Can someone explain the science behind cutting to me and clear up any misconceptions I might have?
I heard that when you starve your body, it tends to eat its way through muscle first and fat second. I've always seen cutting as only slightly starving yourself and your body eats up the extra fat to make up for any calories you're missing. Am I wrong in thinking it would eat through muscle first?
>>32089418
Yes.
>>32089418
Your body eats fat first to a certain extent and after you get to a certain bodyfat % then you start losing muscle.
Currently doing my first pre-contest dieting. Is it true that with each round of contest dieting, you "look" more shredded each time?
Natty btw
>>32089418
You're not entirely wrong but to a certain degree depends on bf % When someone of like 40% bf eats at a deficit, the body burns some of that massive fat store. When someone of <12% bf eats at a deficit the body is more likely to try to breakdown some of the stores of muscle mass to make up the difference. It also depends on protein intake. Especially when you're cutting, if you're not achieving a certain amount of protein intake your body is much more likely to break down muscle to make up the protein balance
so long as you're eating enough protein to sustain LBM and enough dietary fat to support hormonal functions you can cut on very low calories so long as you're refeeding often. It's much faster to cut that way.
>>32089418
Unless you're on anabolic drugs, you will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS lose muscle with fat loss. And when you bulk, you will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS put on fat along with muscle.
It's the harsh reality of doing things natty
A caloric deficit of more than 500 calories under maintenance it will cause a greater loss of muscle. Whenever you lose weight due to a caloric deficit you will lose both muscle and fat. The goal is to find the deficit that yields the least amount of muscle loss and the most amount of fat loss.
>>32089418
The muscle then fat is momscience. I'm currently cutting on 800 calories and I haven't lost much size if any. Noticeably smaller waist with a slightly smaller shoulder width which was most likely fat.
>however i started at 25%+ bodyfat it might not be the same for ~13% bf
>>32089527
refeeding?
>>32089498
Yeh bro your body knows its like your 5th contest or something so It wants you to look even more shredded so you can impress the judges. It just knows
Can I eat 1,500 below my TDEE or will this be less effective in getting rid of pure fat than, say, 1,000 below?
>>32089584
bro science: the post
>inb4 hurr not bro science im a nutritionist
Post tangible source pls, not some blog by shreddzilla
shit that's a 10/10 physique no homer
too bad about the klinefelter's
>>32089527
if im eating 500 deficit and am around 15% bf how often should i refeed?
>>32090115
>klinefelter's
Are you retarded?
>>32090102
but he's right you fucking retard
>>32090115
>10/10
>finds a flaw
lul wut
>>32089498
Look up set point theory, there is nomhard science on this but ppl are theorizing with what knowledge there is
>>32090237
lmao u mad klinelet?
>>32090240
Where's this source then fat boy? You cant just samefag or go "HES RIGHT" and act like that's fucking proof you idiot
>>32089531
This is why nattys shouldn't bulk or cut.
>>32090099
don't eat 1500 or even 1000 below your tdee unless you are very morbidly obese
>>32089689
You dont eat your own vomit faggot?
You will never earn double gainz, you will never make it.
>>32090099
At this rate, your body will start eating your brain... >>32090115
>>32089531
What happens if I just eat at perfect maintenance?
Why should you train when ur cutting (natty) when you are on a calori deflict you wont gain muscle anyways right?
>>32090359
To maintain your muscle mass. Use it or lose it.
>>32090276
It's not but it makes sense to me.
I'm inclined to believe you're simply asking for source to shitpost.
![Awesome+but+it+could+use+a+little+more+nicolas+cage+_a98be9751ae4b222b3b7e4bc152a7b00[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/B3Sse0b.jpg "Awesome+but+it+could+use+a+little+more+nicolas+cage+_a98be9751ae4b222b3b7e4bc152a7b00[1].jpg")
>>32089418
>it tends to eat its way through muscle first and fat second
That fucking body must be very, very retarded.
i almost lost no muscle while cutting on low carb/carb cyle diet
>>32090102
>>32089584
>confusing glycogen stores for muscle
>confusing water for muscle
>confusing intramuscular triglycerides for muscle
>confusing volume for for mass
>>32090389
No, you.
Why the fuck would your want to keep muscle and lose fat?
Fat storage serves to keep you alive and muscle is calorically hard to maintain.
>>32090334
>eating 1000 below tdee
error 404: brain not found
>>32090370
Oh so because in your head it's right thats all that matters. Like I fucking said. Bro science
>>32090276
what is this, not only are you ignorant and arrogant but you also want others to spoonfeed you informations? Get the fuck off faggot
>>32090415
Because without muscle your body can't hunt.
>>32090415
>Why the fuck would your want to keep muscle and lose fat?
Muscle = energy and function
Fat = only energy
Simple as that, fuckface.
>>32090394
Time frame?
Also, you look like you're on roids. If you're not, take the compliment. If you are, still take the compliment.
>>32090451
Perhaps not without connective tissue to help you propel your own weight forward. But 40 extra pounds of vanity muscle and 17 inch arms is just a bunch of calorically expensive bullshit that'll weight you down.
Your body will want to keep any possible fat stores to survive famined conditions.
>>32090502
Tell that to your biological predisposition to get rid of muscle and store fat.
>>32090575
Which doesn't exist.
