It seems like everyone's afraid of losing their hard earned muscle during a cut but I've never heard a figure as to how much muscle you actually lose assuming you lift heavy.
As long as you aren't doing some retarded starvation diet do you actually lose significant amounts of muscle while cutting fat?
Is there any reason for me not to just go into a 1000 calorie deficit and finish my cut in like 6-8 weeks instead of taking 4 months?
>>35437254
Over a longish period of time a smaller deficit leads to retaining more muscle all other things being roughly equal. You also see diminishing returns over time so it makes more sense to cut for a few weeks/couple of months then change up for a bit and go back to cutting.
In my own personal experience a water fast for a few days is no biggy either. I would recommend ~200 to 300 kcal of gruel or soup a day or every other day tho and not going for longer than about 5 days. The small amount of food doesn't really change the biological response but keeps your GI system ticking over a bit and gives you some minerals and vitamins and all that. Good way to kick start a keto diet too.
>>35437254
about tree fiddy
>>35437254
All of it. Life is futility and pain.
None
> went vegan
> no direct sources of protein
> probably get 40-70g tops of protein a day
> went from 195-175 with no muscle loss
> squat actually went up
Myth busted
>>35437254
i want to impregnate this young lady
>>35437254
hahaha isn't this one of the girls that triggers /cgl/? Not gonna lie, she needs to lift more, but would fuck her
As long as you keep lifting, you'd lose less muscle than you'd gained. Otherwise it would literally be physically impossible to be ripped. The human body would only have two modes, skelly dyel mode and bear mode.
>>35437819
>>35437254
You won't lose a bunch of muscle unless you're running a ridiculous deficit for an extended period of time or starving yourself while also not lifting and hitting protein macros. Your body just doesn't go full retard and start eating its muscles, it's smarter than that. The problem is a bunch of 20%+ BF fat fucks cut and mistake losing fat for muscle loss because their fatceps are shrinking.
>tl;dr
No you will not lose large amounts muscle on a responsible aggressive cut if you're doing it correctly.
>>35437819
>thingsthathappened.png
>>35438124
Makes sense.
>>35437254
I started cutting the same time I dropped to only two gym sessions a week. Lost much more muscle mass than when I previously cut and kept up my usual 5 day gym routine.
>>35437819
>direct sources of protein
>>35437827
Me too, breh. Me too
That is a meme you lose nothing. I did keto and became stronger from 100 kg carb load bench press to 125 kg bench press while on keto
>>35437254
>but I've never heard a figure as to how much muscle you actually lose assuming you lift heavy.
I've heard that if you stick to the moderate 0.5-1 pound per week of cutting and keep it clean, you can expect about a 4:1 ratio of fat:muscle.
Clean bulk is more like 1 or 2 pounds of fat for every pound of muscle gained.
Never seen a source for this though so YMMV
>>35437254
Exactly three muscle.
>>35437819
Textured Soy protein m8
High as fuck in protein, barely any carbs or fat.
>>35437254
tfw no enji gf
>>35437254
Just enter a 300cal deficit for most of the time.
But feel free to have a few weeks where you ramp down to a -500cal or even a week where you are at a 1,000cal deficit.
>>35437254
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
>>35440454
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615
Thanks but that abstract doesn't really say much.
It says lean mass won't be depleted during less severe dietary deficiency but it doesn't say what qualifies as a severe dietary deficiency.
I cut from 170lb to 140lb with REALLY terrible macros. Not enough protein, and basically just dicking around in the gym w/ no routine, and ego lifting w/ shit form. Bodyfat went from 22% to 11% (reduced by 11%). 11% reduction times 170lb starting weight means I lost 18.7 of fat, with 30lb total weight loss. 11lb of "non fat" was lost (5lb+ is probably water)
>>35440676
Forgot to say this was over the course of 10 months.
>>35440614
Fat has a maximum burn rate of 31 calories/pound of fat per day. If you're 200 lbs, 25% body fat, you can burn:
200*0.25=50
50*31= 1550 calorie deficit per day.
If 175 10%, you can burn 17.5*31=542.5 calories per day
Going more than this depletes glycogen and results in tons of water weight loss. After glycogen is depleted, you lose muscle mass. Average person holds ~1200g of glycogen (~2.5-3 lbs)
or roughly 4800 calories worth. For each pound you lose of fat, you burn 31 less calories of it per day, so:
-Start: 32.25 lbs fat, 4800 kcal glycogen
Week 1:
1000 deficit; can burn 1000/day
-Net: burn 7000 lbs fat, 4800 glycogen, 0 muscle
Week 2:
1000 deficit; can burn 940/day
-Net: burn 6580 fat, 4380 glycogen, -0 muscle
Week 3:
1000 deficit; can burn 880/day
-Net: burn 6160 fat, 3540 glycogen, -0 muscle
Week 4:
1000 deficit; can burn 825/day
-Net: burn 5775 fat, 2315 glycogen, -0 muscle
Week 5:
1000 deficit: can burn 775/day
-Net: burn 5425 fat, 740 glycogen, -0 muscle
Week 6:
1000 deficit: can burn 725/day
-Net: burn 5075 fat, 0 glycogen, -1185 muscle
Keep in mind a pound of fat is 3500 kcal, a pound of muscle is 2400 kcal
>>35440861
This is a worst case scenario though where a person is cutting heavy. Active people tend to carry more glycogen, especially those with more muscle mass. This effect
is also why most people take quite a few weeks to start losing pounds on their lifts and hit a complete stall; some even add to their lifts the first few weeks of cutting.
Those who are incredibly obese have an easier time with this due to cutting well within range of what their fat can burn/day, thus allowing enough excess fat to be
available and expend thus creating a slight anabolic response, building muscle whilst cutting. These are the basic concepts behind a recomp.
Generally, glycogen helps with protein synthesis, so refilling glycogen would be advantageous when trying to gain muscle mass.
-Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8563679
Something else to mention is that Keto heavily limits the amount of glycogen in the body, and by extension forces the majority of weight loss to be pulled directly from
fat mass thus ensuring energy isn't taken from glycogen before fat; it's why many people see it as helpful when cutting to extremely low body fat when the amount of
fat that can be burned per day will be way lower due to having less to burn.
>>35440934
Wrong source; meant to link this:
-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3577439/
>>35440861
>>35440934
>>35440943
Thanks anon
>>35440676
Your calculation is off. 11 percent of 170 is different from 11 percent of 140. 170 times 22% equals 37.4 lbs of fat. 140 times 11% equals 15.4 lbs of fat. This means you lost 22 lbs of fat not 18.7.
>>35437254
Why is she so perfect bros
>>35437871
Wtf. Reword your post
>>35441599
Poster is basically stating that as long as your body thinks it still needs muscle, it will burn fat first.
If not we all would either be skeletons or fat fucks as muscle to fat ratio would be locked in.
As long as you maintain protein intake and continue muscle stimulation (lifting, telling your body you need to grow muscle) - you will burn the fat first.
>>35441534
NERD
>>35438124
I cut for 6 weeks and my bench dropped a solid 20 pounds, was doing cardio 3x a week and running a 100 cal deficit for 6 weeks
>what did i do wrong desu
>>35437254
Currently week 5 into cutting, i lost size in the first week due to water retention, but i haven't lost noticable muscle. I have continued my progressive overload routine without hinderance from my cut, i have gotten stronger whilst losing considerable bodyfat. I don't cont macros or stalk my calories, i just make a rough guess of how many calories i've eaten in the day and try to roughly round it up to 2,000 calories
