What do you think?
>>36039581
is that all you're eating?
>>36039581
Foolish, how much do you weigh right now? and at what weight.
What is the highest amount of calories you maintain weight on without doing cardio.
>>36039581
>3 altoids
>IT
Fat fucks!
>>36039581
that's fine if you're a female... if a male then i strongly recommend you DONT go below 1500 calories unless doing PSMF
>>36039592
>>36039612
im leaner than you.
>>36039581
OP answer my question.
What is the highest number of calories you can maintain weight on.
Im about to give you a crash course in cutting.
pic related, me during my last cut.
>>36039659
hope you've been working on bringing your chest out. looking good otherwise
>>36039581
High five 1000cal brother.
>>36039659
why are you eating a thousand calories a day when your arms already look like fucking leaves? Do you want to literally lose all your gains? Because that's what's going to happen if you do this fucking haiti tier diet, you're going to turn into a skeleton and the local priest will have to put you down
>>36039705
that's not OP fucktard. get into reading comprehension
>>36039705
nigga read the thread. I'm not OP.
I got there eating 2750 cals and doing cardio. Im asking OP whats the maximum amount of calories he can maintain his current bodyweight at.
>>36039679
this is me currently. Cutting again as of last week, (at 3150 cals, and losing fat) about 23 pounds heavier. After pic is without a pump as well at the end of the day. But yes, lots of chest and back and biceps, still lagging but making progress.
>>36039592
>>36039659
160lbs at 5'1
>>36039740
Ok, and what is the maximum amount of calories you can maintain your current weight at?
I mean the absolute maximum.
So you might eat at that calorie level and bloat up but return to that weight after a couple days.
I would think at least 2750.
you don't need to cut under 2000 calories if you're in the gym for 45 mins a day
>>36039740
>King Manlet
>>36039763
Tbh I have no clue my TDEE works out at like 2200 though
>>36039581
What site is this?
>>36039740
>5'1
Pics now
>>36039763
>>36039740
stay focused, block out the noise. Just answer me.
Im going to explain cutting to you. Your metabolism is adaptive, your body likes to stay in homeostasis.
let me explain, if you take a guy who is 200 pounds and put him on a 6k calorie diet he will get fat, hell get up to 240 but eventually that weight will stall.
But if you take a guy who is 230 and eating 4k calories, and bump him up to 6k, hell go up to 260-270 before he stops gaining weight.
The reverse happens when you cut down. You always want to have "some where to go" when you cut.
If you start your cut that low, what are you gonna do when you plateau and you will plateau, even when the math tells you you shouldnt.
You pull the smallest amount of calories possible where you are still losing fat, that way you can always pull more. When you get to around your BMR(which you are already under i think), your cut is done.
>>36039739
did someone like try to grab you from behind as a child and then as you sprinted forward they held onto only your nipples
>>36039812
Your TDEE is a rough estimate for an average person.
here is what you need to do, eat 2200 calories for a week.
Do you gain weight? (at the end of the week, not after the first bloat) If you don't eat 2300, and so on.
Get as high as you can.
Then start going down, 150-250 at a time.
When you get to around 1750, chuck cardio in but for fucks sake dont go below 1500.
>>36039843
idk man, its a bit more pronounced there because my scalpulae is retracted.
>>36039854
in all honesty bro your chest looks like jar jar binks
>>36039865
not really seeing it desu senpai
>>36039740
>5'1
Im 5'8, how do you go on living? I would have ended it
Check it out, just one meal a day.
a kilo/week
>>36039885
By banging all the manmores gfs while they sleep
>>36039845
>>36039825
Thanks for the help I'm going to bump my calories up to 2500 and start going down from there, I've got until summer to gradually decrease down to 2000.
>>36039620
What is PSFM?
>>36039874
>>36039921
lol no ya dingus.
You increase slowly and you decrease slow. You dont just jump a thousand cals.
How long have you been cutting on your current macros?
You may to need to reverse diet out. Just remember that rule, increase cals slowly, and decrease slowly.
Even if you plan on going up a thousand calories over a couple weeks, do it 100 every couple days.
>>36039946
you're reaching.
his eyes are a lot closer together
What more would you add? 2575 calories, more fat, more protein? 6'1 185 pounds
>>36040083
What are your goals?
