Burning fat or muscle?

[urameshi]

When you are in a calorie deficit assuming roughly 500-1000 below maintenance and that you are eating at least 1g of protein per pound of bodyweight what determines if you are burning fat or muscle? I have never found an answer to this question, thanks in advance!

 

[Diced]

LOL, ur burning both this is why when cutting weight it is important to take it slowly so u can maintain as much mass as possible its ALSO very important that u have a descent amount of mass on u too before u begin cutting !

 

[jameshundson]

Hi, You are burning both fats as well as muscle, for that you have to take care about your eating habits and workouts. Do regular exercise and take healthy and balanced diet to get optimal results. Along with these you can take natural protein supplement with natural ingredients , which can speed up the metabolism and fat burning hormones.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

I have to address this because your going to hear alot of bro science from big guys who just dont like cutting

First of all, muscle loss will never ever overtake fat loss - scientific studies were done on a group of individuals on a 40% calorie deficit with no weight training - they still hit 5%bf eventually.
Secondly, in any caloroe deficit your going to sacrifice some muscle, no matter how slowly you go. Personally I like to create massive deficits so I can get it over and done with as soon as possible.

So how does your body decide what to burn? By using logic. If your getting adequate protein and weight training regularly you limit muscle loss because YOUR USING YOUR MUSCLES! Why would your body get rid of something your using regularly?
So fat is less important to it, unless your in single digit bf% were you'll notice fat loss slows down but doesn't stop provided a deficit is present.

 

[Docd187]

I have to address this because your going to hear alot of bro science from big guys who just dont like cutting

First of all, muscle loss will never ever overtake fat loss - scientific studies were done on a group of individuals on a 40% calorie deficit with no weight training - they still hit 5%bf eventually.
Secondly, in any caloroe deficit your going to sacrifice some muscle, no matter how slowly you go. Personally I like to create massive deficits so I can get it over and done with as soon as possible.

So how does your body decide what to burn? By using logic. If your getting adequate protein and weight training regularly you limit muscle loss because YOUR USING YOUR MUSCLES! Why would your body get rid of something your using regularly?
So fat is less important to it, unless your in single digit bf% were you'll notice fat loss slows down but doesn't stop provided a deficit is present.

Who cares if muscle loss doesn't overtake fat loss or if you can hit 5% BF on a 40% caloric deficit. You're still losing a lot of muscle mass that you didn't have to. Plus you may be at 5% BF but what's that matter if your LBM, that you worked so hard to get, is dropped dramatically. You can be at 5% BF and still look like shit. Doing it your way of huge deficits does indeed get it over quicker but you also will more than likely lose more muscle as a function of time than someone who used a more conservative deficit. In other words, you may get your cut done in 5wks but you'll probably lose more muscle per week than the person who cut more conservatively. In the end it MIGHT balance out to the same total muscle loss but you cannot be certain and you're far more likely to lose more muscle with higher deficits.

You can use your muscles and still lose them. Fat is far more important to the body than muscles are. Your body will choose to burn fat over muscle up to a certain point but when you pass that, your body is more opt to burn muscle as a fuel source than fat bc fat is essential to the body for many bodily functions whereas muscle is less important. You can see this when body builders cut down for a contest. There body fat levels drop so low that it changes their moods, behaviors, etc and they do everything they can to spare muscle at that point bc they know they're body will prefer to burn muscle when fat deposits are uncharacteristically low and its extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain sub 5% BF levels for extended periods of time.

