above. That the average gym goer isn’t an athlete who only cares about performance.
Most of them just want to look a bit better and be a bit healthier. For those people targeting bf% is a fine. As long as they aren’t obsessing to the detriment of other health (you clearly aren’t btw)

Ush1

Transform wrote: »

caring obsessively about it is not the same as performing better - I don't think Lebron or Serena care much but Billy down the road that's 68kg and 5ft10in caring to the point of isolation about his body fat just leads to major issues

Lebron and Serena being as lean as they are sorta proves my point.

Obsessive about percentages doesn't make much sense to me same as wishing you were a certain height.

Wailin

Mellor wrote: »

That’s exactly my point I made above. That the average gym goer isn’t an athlete who only cares about performance.
Most of them just want to look a bit better and be a bit healthier. For those people targeting bf% is a fine. As long as they aren’t obsessing to the detriment of other health (you clearly aren’t btw)

No for me the body fat is a goal. If I just use a weight as a goal that would be too easy. Cut calories, sit on my hole all day (well, you know what I mean!) and I'm down to 82kg in a few weeks. With bodyfat, I know I'm losing fat but trying my damnest to retain muscle mass as well.

Down to 18% btw after just over 3 weeks. Strength is down a touch so have lost some muscle too. Should easily hit target of 15% in the next 3 weeks, maybe more if I'm down 4% so far.

The funny thing is, even though my calories are down, I feel like I'm shovelling more food into me when trying to hit my macro targets, particularly protein.

Ush1

Wailin wrote: »

No for me the body fat is a goal. If I just use a weight as a goal that would be too easy. Cut calories, sit on my hole all day (well, you know what I mean!) and I'm down to 82kg in a few weeks. With bodyfat, I know I'm losing fat but trying my damnest to retain muscle mass as well.

Down to 18% btw after just over 3 weeks. Strength is down a touch so have lost some muscle too. Should easily hit target of 15% in the next 3 weeks, maybe more if I'm down 4% so far.

The funny thing is, even though my calories are down, I feel like I'm shovelling more food into me when trying to hit my macro targets, particularly protein.

How are you measuring your body fat percentage and whats your macro targets?

Wailin

Two ways. Tape and calipers. Both giving more or less the same result so I'm happy with the accuracy.

Macros are 200g protein, 150g carbs and 67g fat.