>>36039892
>>36039581
anorexia ITT
you fagos are on a crash course to failure. Not only will you not lose weight anymore after a month of this, but as soon as you stop eating 1k calories a day you are going to balloon the fuck out into a fat as fat ass
cut properly or don't cut at all, you are literally killing yourselves
>>36039739
looking thick, solid, tight, my friend.
>>36040083
I've always been of the opinion that you should get your protein count and eat whatever you feel like eating afterwards, just watching sodium/sugar intake, unless you're a professional bodybuilder prepping for an event.
>>36039892
>takis
nigga what are you doing? i hope you're a dwarf female. at least do PSMF if you're gonna be going that low
>>36040096
Kill the stereotype of a small vegan, gain muscle. No matter the fat gain.
>>36040099
>Not only will you not lose weight anymore after a month of this
what? why?
>>36040113
I'm sorry, I was hungry.
Im not female.
>>36040123
Then more fat and a ton more carbs and killyourself.
The fact that you can gain on 2500 cals is not good.
Im a bit shorter and a bit heavier and I cut on 3k cals and could maintain at 195 on almost 4k cals.>>36039739
>>36040111
Should I just cut out pre-made meals all together, I find it really hard to stay under my salt goals. Avacados instead of guac? I'm trying to go more whole foods based with limited supplementation.
>>36040137
So eat a lot more? I'm a night owl so it's really just starting for me. What about after I reach my protein limit? More fat and complex carbs?
>>36040132
Because you plateau you tard, im not the guy who you are responding to but read my post >>36039825
Your body isnt just a math problem, yes it is calories in calories out, but the rate you burn calories is very malleable. You always plateau on a cut, theres a quote from layne norton where he says in a 12 week contest prep you hit 7 plateaus. If you jump right into the cut that low, you wont have anywhere to go when you do plateau. The number one thing to have to learn when cutting is do the minimum you need to do to lose fat, that way you always have somewhere to go.
ALWAYS HAVE SOMEWHERE TO GO
>>36040132
>what? why?
Your body will adjust and find some way to live off of 1000 calories, it won't just continue to consume itself until you're at a happy weight. And when your body has adjusted to 1000 calories, guess what happens when you jump back up to 2500?
This is why we eat at controlled deficits, and gradually reduce calorie intake as necessary to suit our goals. Going ham @ 1000 calories is (perhaps counter-intuitively) actually less effective than just cutting at a 300-500 calorie deficit.
>>36039581
Looks very similar to mine so I'd say yes
>>36040156
>>36040160
damn, didnt know that, aight thanks, I guess im gonna increase my caloric intake
>>36040152
Increase your cals slowly.
Your nutrient timing doesnt really matter.
Eat simple carbs if you want, it doesnt really matter.
Just increase the cals slowly.
If you maintain wieght at 2500, go to 2650, run that for a week, then go to 2750, the goal is to get your cals as high as possible while still only gaining a pound or so every week or two.
That way when you hit the end of your bulk and you are maintaing at over 4k cals, cutting is fucking easy mode because you lose fat on 3700, and so on.
>>36040099
Bullshit
You completely bought the steady diet meme.
You can get great results with a low caloric diet if you do it correctly and get proper medical guidance and follow ups.
You faggots are so set on your ways that anything different make you as mad as you are.
>>36040141
Sodium really is a tough one, I always go over as well. What is your sodium goal currently? You're prob not doing too bad if you're avoiding super processed foods.
Generally, avoid anything that keeps for a long-ass time, and anything frozen for sodium intake. Definitely prioritize macros over sodium from a BB standpoint though, sodium is more of a health/well-being/bloating thing.
>>36040188
Why would you do that though?
If i can get sub 10 bf eating over 2500 cals, why the fuck wouldnt i want to do that.
cutting at 1500 now
cardio daily, eating clean
I will get rid of this last bit of fat on my abs, no matter what
>>36040197
Sodium is fine jesus.
Overall sodium level doesnt matter for a non obese person. If you are concerned about bloat, then eat more potassium and drink water, the ratio is what matters in that regard, but for health, dont fucking worry about it.