I remember Michael Jordan's sophomore or junior year in the nba he reported to training camp at 4-5% BF. the trainers were amazed he came in that shape during the off season but weren't surprised when he wasn't able to maintain it the entire season. Your body will fight you at those low levels bc fat is necessary and it will kill your energy levels, change your mood, etc when you maintain such low body fat for extended periods of time.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Who cares if muscle loss doesn't overtake fat loss or if you can hit 5% BF on a 40% caloric deficit. You're still losing a lot of muscle mass that you didn't have to. Plus you may be at 5% BF but what's that matter if your LBM, that you worked so hard to get, is dropped dramatically. You can be at 5% BF and still look like shit. Doing it your way of huge deficits does indeed get it over quicker but you also will more than likely lose more muscle as a function of time than someone who used a more conservative deficit. In other words, you may get your cut done in 5wks but you'll probably lose more muscle per week than the person who cut more conservatively. In the end it MIGHT balance out to the same total muscle loss but you cannot be certain and you're far more likely to lose more muscle with higher deficits.

You can use your muscles and still lose them. Fat is far more important to the body than muscles are. Your body will choose to burn fat over muscle up to a certain point but when you pass that, your body is more opt to burn muscle as a fuel source than fat bc fat is essential to the body for many bodily functions whereas muscle is less important. You can see this when body builders cut down for a contest. There body fat levels drop so low that it changes their moods, behaviors, etc and they do everything they can to spare muscle at that point bc they know they're body will prefer to burn muscle when fat deposits are uncharacteristically low and its extremely difficult if not impossible to maintain sub 5% BF levels for extended periods of time.

I remember Michael Jordan's sophomore or junior year in the nba he reported to training camp at 4-5% BF. the trainers were amazed he came in that shape during the off season but weren't surprised when he wasn't able to maintain it the entire season. Your body will fight you at those low levels bc fat is necessary and it will kill your energy levels, change your mood, etc when you maintain such low body fat for extended periods of time.

First of all, a study was conducted with a group of individuals over the course of a year on a starvation diet (40% calorie deficit). They hit 5%bf within a year and worse case lbm loss was reported as 25%. Now that sounds horrible but consider they did no weight training, protein intake was low & they were in a severe deficit for a year. Even with the smallest of deficits, a 10% lbm loss is generally inevitable if your clean.

You also seem to be treating bf% and lbm as seperate - they are not. To drop 1%bf a week you need to preserve lbm, ootherwise the % wont drop. Speaking on behalf of myself and my clients muscle loss on a small deficit long term & a large deficit short term was roughly the same. So NO YOU DO NOT LOSE MORE MUSCLE.

As to your final point, I did post originally that once you get into single digit bf% your body will become more stubborn (mine starts at 8% but it depends on your individual set points, etc). That's where some supplementation and slowing down the defict would help. Using professional bodybuilders is a poor example. The body is extremely intelligent, if your in single digit bf% but have 20lbs more muscle then your frame requires then yes you need to be careful as the body will favour muscle loss. To an average individual with average mass and bf, this rarely applies.

My point remains the same: based on scientific studies & real life results, muscle loss is approximately the same on a deficit, regardless of whether it takes you 12 weeks or 6 weeks to cut. I prefer the quicker route for obvious reasons

 

[Docd187]

First of all, a study was conducted with a group of individuals over the course of a year on a starvation diet (40% calorie deficit). They hit 5%bf within a year and worse case lbm loss was reported as 25%. Now that sounds horrible but consider they did no weight training, protein intake was low & they were in a severe deficit for a year. Even with the smallest of deficits, a 10% lbm loss is generally inevitable if your clean.

You also seem to be treating bf% and lbm as seperate - they are not. To drop 1%bf a week you need to preserve lbm, ootherwise the % wont drop. Speaking on behalf of myself and my clients muscle loss on a small deficit long term & a large deficit short term was roughly the same. So NO YOU DO NOT LOSE MORE MUSCLE.

As to your final point, I did post originally that once you get into single digit bf% your body will become more stubborn (mine starts at 8% but it depends on your individual set points, etc). That's where some supplementation and slowing down the defict would help. Using professional bodybuilders is a poor example. The body is extremely intelligent, if your in single digit bf% but have 20lbs more muscle then your frame requires then yes you need to be careful as the body will favour muscle loss. To an average individual with average mass and bf, this rarely applies.