>>32089531
that's not true you fearmongering dyel
Catabolism is actually hard to fucking achieve. I'm not talking about transient glycogen or water, I'm talking dry LBM - you are unlikely to actually lose it unless you are severely limiting calories.
>>32090575
so...this is the power...of broscience
>>32090564
Agreed. Now address >>32090410
>>32089498
It's more likely that your technique for cutting gets better with each time you do it so you look better each time
>>32090517
No roids breh, thanks for the compliment. Time frame = 3 months
>>32090599
>>32090617
It doesn't? Then howcome extra calories get stored as fat instead of muscle?
>>32090629
I'm not part of that conversation.
>>32090637
Because you have piss-poor insulin sensitivity
eat like nature intended rather than stuffing your face full of shit and you'll oxidise the majority of excess calories once you've hit a healthy body fat
>>32090637
Because of the way your body strengthens muscles...since muscles consume more calories than fat it is only normal for your body to prefer to store energy in the form of fat. This all process is obvious, unless your body is under pressure to build more muscles, in which case it will redirect its energy towards the construction of bigger and more energy requiring muscles
>>32090637
Because your body keeps muscle needed for it to survive. Your body doesn't consume muscle for fuel until you get to ~5% body fat. It does everything it can to conserve muscle in times of famine and store fat in times of plenty.
Don't confuse using protein as fuel for using muscle for fuel. The body will stop protein synthesis in order to suck as much fuel as it can from food as possible.
>>32089418
the body doesn't eat only one source of energy at a time
it's more like it eats a percentage of fat and a percentage of muscle simultaneously, with the percentages depending on the individual, if you're frauding, etc.
>>32090648
It's the same discussion. Beach muscle != muscle.
There's other things which contribute to a muscle's apparent size than muscle fibers. There are short term energy stores (glycogen) and the water it needs to process (1g glycogen requires 4g water), and long term energy stores (intramuscular triglycerides [fat between muscles]). The volume of your muscle can decrease quite a bit, and indeed does in as little as two weeks, without decreasing actual muscle fibers.
>>32090702
>eat like nature intended
what did nature intend for me to eat?
>>32090861
Cum
>>32090861
Moderate quantities of mostly grains and vegetables, with little meat
>>32090252
>nomhard
>>32090884
Fuck nature then
>>32090861
>nature
>>32090884
>grains
>>32090394
gotta be dnp or tren to retain that much muscle if that wasn't a really slow cut
>>32090441
Still no sources to back up your claims. Well done in proving how idiotic you are following some shit scooby says. Until you post a tangible sauce then keep samefagging
>>32090370
>>32090441
Im not him, but i need proof to believe it is true. no trolling just waant proof
>>32091530
>being this mad on a wannabe chinese anonymous internet imageboard
>>32091557
No ones mad brah except these fatties without sources :^)
>>32090634
>No roids
That shit might fly with normies at the gym anon
>>32090634
how long have you been lifting
>>32091668
But not with the fat sjw /fit9k/ bitches like you
Fucking crabs in a bucket
"you are bigger than me so you must roid!!!"
>>32091668
he's natty, but unfortunately he is only 5'3
>>32091668
You are a retard, come back when you'e lifted for more than a fucking year.
>>32091776
>crabs in a bucket
:^)
>>32091776
more like, if you halved your bodyfat in 3 months whilst losing 0 mass you're almost certainly not natty
>>32091804
This
>while losing weight
>muscles look tiny
>eat well for a week
>weight loss stops but muscles get a lot bigger
What is this?
>>32091923
Glycogen.
>>32090881
never change /fit/
>>32090102
He's actually right.
I hate myself for not saving the source but there was a study that outlined strength progress when lifting, and some cardio exercises with individuals eating at a 500 cal deficit and 200 cal deficit.
The group with 200 cal deficit made better strength progress compared to the group with 500 cal.
Although the sprinting speed difference was negligible the 200 cal group could lift a non-trivial amount more than the 500 cal group by the end of the experiment.
If someone has the source linking it would be pretty based.
>>32089418
the trick is to either carb-fast or reduce carbs enough to induce gluconeogenesis.
and eat high fat, high-protein diet to keep packing on LBM
this shit is in the sticky, nigger.
also you are going to want to eat lots of vegetation for vitamins, minerals, and fiber.
>>32089527
>so long as you're eating enough protein to sustain LBM and enough dietary fat to support hormonal functions you can cut on very low calories so long as you're refeeding often. It's much faster to cut that way.
also this
>>32092473
To clear it up a bit.
While this applied to people who were by all means beginners, and it was people who were starting to train, I think the principle would still apply.
Where there'd be better muscle growth or maintenance while cutting on a 200 cal diet versus a 500+ cal diet.
>>32089649
>momscience
my sides
>>32092553
how's your first week on /fit/ :^)
>>32092532
>gluconeogenesis.
to be clear, this is when your body doesn't get enough glucose (essentially most sugars and starches get metabolized into glucose) externally, it will make glucose from your body fat.
you totally can do zero carb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-carbohydrate_diet
but as far as i am concerned, its best to eat nuts and carrots and shit from time to time.
i think there is a way to calculate how many grams of carbs you can ingest while still maintaining gluconeogenesis, but you would have to talk to a physician about that.
its easier to just make sure you are eating WAY less than the average american.
substituting stevia extract for sugar and quinoa for starches is a great way to cut out the vast majority of your glucose intake
>>32092607
pretty neat, actually.
learned a lot.