>>36040188
It may be possible short term, i.e. Intermittent fasting, but just dieting on 1k calories without knowing what you're doing is going to do nothing but destroy your metabolism. Not to mention how easy it is to malnourish yourself on 1k calories a day.
My girlfriend is a recovering anorexic, and she's constantly battling weight-gain now that she eats a meager amount because her metabolism is so royally fucked from eating breathmints and spinach for a few months of her life.
You just don't fuck with your body like that if it's unnecessary.
>>36040208
I did it years ago because i was dying, i was literally dying.
I dropped almost 50 kilos in a year and i only got half back because i was a complete failure at handling my social life after it.
I'm doing 1400 cal and is working marvelous for the last two months.
You can do whatever you want just as i can, i'm not trying to make you do anything, i'm just saying that is not only posible but you can do it without any kind of sling shot weight.
You just have to be smart.
That said, if you aren't in any kind of danger then i don't really recomend it unless you want to drop bf to fitness model level.
>>36040254
blah blah blah, youre stupid i get it.
>>36039659
this is me.
Read the thread, ive already explained why you are stupid.
we're all gonna make it cut bros
just make sure you get enough cals to not stall your metabolism
>>36039825
I'm not OP but my situation is fucked. I lost weight and plateaued and I kept cutting calls out. To try and kick start it again. Nothing. Less and less and less. Fast forward to now, I often have fast days, sometimes 2 in a row, and days I eat I typically have one meal like a meal replacement shake. Lost 2 lbs . . . Been at that for like 2 weeks now. I'm surprised I'm not dead. This makes no logical sense. How can my fat just decide I'm going to run on magic all day.
>>36040247
From a BB standpoint, sodium makes you retain water and takes away from vascularity. Personally, I get a roid gut from water retention if I eat shit like pizza pockets over a few days.
More importantly though, you're just wrong about it not impacting health. Sodium is a massive determinant in general blood/heart health. It prob doesn't matter for any of us young dudes now, but it's one of the biggest things to look out for.
Generally, though, I agree that media fearmongers the shit out of sodium and sugar. I don't think you'll have a heart attack at 22 from eating BK once a week, but sodium is a real problem.
Sugar, however, I agree with you entirely.... I don't think I've ever seen a study which actually backs up sugar directly causing health issues... it's more like health issues (e.g. diabetes) affect your ability properly regulate sugar
>>36040197
Currently at 2545 mg , I don't wanna die of high blood pressure cause I know the fatties in my family have an issue with that. Sodium is the only thing worrying me, like I said, these damn organic meals are loaded with sodium, so I'm gonna cut these out. So gradual caloric increases are king to minimal fat gains?
>>36040290
Because you are dumb? and you have completely depressed your metabolism and unregulated every fat storage gene that you have.
Start reverse dieting.
Refeed, and very very gradually increase your calories. Walk your calories back up over the next couple months(combined with lifting, focus on getting some strength), minimizing weight gain as much as possible. Then cut down properly.
>>36039825
What did i say here, HAVE SOMEWHERE TO GO.
well now you have nowhere to go, so your cut is done.
>>36040270
Nice comeback faggot, now post another pic from some rando and hit us with your superior knowledge of snowflake plateaous and low metabolism.
>>36040185
Thank you appreciate the info.
>>36040302
citation needed. Give me one citation that says sodium has negative health consequences for people who arent overweight. You probably think dietary cholesterol is bad for you as well.
As for the bloating, as i already explained to you, its not overall sodium levels that matter, its the ratio of sodium to potassium to water.(this would make sense to you if you actually knew what sodium does:k2 pump).
Ive forgotten more about this topic than you know, dont even try it.
As for the sugar thing, youre wrong there too. Fructose has negative health effects in isogenic diets with lean participants
>>36040339
some rando
>literally me.
youre stupid.
>>36040328
I didn't jump right into doing that though is what I'm saying. I started off on a more normal diet but I would just stay at my plateaue. So after a week, if there was no progress, I'd cut more cals out. Went like that week after week until I got to this point and it finally budged slightly. I got to this slowly. If I slowly ate normal again and started over the same bloody thing would happen again.
>>36040326
I think 2500 is pretty good.
>gradual caloric increases are king to minimal fat gains?