My point remains the same: based on scientific studies & real life results, muscle loss is approximately the same on a deficit, regardless of whether it takes you 12 weeks or 6 weeks to cut. I prefer the quicker route for obvious reasons

If you're referring to the Minnesota starvation experiment of 1945, than they found in their results:

"Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123-124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject***8217;s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources."

If you're referring to another study than I'd love to see a link. I'd be very interested to see the results and methodology myself. Not calling you out or anything just genuine interest in learning. I don't argue that you're bound to lose some muscle in a cut or that excercise, protein intake or other factors can help mitigate muscle loss but I do argue for moderation and more conservative approaches, in most but not all cases, since it usually is easier to stick with conservative approaches and they help avoid "yo-yo" dieting.

As to bf % and lbm they are different unless you assume a 1:1 ratio. Example you can lose bf and increase lbm while simultaneously dropping bf if the increase in lbm was larger than the decrease in bf. you can drop bf % while losing lbm and fat again if the fat loss is greater than the muscle loss. It's not always a 1:1 ratio and many other factors come into play as you rightly pointed out. My point is you DO NOT have to preserve lbm to drop bf % bc there is that a third variable which is total fat loss not as a percentage. If you drop enough fat you can change your bf % while increasing or maintaining lbm but also losing lbm so long as the drop in fat is enough to overtake the loss in lbm. I don't know if that's written as clearly as it could be, it makes sense in my head but sometimes the way I write obfuscates my meaning lol.

We both are in agreement as to when in single digit bf ranges the body becomes stubborn and fights you and when your carrying around excess muscle. You are def on point if you've picked up on when you're body becomes stubborn and fights you. Slowing down the deficit the lower the body fat is a sound approach, you're 100% right on that point, and the inverse is also true: those that have extremely high bf% and clinically obese can stand to have a more aggressive deficit than those with less fat to lose while still preserving most of the muscle. Again I'm not trying to say your necessarily wrong, I'd just like to see ppl take moderate, long lasting approaches instead of bulking on 2000cal surpluses and cutting on 1500 cal deficits. Those usually cannot be sustained for too long and as the Minnesota starvation experiment quote I posted shows, can lead too many other serious side effects that have nothing to do with what we're talking about here i.e. depression, lethargy, social withdrawal, loss of sexual interest, etc.

I'm glad your approach works for you and your clients. If you're a trainer you're lucky to have such a large population pool as to pick up on correlational factors like these. I have only myself a few friends and family members who workout with me and I help with their diet and pubmed lol. Id love to be a trainer or dietician but don't think I'd have the patience for some ppl. Also I love food too much to have drastic cuts even if for a short period of time lmao. PERSONALLY I'd take the slower approach since it would afford me more calories over 12 weeks and don't think I'd be my happy self if I had to drastically cut my cals.

I meant no disrespect in my original post. I love to learn and you seem like you know what you're talking about so if there are any studies or links or wisdom you can send my away I'd be much obliged.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

If you're referring to the Minnesota starvation experiment of 1945, than they found in their results:

"Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123-124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject***8217;s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources."

If you're referring to another study than I'd love to see a link. I'd be very interested to see the results and methodology myself. Not calling you out or anything just genuine interest in learning. I don't argue that you're bound to lose some muscle in a cut or that excercise, protein intake or other factors can help mitigate muscle loss but I do argue for moderation and more conservative approaches, in most but not all cases, since it usually is easier to stick with conservative approaches and they help avoid "yo-yo" dieting.

