Muscle Loss
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
You are currently reading a thread in /fit/ - Fitness
Just how serious is muscle loss while on a cut? I was in an argument with a friend who said I was crazy for cutting at a 2000cal deficit per day for 2 weeks to cut fat really fast. He said I would be losing a substantial amount of muscle, but I've heard the complete opposite from studies such as this: http://fitnessblackbook.com/main/starvation-mode-why-you-probably-never-need-to-worry-about-it/
They were at a 3000-4000 deficit per day and didn't lose much muscle mass until around 5% bodyfat.
With this knowledge, does that not mean that the best course of diet would be to slow bulk for a long time, then cut very hard for a short time? Since you can only gain muscle so fast, hard bulking would seem useless.
What did they do not sat and run 10 miles every day?
What bullshit is this
>>36486521
Unless you're cutting to a really low body fat don't worry
Also get ready for incoming meme diet replies
Muscle loss is greatly exaggerated from what I've seen. People always overestimate their body fat percentages as well, so unless you're in the single digits it's not a huge issue.
Just keep intensity the same
I'm interested in this as well.
>A study done on military soldiers
>vs real world
You need to understand here that they didn't have much muscle to begin with
2000cal deficit will eat your muscle if you're big, yes. Definitely. Natty bodybuilders cut for MONTHS with around 300-400 deficit to avoid this, however you're not a professional so around 800 should do just fine. Wouldn't go above that though, your daily life will feel miserable in general if you do
>>36486724
Define low. <15%? 10%? 8%? 5-6%?
>>36486521
>2k deficit per day
>2 thousand calories
what the fuck are you talking about, are you 7 feet tall???
0 muscle loss,already proven by science.
As long as you take enough protein and do strength training.
If you want sources go search it on bodyrecompositiom.com
>>36486521
Also if you starve yourself, you are mostly losing water weight, and muscle. Fat it stubborn yo. You'll gain it back on a ridiculous cut.
What the fuck? Nobody comments about that man ass in 10 replies?
You've got it semi-right, OP. You can cut with a devastating deficit, for a short amount of time.
Once you lose strength, however, then assuming it's not due to changing mechanics/leverages, then you've lost muscle.
You'll find the same thing happened to those soldiers. They weren't particularly strong, and they didn't lose strength when cutting until they got very lean, at which point the muscle starts coming off, evidenced by strength drop.
>>36487835
Not really.
You can't view it as a: if you do X you will only lose water and muscle.
The reason you're advised not to cut too low on your calories is because the ratio of muscle loss:fat loss diminishes as you cut calories further.
@ 1000 kcal deficit you're essentially peaking the ratio at its most optimal rate of fat loss to muscle loss.
Once you go beyond it you see the ratio of muscle to fat loss increase exponentially; i.e. much more muscle loss for not much extra fat loss despite taking calories lower.
Keep in mind the human body only has so much glycogen it can shed as 'water weight'.
You're talking like 500g of glycogen in your entire body.
1g of glucose binds to 3-4 grams of water to form glycogen.
So you're talking conservatively about 1.5kg / 3 lb being your total glycogen weight at any time (if you're fully carbed).
At which point you aren't losing water weight anymore.
>>36487944
> full of shit
I've have binged so hard that I've literally gone up >=10 pounds in a day. It'll take me a week to lose the water weight and I'll be maybe a pound heavier than a weak ago.
You can DEFINITELY gain more than 3 lbs of water weight