Not so sure about that one. I'd just eat at a steady surplus. No matter how carefully you diet, there will be fat gains. If you want to gain as much strength/muscle as possible, you gotta shrug off some fat gains as you go and go +500 or so. If you want to try a slower bulk to gain less fat you definitely can, but it's not 'optimal'
I love how this board has a 24/7 gear thread and recs you fat burners like candy but some autist always gets triggered when you talk about less than 1000 cal diets.
>>36040381
You cut cals too quickly.
You need to wait weeks before you cut and no you wouldnt, not if you increase cals slow enough.
If you increase calories by 100 and maintained that for 2 weeks, you wouldnt put on an once of fat or weight, so on and so on.
This is for all you fucktards in this thread arguing with me
Just science.
Watch all the videos on this topic and fucking learn something jesus,
goes for you as well stupid>>36040339
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk&list=PLnPAPdT4m_g8cZtYQW3JNbFwK9Fix-gFC
3500 cals to burn one pound of fat
do the math
bigger surplus = faster fat loss, assuming you stay active/eat properly
-500 a day = -3500 in 7 days = 1 pound. you can lose more if you are active ofc.
>>36040411
lol no.
cmon son you really think your body is that simple?
Theres so much wrong with what you said im not even going to try and explain it to you because you dont have the prereq knowledge.
Just give this a read
http://www.elitefts.com/education/training/bodybuilding/integrative-bodybuilding-when-it-comes-to-diet-one-size-fits-one/
Seriously read that before you respond to me, and just think on it.
>>36040402
>Go watch some broscience youtuber.
You know what fuck it, OP just to see a professional, ignore everything said in this thread.
Never listen to anybody in this board about serious issues like your eating habits.
>>36040428
Thats Layne norton....
PHD in human nutrition, specializing in protein and human metabolism ...very famous in the fitness industry. World ranked powerlifter, very successful bodybuilder. Ring any bells?
>>36040395
gearheads know what they're doing and do it responsibly. I honestly think people who ride the bike properly are prob better off than folks ignorantly cutting their diet by 2/3
>>36040428
http://www.biolayne.com/about/
"broscience youtuber"
I think you mean literally a scientist. Who do you think teaches the "professionals", this guy lol.
>>36040449
I don't care, good for him.
OP see a doctor.
And forget everything in this thread.
>>36040451
>gearheads know what they're doing and do it responsibly
top kek
>>36040359
You asked for 'one citation', so I could just link you to the heartandstroke page, but I know you'll brush it off since this is such a controversial subject.... I've tried to find some specific, data-driven, unbiased articles for you:
http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/4/8/e001959.abstract
>The risk of developing hypertension was higher in those with higher rather than lower sodium intake (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.50).
https://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/9/1143.full
This is actually more of an aggregate studies; it assesses the validity of research from either side of the spectrum
>evidence from the best-quality cohort analyses and RCTs are consistent with a direct relationship between Na and CVD.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/10/1085.full
>Na reduction was associated with a significant 30% reduction in CVD events and a nonsignificant 20% reduction in CVD mortality.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200101043440101
>The effects of sodium were observed in participants with and in those without hypertension, blacks and those of other races, and women and men.....
>Reducing the sodium intake from the high to the intermediate level reduced the systolic blood pressure by 2.1 mm Hg (P<0.001) during the control diet
>>36040489
kek
lemme rephrase; people doing roids know they're doing shady shit w/ their bodies
>>36040566
In non overweight people.
You're the definition of an abstract warrior.
Higher sodium diets generally equally higher calorie diets, its the exact same thing that happened with cholesterol.
Show me an isogenic calorie diet and compares mortality among lean people, it doesnt exist because sodium isnt an issue.
This is the case with your first citation.
You and I both know you just qoute mined the fuck outa that second study, because yes i read it, and youre full of shit as you did with the 3rd study, which again is done in hypertensive an overweight populations.
You might MIGHT have something with the last study, but thats in an average population, and again blood pressure is easily negated by adequate potassium intake.
>>36040566
>>36040650
Actually nope fuck you on that last one as well.