As to bf % and lbm they are different unless you assume a 1:1 ratio. Example you can lose bf and increase lbm while simultaneously dropping bf if the increase in lbm was larger than the decrease in bf. you can drop bf % while losing lbm and fat again if the fat loss is greater than the muscle loss. It's not always a 1:1 ratio and many other factors come into play as you rightly pointed out. My point is you DO NOT have to preserve lbm to drop bf % bc there is that a third variable which is total fat loss not as a percentage. If you drop enough fat you can change your bf % while increasing or maintaining lbm but also losing lbm so long as the drop in fat is enough to overtake the loss in lbm. I don't know if that's written as clearly as it could be, it makes sense in my head but sometimes the way I write obfuscates my meaning lol.

We both are in agreement as to when in single digit bf ranges the body becomes stubborn and fights you and when your carrying around excess muscle. You are def on point if you've picked up on when you're body becomes stubborn and fights you. Slowing down the deficit the lower the body fat is a sound approach, you're 100% right on that point, and the inverse is also true: those that have extremely high bf% and clinically obese can stand to have a more aggressive deficit than those with less fat to lose while still preserving most of the muscle. Again I'm not trying to say your necessarily wrong, I'd just like to see ppl take moderate, long lasting approaches instead of bulking on 2000cal surpluses and cutting on 1500 cal deficits. Those usually cannot be sustained for too long and as the Minnesota starvation experiment quote I posted shows, can lead too many other serious side effects that have nothing to do with what we're talking about here i.e. depression, lethargy, social withdrawal, loss of sexual interest, etc.

I'm glad your approach works for you and your clients. If you're a trainer you're lucky to have such a large population pool as to pick up on correlational factors like these. I have only myself a few friends and family members who workout with me and I help with their diet and pubmed lol. Id love to be a trainer or dietician but don't think I'd have the patience for some ppl. Also I love food too much to have drastic cuts even if for a short period of time lmao. PERSONALLY I'd take the slower approach since it would afford me more calories over 12 weeks and don't think I'd be my happy self if I had to drastically cut my cals.

I meant no disrespect in my original post. I love to learn and you seem like you know what you're talking about so if there are any studies or links or wisdom you can send my away I'd be much obliged.

That was indeed the study to which I was referring. It, along with others, back up my belief that you can lose more than the recommended 1-2 pounds of fat per week safely from a physiological perspective without effecting muscle loss too dramatically.
Now as for the PSYCHOLOGICAL effects, they are many and varied. In fact when I get asked to produce a programme for someone to lose maximum fat in the quickest time - 90% of people simply cannot deal with a programme like this. As you said, 1500+ cal deficits are taxing - constant fatigue, no social life, etc. So unless losing fat is one of their main goals in life & they prove to me their motivation and commitment, I will refuse to help them.

Despite the psychological effects I still prefer the extreme approach simply because it lets me achieve a goal quicker (enough motivation for me). I also agree that a slow and steady approach is quite simply easier to follow.

As for further reading, I highly recommend anything by lyle mcdonald - particularly his rapid fat loss handbook. Extremely accurate from a scientific perspective & shows what is truly possible from a fat loss perspective.

I took nothing you said personally, I always appreciate intelligent conversation as it helps me see the perspective of others. As a side note, I'm one of the most harsh trainers you'll find & like you, I simply dont have time for the bullshit some people come out with lol.

 

[Docd187]

That was indeed the study to which I was referring. It, along with others, back up my belief that you can lose more than the recommended 1-2 pounds of fat per week safely from a physiological perspective without effecting muscle loss too dramatically.
Now as for the PSYCHOLOGICAL effects, they are many and varied. In fact when I get asked to produce a programme for someone to lose maximum fat in the quickest time - 90% of people simply cannot deal with a programme like this. As you said, 1500+ cal deficits are taxing - constant fatigue, no social life, etc. So unless losing fat is one of their main goals in life & they prove to me their motivation and commitment, I will refuse to help them.

Despite the psychological effects I still prefer the extreme approach simply because it lets me achieve a goal quicker (enough motivation for me). I also agree that a slow and steady approach is quite simply easier to follow.

As for further reading, I highly recommend anything by lyle mcdonald - particularly his rapid fat loss handbook. Extremely accurate from a scientific perspective & shows what is truly possible from a fat loss perspective.

I took nothing you said personally, I always appreciate intelligent conversation as it helps me see the perspective of others. As a side note, I'm one of the most harsh trainers you'll find & like you, I simply dont have time for the bullshit some people come out with lol.

Spoken like a true professional. I thought that was the study you were referring to but wasn't sure. I value my sex drive way too much to risk it with a starvation approach lmao, among other side effects. I'm very stubborn and extremely strong willed but still find it hard to drastically reduce cals so I respect your drive that allows you to do so. You've given me the curiosity to try this approach though once my first cycle finishes up (first cycle ever test e ~16wks a little over 600mg/wk.). I don't want to cut on this cycle so I'm going for around a 15-20% caloric surplus with around 1.5g/lb bw protein (never less than 1g/lb) minimum 85g fat and the rest of my cals are coming mostly from carbs (I personally can train much more intensely with carbs vs a keto diet for instance) and getting ~3300cals. I work manufacturing now and go to school at nights, train intensely full body workouts so I may have to bump the cals up a bit as I'm not gaining at the rate I want, a little less than a pound a week so far.

I see your perspective more clearly now, as "it can be done but only with those willing to commit to it entirely" rather than using the approach for the general population. Too many ppl I know try all these idiotic fad diets: low fat, no/low carbs, paleo, Atkins etc and ppl are taken for a ride. They lose initial weight and think they found the miracle answer, not realizing their initial weight loss came from the calorie restriction afforded from not eating certain foods that may have made up a large part of their diet. A close friend went on the Atkins diet lost 13lbs and she started saying it could cure obesity, cure cancer blah blah blah. Then she plateaued and went into serious depression. It took a while to get her to realize she only lost the weight bc she almost cut carbs completely from her diet and never increased her other macros. Now she knows better and has the tools to help herself.

Cool, I'm glad you didn't take it personally. I too appreciate intelligent conversation and debate if it enhances our knowledge of science and nutrition. Something tells me I can learn a few things from you so I'll be keeping a closer eye on your posts. I know many ppl can't deal with a harsh trainer but I for one like being held accountable to not only to myself but someone who will not cut me any slack and expects 110% every single day, my kinda guy lol.

I've read some of Lyle's work, though not all, and find him as one of the best in the industry. I also know that Alan Aragon knows his shit like no other. Martin berkhan (spelling?) is pretty knowledgeable but spends too much effort trying to push his IF diet, Ian McCarthy is also smart but very childish in his antics. What's your opinion on Layne Norton? I know he's a PhD and extremely knowledgable but I'm worried his affiliation with Scivation may bias his results towards supplementation if you know what I mean.

 

[Docd187]

To the OP, sorry for hijacking your thread man, the dialogue just took off lol.

 

[Mrrippedzilla]

Most of those are respectable names with respectable opinions except for martin berkhan, I'm afraid I won't listen to anyone associated with another fad diet. Layne norton sticks to the facts, I recently saw a youtube video of him discussing the metabolic crash people get after several cutting cycles - recommended watch.
But for pure fat loss & recomposition lyle mcdonald is the best source I've found.

 

[3J]

there are some great opinions on the matter here.. i appreciate everyone taking the time to respond..

my opinion is simple.. keep the weight loss slow.. regardless of muscle loss if you drop it too quickly your body goes into a starvation mode, your metabolism slows down.. you should be cutting out no more then 20% of your tdee to cut

 

[GoPro]

Holy crap, loved reading this. Most of the time when you see and hear people argue they are talking out of their ass and everyone knows it. But you all know ur shit and back it. Props to you all. Educational read.

 

[urameshi]

Holy crap, loved reading this. Most of the time when you see and hear people argue they are talking out of their ass and everyone knows it. But you all know ur shit and back it. Props to you all. Educational read.

agree 100%