The two diets were a control diet4 typical of what many people in the United States eat, and the DASH diet, which emphasizes fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy foods; includes whole grains, poultry, fish, and nuts; and contains smaller amounts of red meat, sweets, and sugar-containing beverages than the typical diet in the United States.4,17 The DASH diet (originally termed the “combination diet”4) also contains smaller amounts of total and saturated fat and cholesterol and larger amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium, dietary fiber, and protein than the typical diet.4,17
See why that might be a problem, chief?
>>36039659
do you ever take new photos?
>>36040650
first study:
>in the Japanese Normotensive General Population
normotensive general population != overweight population
I did not quote-mine the second and third articles, I referenced the summary of both, and if you truly did read the articles you would see that they provide a vast number of citations pointing to a link between sodium and CVD.
Thank you for conceding on the fourth article.
I will not argue that there's a study out there studying only lean populations and their sodium intake, nor would I waste my time hunting. I think there being a pretty irrefutable correlation in the general population serves as enough evidence to at least warrant considering sodium in your diet.
>>36040666
>>36040566
Or to qoute your 3rd study(btw the first 3 your studies are all just analyses of the same 14 studies)
"Residual confounding and difficulty identifying causality for an exposure (Na) that is highly interrelated with caloric intake and other food components are also concerns."
Or why people used to think dietary cholesterol gave you cholesterol.
Show me an isogenic calorie, isogenic macro, study done on lean people or even average people that says sodium is harmful.
You cant because it doesnt exist, because sodium is not fucking harmful outside of imbalances with potassium.
>>36040666
That's a good point, I missed that.
If they're going to use three different diets for their population groups I'm not sure why the fuck they added so many other variables to the 'purest' sample.
>>36040718
thnx pal, good progress
>>36040722
You didnt qoute mine?
First study isnt isocaloric.
Those who eat more sodium eat more calories.
normotensive is in reference to hypertension.
"ll were subject to methodological challenges,2 including the potential for systematic bias in measurement of Na, reverse causality, and imprecision of urinary Na estimates. A recent systematic review of 31 independent Na–CVD analyses, based on experience in 26 cohorts, identified a direct association in 13 analyses (42%), a J-shaped curve in 2 (6%), a null relationship in 8 (26%), and an inverse relationship in the remaining 8 (26%).
Really senpai you didnt quote mine?
"On average, there were 3–4 methodological issues per study. Issues with greater and lesser potential to alter the direction of the association were noted in 96% and 69% of the studies, respectively, whereas issues with the potential to yield false-negative results were noted in 88%. "
Really you didnt?
cmon son. do better.
>>36040764
winner
>>36040764
Lets move to the 3rd study which you "totally didnt quote mine"
"The relationship between Na and coronary heart disease (CHD) was inconclusive,"(see i can do it as well)
A common problem with the observational reports has been use of datasets from studies not designed to address the relationship between Na and CVD. These secondary analyses have had methodological weaknesses, including the potential for reverse causality, bias in assessment of Na intake, absent or insufficient adjustment for confounding variables, and random error.6,7 The study by Joosten et al8 is not immune to these challenges.
Or as I explained to you earlier "Residual confounding and difficulty identifying causality for an exposure (Na) that is highly interrelated with caloric intake and other food components are also concerns."
>>36039690
myfitnesspal
>>36039845
This is fucking stupid. I have started and successfully finished cuts at the same caloric intake. Literally all it takes is willpower. If you are afraid your willpower isn't enough, then sure, do this pussy shit. But if you're a man, you're only cheating yourself.
>>36040907
Listen just because you are stupid doesnt mean other people need to be.
You'd get better results of you cut intelligently.
As for my willpower
>pic related.
and what I currently look like >>36039739
>>36040474
Med student here: don't bother with a doctor. Perhaps consult with a nutritionist that specializes in athletic nutrition.
The research on nutrition as it relates to the medical field lags far behind the research into disease physiology and pharmacology. A doctor can tell you that excess fructose can contribute to gout and fatty liver, and even probably tell you why and the consequences of those disorders, but most aren't going to have a terribly helpful recommendation for a general health diet beyond "limit fructose, sodium, and overall calorie consumption". Dietary recommendations like the DASH diet for hypertension or the ADA diet for diabetes are constructed with a specific condition in mind, but no such specifics exist for general nutrition, only vague broad outlines.
